View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 11th 07, 12:33 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
KC4UAI KC4UAI is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 118
Default RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated


an_old_friend wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:

SNIP

Big SNIP
I saw none of you obejecting to the ProCode acusing everyone on the
other side with charges of Pedhia attacking the sexuaility of the
poster making accusations of criminal behovois involed fraud child
abuse and elder abuse. I have seen from some of the list of moderators
is one particapted in these attacks on ME and other and other such as
Pual objecting to my responding to the widespread effrot to importer me
while asserting the right to defend Himself from such action

In moderatortion I would like to see some balcane and frank that has
been lacking to date


Again, I don't understand your objections for a number of reasons.
First, I'm finding it difficult to wade though your post and determine
exactly what you are trying to say. (I think there is some spelling and
gramar issues that are causing me problems, so forgive me if I get
something wrong here.) Second, this group is not moderated so my
failure to attempt to moderate (by objecting to what he posted) a
poster in this group is a reason you would not support a moderated
group? That doesn't make sense to me. Had I come out and railed
against all the trash that gets posted here it would be used to bash
the proposal just because my name is on the proponent list? I don't
read all the trash that gets posted here mainly because it's not worth
the time to sort through all the garbage, I'm sure I'm not alone. This
is the reason I started to work on this RFD months ago. Given this,
how can a failure to denounce specific posts be used as reason to
reject this RRD?

Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to
evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it
will be used fairly?

Given our past discussions, it seems that you want your cake and to eat
it to... On one hand you want me to openly object to content in these
unmoderated groups, but on the other you are afraid of having your view
point squashed by the establishment of a moderated group being created.
Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. I cannot speak
for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read,
but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected
based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. I certainly don't agree
with many of the view points you may have, but we can still have a
meaningful debate of the facts, agree that we don't agree, and move on
without having to get into nasty personal attacks.

Further, these forums will not be changed by this RFD should it be
approved. They will continue to be as they are now, free for all to
post what they want. The only thing that will change is that there
will be a new place that will hopefully be a lot less garbage to wade
through so meaningful debate can more easily take place.

-= bob =-