John,

I don't see a serious problem with Paul considering your quote or
anything else that I've seen so far.

Let's see... He clearly says that we are not going to require a
specific licence class to be a moderator. That seems fair.

So Where's the beef in your quote?

I can tell you that nobody in the team even noticed that we all where
extras until Mark brought it up. So to my knowledge that was not a pre-
condition for acceptance in the team. I do recall that they needed to
be Hams, but that seems reasonable. I was there from the start of
this, being responsible for setting up the mail reflector we use as
well as setting up the shell account we use for the moderation
software, so I should know.

It seems to me that you guys just oppose the creation of the moderated
group and you have chosen to engage in personal attacks on the
proponents in an effort to keep it from happening.

This is the best you can do? Do you have any real evidence here?

-= KC4UAI =-

On Jan 28, 12:39 am, 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:

KC4UAI wrote:

...
Let's see... He clearly says that we are not going to require a
specific licence class to be a moderator. That seems fair.

So Where's the beef in your quote?
...

KC4UAI:

What part of "LIAR" don't you understand, I don't believe I have miniced
my words when it comes to "Paul W. Schleck."

The man has NO credibility with me, he could stand next to my
representative in congress and I could not tell them apart--smooth liars
are that way.

I think he would brow beat the new licensees who pass a no code exam, I
think he supports henchmen would would do this also. I think past posts
can be dug up to support that rather nicely! I think the man is all
about a world where "EXTRAS RULE" the school yard!

Regards,
JS

So, all this bluster boils down to your opinion?

Do you have any proof that Paul has lied or is this just rhetoric
designed to sway folks away from the Moderated group?

You insist on painting with a wide brush too and would try to sling
mud on all of the proponents named in the RFD (which includes me by
the way..) so I would ask for more proof and a lot less of your
opinions here.

You are entitled to have your opinions and voice them, just don't try
to maintain them as facts until you can offer proof.

In MY opinion, Paul is who he claims to be and the intent of the
proposed moderated group is what the moderation team and advisers have
agreed it would be. It will be fairly moderated but kept on topic and
it will eliminate the constant barrage of personal attacks and the
other garbage that does nobody any good. Of course, this is just
opinion and will have to remain so until we have the new group to
demonstrate that we are being fair.

By the way... I've personally known past members of the US Senate, and
I'd not be too quick to paint them all as liars. The man I knew was
very much the same in person in public as he was in private and he had
no need to lie about anything to get elected. The people elected him
to as many terms as he was able to serve because I believe that in the
long run principle, morals and ethics matter to the average person,
not rhetoric.

-= bob =-

On Jan 28, 10:29 am, John Smith I wrote:

What part of "LIAR" don't you understand, I don't believe I have miniced
my words when it comes to "Paul W. Schleck."

The man has NO credibility with me,
I think he would brow beat the new licensees who pass a no code exam, I
think he supports henchmen would would do this also. I think past posts
can be dug up to support that rather nicely! I think the man is all
about a world where "EXTRAS RULE" the school yard!