On 12/2/2014 11:16 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 15:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 13:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:30 AM, Spike wrote:
Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet
Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful
the US
version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation,
and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit
rec.radio.amateur.moderated.
Which is an entirely different newsgroup, with entirely different
moderators. There are many who refuse to take part in that newsgroup
for various reasons. There is no relationship between the two.
*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.
More unfounded conjecture.
It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.
And there is no reason to think the current moderators of rram will
become the moderators of ukrram,
You're really stretching now, Spike.
Only by noting that the chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.
So?
It's complete rebuttal of your claim that it "... is an entirely
different newsgroup, with entirely different moderators".
Which is why I said "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck".
Nope. No rebuttal at all. You're comparing apples and oranges. They
are two different newsgroups with two different audiences and two
different sets of moderators.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.
[1] 61.7% blog posts
[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months
[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a completely different
newsgroup. But you have to continue to try to compare apples and
oranges.
An entirely different newsgroup, formed by the same chap and running a
cut-and-paste Charter and ModPol, so the success of them can be already
seen in the group this was all lifted from. It's, well, crap.
So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.
They are two different newsgroups. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Many of us refuse to post to rram for various reasons, but would gladly
embrace ukrram.
That's your problem. Please don't lumber us Brits with it.
I never said anything about it involving you.
You can always RFD for change (or whatever you call it over there).
Why? I'm quite happily ignoring it - as you should ukrram if you don't
like it.
But why do you care? You can use it or not - it's your choice. Why are
you trying to prevent others from having a group free from the crap on
ukrra?
You've already got one, but because you've blotted your copybook you
want another one to play with. I don't see why we should all be lumbered
because of your shortcomings.
This has zero to do with rram, but you can't seem to get that fact
through your thick skull. And the creation of ukrram has absolutely
nothing to do with rram. I know you can't understand that, either.
So what's the real reason, Spike?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
==================