On Jan 28, 12:43�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

On Jan 28, 1:48?am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:
Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:
...
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. ?Now, doesn't it?

What's wrong with what he wrote?

Gawd! ?I feel sick ...
Warmest regards,
JS

Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr.
Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? ?That he would consider
ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? ?If so, step right
up here to defend the man, I am waiting ...

I'm willing to give him and his group of moderators a chance.

Why aren't you?

My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!

Exactly how is he "crooked"?

And just to give a complete pictu

Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have
been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both
willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks.

All anyone has to do to confirm this is to look up his comments to
FCC, and mine. They're all in ECFS.

I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are
all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with
some and disagree with others.

The big question is this:

To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur
radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something
completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to
support such things, aren't we?

If someone is really interested in discussing amateur radio issues,
why would they not give the new, progressive and different
newsgroup a chance, without prejudging the result before it
begins?

Perhaps the problem some folks have is that they know they
won't be able to post unsubstantiated claims or ad hominem
attacks - and that just takes out all the fun for them.

Jim, N2EY
N2EY:

Don't let this be a shock to you, I thought of you specifically when I
constructed that text.

Why?

Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best
captains for this ship.

Show me how he is "slick" and "prejudiced".

Well, we have decades of their piloting to look
at, I am not happy with their steerage.

What's your alternative? btw, it's the FCC that makes the rules.

Moderation is hardly an open forum, it can easily be abused. *I, even if
I alone, believe Paul is NOT the man to provide leadership. *I do not
believe him to be either "fair" nor "just."

Why? *Because Paul does possess a VERY strong personality. *This is NOT
bad in and of itself. *But, if abused, it is. *I am claiming he has
demonstrated his abuse and that only members of this group, at large,
can rein him in.

Show me.

As I directly have stated, I fear Paul only seeks a "good ole' boys
club" composed of ego stroking extras, what part of that don't you
understand?

The part where you claim to know how the group will turn out
before it even starts.

*Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post them to
make my point un-undeniably clear?

Yes. If Paul is as "slick" and "prejudiced" as you claim,
that should be easy to show from his old postings.

Best way to show that is to provide direct links to the Google
archives.

There might be a few posts from you I would like to include also ...

Go right ahead.

I
fear Pauls' strong personality has had a "crowd control" effect upon
your tendencies also, and even you have fallen prey to the
"mass-hysteria-of-the-EXTRAS" ...

What does that mean, exactly? It sounds a little like a form
of ad hominem attack, in which being an Extra somehow
disqualifies someone from being objective.

What discussions do you want to have that you think would
not be allowed in a moderated group?

JIm, N2EY