The following was just posted to Usenet by the news.announce.newgroups
moderator on behalf of the Big-8 Management Board:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...moderated-rfd2

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet. It has been relayed
to rec.radio.amateur.antenna and rec.radio.amateur.dx as announced in
the RFD. Please consider contributing your opinions regarding this
newsgroup to news.groups.proposals, where followups to this message have
been set.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in message
...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

"Sal M. Onella" wrote:

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check
*two* newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check
one, that's unfortunately not an improvement.

Unsubscribe from the old newsgroups. End of problem.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in message
...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group,
toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

Leave the old group for those who want to wallow in the problems.

The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.

a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one,
that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it,
I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

Leave the old group for those who want to wallow in the problems.

The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.

Well said, Dee. And what a simple solution it is.

Sal M. Onella wrote:
What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

Ideally, we will wind up with the wheat in one
newsgroup and the chaff in the other. Participants
will use their free will to decide when (if ever)
to make that "clean break".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 26, 10:48 pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in ...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW


You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would
be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.
MK

In article .com,
wrote:

You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would
be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.

Don't say never. You just posted to a moderated group.

Like you I can ignore and kill file, but some groups are so infested
that it is not enough because the good people give it up and leave. So
there is nothing left to read after you are done ignoring.

--
Charles

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:27:11 CST, wrote:

On Jan 26, 10:48 pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in ...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

Most would stay with the un moderated group. History has shown that.


What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

I agree.


If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW


You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would

I have used moderated news groups and found in general they are a
waste of time. They end up reflecting the moderators view points and
opposition is stifled. So I avoid them. I see this is cross posted to
a moderated group to which I do not belong.


be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.

Which is the self governing mechanism of most news groups.

I see the proposed rec.radio.amateur.moderated as a waste of time and
resources of those who handle such matters. So I would say that in the
long run we would be better off with one un moderated group than an un
moderated group along with a moderated one which dilutes the pool.
Just kill file the posters and threads you don't want to read and let
life go on a lot simpler with more people exposed to the knowledge
that would otherwise be diluted by spreading it into another group.

Me? I would not bother subscribing to a moderated group.
MK
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com