wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:
SNIP

first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the
makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely
manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised
delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find
it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it
can't be rolled out in a timly manner

I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in
progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and
file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to
me.

the charter would exclude materail from the general topic of
comuncation by RF which means it can't not truely further the
interestes of the Topic amateur except in reinforcing the insular view
held by some Hams that Ham radio exists in total isolation from the
rest of RF

How so? As I read the RFD (which I helped draft) discussions of Ham
Radio as compared and contrasted to other types of service are not
considered off topic as long as there is a connection of interest to
Ham Radio.

Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI
Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC
Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA
Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T
Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI
Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB


the pronent has hardly been in RRAP in year

Busy with many other things, including getting this project underway...
So that disqualifies him? Hardly think so myself. (Grin)


amoug the moderators areis at least one individual that has taken part....
snip

No single moderator will control the group and if you have any
difficulties with a moderation decision, you have the ability to appeal
said decision to the whole team. The point of the proposed moderation
is not to control the viewpoint expressed, but to keep things on topic
and useful to the readers.

the body consists of people largely unknown to a comon poster over
many years what poster I know something NONE comes from that gruop
that thinks Code USE is not good for the ARS not merely testing and as
far as I know only one was even a member of NCI or the NoCode test
movement in general

I don't understand why this is an issue. No code testing is now the
reality and soon will be the law of the land. Why the FCC did or did
not retain this or what my personal feelings are about it does not
enter into the decision to allow a post or not on the proposed group. I
think the folks who have signed up thus far all would agree that this
is not an attempt to limit discussion to our own viewpoint, but an
effort to keep things on topic and useful by eliminating personal
attacks and some of the real trash that gets posted here.

Snip

Ok.. You don't like it...