The 1st CFV has been published in uk.net.news.config and ballots are being
issued to those interested. If you'd like to cast your vote, please send a
ballot request to and a ballot will be issued
straight to you. The ballot has the full proposal and all details for the
group included, so you don't need to even go to the config group if you
don't want to!

Many of you will be familiar with uk.radio.amateur and the unpleasant
environment that persists there after years and years of abusive behaviour.
Indeed, some of that abuse routinely spills over into rec.radio.*. The
moderated group is intended to provide a refuge from such behaviour where
civilised and decent discussion of amateur radio can take root without fear
of being derailed. I hope to see many of you there!

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
Many of you will be familiar with uk.radio.amateur and the unpleasant
environment that persists there after years and years of abusive
behaviour.
Indeed, some of that abuse routinely spills over into rec.radio.*.

That unpleasantness has, in the main, come from you and your ilk over the
past couple of years, and when there has been such a spillover, it has been
when you have stalked me there.

Physician, heal thyself.

On 26/11/14 17:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

The 1st CFV has been published in uk.net.news.config and ballots are being
issued to those interested. If you'd like to cast your vote, please send a
ballot request to and a ballot will be issued
straight to you. The ballot has the full proposal and all details for the
group included, so you don't need to even go to the config group if you
don't want to!

Stephen, you forgot to add .space, .policy, and .dx to the
rec.radio.amateur.* groups in your canvass for support outside of the UK
for the proposed UK group, and free.uk.amateur-radio is also missing
from your list.

It might be worth pointing out for those that don't follow the UK Usenet
management groups that we have a rule for group creation that requires
that the YES votes exceed the NO votes by 12 (that is, is is not a
simple majority) the intention being to avoid creating groups that do
not have enough active posters to make it a success. So it might be
polite if those that wish to support this proposal by voting for it also
undertake the implicit duty of contributing to it, otherwise it runs the
danger of sharing the fate of rec.radio.amateur.moderated, with its
overwhelming number of blogs and newsletters, and less than 1 post per
day from individuals.

A fair summation of the position would say that at present there don't
appear to be enough potential YES votes within the UK community, and so
this second attempt to create the group may also founder without
external support.

Many of you will be familiar with uk.radio.amateur and the unpleasant
environment that persists there after years and years of abusive behaviour.
Indeed, some of that abuse routinely spills over into rec.radio.*. The
moderated group is intended to provide a refuge from such behaviour where
civilised and decent discussion of amateur radio can take root without fear
of being derailed. I hope to see many of you there!

I would encourage anyone wishing to support this proposal to skim
through the last 12 months postings on ukra.

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
The abuse and unpleasantness started in the late 1990s, as can be seen in
the archives.
That was long before Steve posted to the group.
When I started posting, around 2001, I was shocked by what I saw. I
recognise the style of
some of the ring leaders who cause the abuse, for example by postings with
abusive titles.

This was recently posted in uk.radio.amateur under the title
of "A guide to his modus operandi"; to whom do you think that
the reference implied by, "his" applied? ...

-----ooooo-----

Firstly to seek attention by goading and innuendo

Secondly, having induced indignance in his victim to further
seek attention by claiming that the indignance being expressed
defensively is the origination of abuse.

Thirdly to seek more attention by becoming aggressive, getting
people arrested, etc.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
The abuse and unpleasantness started in the late 1990s, as can be seen in
the archives.
That was long before Steve posted to the group.
When I started posting, around 2001, I was shocked by what I saw. I
recognise the style of
some of the ring leaders who cause the abuse, for example by postings with
abusive titles.

But in a recent court case, in order to protect your own back, you swore
blind that everything that had transpired in uk.radio.amateur was just
light hearted banter. So, were you then committing perjury, and then
as now changing your tune to suit the direction from which the wind
was blowing?

On 27/11/2014 10:14, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
The abuse and unpleasantness started in the late 1990s, as can be seen in
the archives.
That was long before Steve posted to the group.
When I started posting, around 2001, I was shocked by what I saw. I
recognise the style of
some of the ring leaders who cause the abuse, for example by postings with
abusive titles.

This was recently posted in uk.radio.amateur under the title
of "A guide to his modus operandi"; to whom do you think that
the reference implied by, "his" applied? ...

-----ooooo-----

Firstly to seek attention by goading and innuendo

Secondly, having induced indignance in his victim to further
seek attention by claiming that the indignance being expressed
defensively is the origination of abuse.

Thirdly to seek more attention by becoming aggressive, getting
people arrested, etc.





I assumed it was a bit of self analysis on the part of the person who
posted it.

On 27/11/2014 11:09, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
The abuse and unpleasantness started in the late 1990s, as can be seen in
the archives.
That was long before Steve posted to the group.
When I started posting, around 2001, I was shocked by what I saw. I
recognise the style of
some of the ring leaders who cause the abuse, for example by postings with
abusive titles.

But in a recent court case, in order to protect your own back, you swore
blind that everything that had transpired in uk.radio.amateur was just
light hearted banter. So, were you then committing perjury, and then
as now changing your tune to suit the direction from which the wind
was blowing?


Nonsense.

My comments were banter, some of yours can hardly be dismissed as banter.

I'm sure the Judge understood that, given the outcome of the case and
the dressing down you received. What were those words. Childish and
puerile?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
What were those words. Childish and puerile?

Those were the words used to describe your posts.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
My comments were banter

Suggesting that my wife was a sheep in the bed next to me, do you mean?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Make you mind up, a few posts back it was 2 years, now is is over a
decade. You seem confused.

No confusion there, OM, 2 years ago when you partner-in-crime M6CIR
appeared on the scene, and took to you style of posting whcih is there
ever since you started polluting uk.radio.amateur.

The archive is, of course, reliable. It shows your run ins with the WAB
crowd etc.

I had no run-in, but Stephen G Brown G0SGB resorted to ever more
potty-mouthed posts, very much in your own style and then sent
a threatening letter to my wife.

Not to mention the Southampton Uni matter.

You mean someone who was commiting a criminal offence by misusing
the computer of his employer to publish abuse?