RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated in accurate information
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated.


NEWSGROUPS LINE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated

rec.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio practices, rules, etc.
(Moderated)


RATIONALE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated

rec.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to the existing
rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroups. The
rec.radio.amateur.misc newsgroup is chartered to discuss amateur ("ham")
radio practices, contents, events, rules, etc., including anything
related to amateur radio not specifically covered by another
rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroup. The rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup
is chartered to discuss ham radio rules, regulations, and policy. Over
the past several years, the traffic on both groups has become largely
flame wars, spam, and personal ad-hominem discussions of past, present,
and future violations and violators, having little or no bearing on
amateur radio. Polite requests by serious group posters to the
offenders to refrain from such behavior have not resulted in elimination
of such behavior and has in fact resulted in another series of flame
wars. As a result, many knowledgeable and concerned posters in both
groups have ceased being active therein.
why is the is inacurate asertion it is at best incomplete as the
makier of many to personal attack are sourced from ONE side of the
deabte to demize vilify and drive ooff the opostion the flaming IS?was
derectly related to point of the debate at hand the "code wars" they
were not as the propnet sates unrelated and out of the blue a
deliberate and calutaed attack by the ProCoders on the tech and
Nocoder

further I have seen NO admostion from the posters in these asking that
thoose making the bleant and rapant sexaul inudendo threat flaming and
general ceast and desist


Hi Mark. Having a great day, are we? LOL!



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Oh, the irony
 

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
But this time YOU made an off topic post and it was rejected.

No i did not make an offtopic post that I am aware of I am still aware
of what rule I may have violated I have asked repately for the rule of
the gruop and recievd NO response till I am allowed to know what is
considered off topic I can't be rationaly expect ed to comply with it
moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated


this whole thing is a farce any dicussion not aprved of aboutt his
proposal is rejected by the offical gruop as off topic

Oh, poor baby. And how many times have you chided Roger or others for
making
posts that are off topic? Hmmm????

many time but onyl when he MAKES off topic post


Leave it
alone, Mark. Get used to the simple fact that you simply are not wanted
there and move on.

acording to Paul Shlenk I am indeed wanted and my input welcome

Or would that be too "grown up" for you?

what is too grown up is for you to mind you own affairs, to read what
you reling in i many cases

Pot/Kettle. As in the way you mind your own affairs by butting in on
everybody else's comments?
Oh, the irony.

Gay basing
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ralph wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:41:57 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote:



I would love to care to stop your gay basing?


Nobody, especially me, is gay "basing".


bul**** you have made one of your mission in live to harrass for daring
to Bi and not hiding it from staker like yourself
Stop putting words in the mouths of
others, especially when they disagree with you.

just describing YOUR actions

Repeating your lie over and over and over will not make it the truth. As a
previous poster observed, you have some serious mental issues with which to
contend.

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated in accurate information
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:07:39 -0600, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:



Hi Mark. Having a great day, are we? LOL!

could be better of course Tom but I thank you for your concern I am
sure we all know exactly how deep it goes

but things are not doing too bad soft day at work a bit exsaperating
the way Paul sheck dumped this out there with very little real
explation


??? Dumped what?



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:30 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:13:00 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:

Great proposal.

Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative.

The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their
sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so.


73
KH6HZ


That's not true. I'll vote against it and you can hardly accuse me of
being shut out since I left here years ago rather than waste many
hours accomplishing nothing constructive. The reason being that this
group is too polarized with no room for dissenting opinions. No
moderation is going to be impartial because no moderators are
impartial. Therefore, a moderated ng will not reflect the opinions of
hams in general. Instead, they will reflect the opinions approved by
biased moderators.

My advice is to go to googlegroups, yahoogroups, or any of the other
*.groups and start your own moderated community/group there instead of
trying to start your own moderated newsgroup on Usenet. It's a lot
easier.

I would say that without people whose only objective is to stifle
dissenting opinion gone, this would be a better newsgroup. However,
we all know that people will post to both newsgroups and probably get
banned for something that they posted here.

I had hoped that, once the code vs. no-code childishness was over,
these ng's would be useful again. I'm beginning to see that I was
wrong.

I'll try back here in a few years to see if things have improved any.

please try this gruop agin in few months the Procder are through
crying and NoCoder are still waiting the very end of the matter

I am curious and doing reasearch on wether there is colaration of
being for or against this NG and ones stance on code testing I
respectly ask if you were either ProCode or Nocode or none of the
above I thank esp if you satisfy my curiousity

73

I am one of those that were alleged not to exist. I've waited for
over 10 years for code to go away before I would upgrade. However, I
decided that, rather than waste time here, my efforts would be better
spent actively trying to drag ham radio into the 20th century.

That being said. I see no benefit to a moderated group and would not
participate in one. Self-moderation by all sides would go a long
ways. Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

Perhaps those who control the Big 8 will feel the same as myself.
Perhaps they won't. Either way, it's of no real consequence since I
have no interest in subscribing to such a newsgroup.

73

Proposed Big Boys Club exsaperating
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:07:39 -0600, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:



Hi Mark. Having a great day, are we? LOL!

could be better of course Tom but I thank you for your concern I am
sure we all know exactly how deep it goes

but things are not doing too bad soft day at work a bit exsaperating
the way Paul sheck dumped this out there with very little real
explation

Poor Mark finds this all so "exsaperating" that he could just stomp his
toosties in "frutatoun". The Big Boys are proposing a new club and poor Mark
is not a part of it. Is being ignored. He is acting much like a petulant
little brat standing outside the locked door of the Big Boy's club house who
plaintively whines, "Come ON, you guys. Let me in. Why can't I come in? You
guys aren't fair. It's not fair! What did I ever do to you guys? I want in
and I want in NOW! Come ON! You guys owe me a real explation and I demand
that explation now!"

Watching Mark dance is SO entertaining.


"

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:30 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

please try this gruop agin in few months the Procder are through
crying and NoCoder are still waiting the very end of the matter

I am curious and doing reasearch on wether there is colaration of
being for or against this NG and ones stance on code testing I
respectly ask if you were either ProCode or Nocode or none of the
above I thank esp if you satisfy my curiousity

73

I am one of those that were alleged not to exist. I've waited for
over 10 years for code to go away before I would upgrade. However, I
decided that, rather than waste time here, my efforts would be better
spent actively trying to drag ham radio into the 20th century.

thank you for indulging me in my curousity

That being said. I see no benefit to a moderated group and would not
participate in one. Self-moderation by all sides would go a long
ways. Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

I see a few benifits and might post in one to see if they are
worthwhile but I am dubios myself

Perhaps those who control the Big 8 will feel the same as myself.
Perhaps they won't. Either way, it's of no real consequence since I
have no interest in subscribing to such a newsgroup.

again thank you for answering my question

73

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:30 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

please try this gruop agin in few months the Procder are through
crying and NoCoder are still waiting the very end of the matter

I am curious and doing reasearch on wether there is colaration of
being for or against this NG and ones stance on code testing I
respectly ask if you were either ProCode or Nocode or none of the
above I thank esp if you satisfy my curiousity

73

I am one of those that were alleged not to exist. I've waited for
over 10 years for code to go away before I would upgrade. However, I
decided that, rather than waste time here, my efforts would be better
spent actively trying to drag ham radio into the 20th century.

thank you for indulging me in my curousity

That being said. I see no benefit to a moderated group and would not
participate in one. Self-moderation by all sides would go a long
ways. Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

I see a few benifits and might post in one to see if they are
worthwhile but I am dubios myself

Perhaps those who control the Big 8 will feel the same as myself.
Perhaps they won't. Either way, it's of no real consequence since I
have no interest in subscribing to such a newsgroup.

again thank you for answering my question

Then stop all the whining!!!!



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

U-Know-Who wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:30 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

please try this gruop agin in few months the Procder are through
crying and NoCoder are still waiting the very end of the matter

I am curious and doing reasearch on wether there is colaration of
being for or against this NG and ones stance on code testing I
respectly ask if you were either ProCode or Nocode or none of the
above I thank esp if you satisfy my curiousity

73

I am one of those that were alleged not to exist. I've waited for
over 10 years for code to go away before I would upgrade. However, I
decided that, rather than waste time here, my efforts would be better
spent actively trying to drag ham radio into the 20th century.

thank you for indulging me in my curousity

That being said. I see no benefit to a moderated group and would not
participate in one. Self-moderation by all sides would go a long
ways. Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

I see a few benifits and might post in one to see if they are
worthwhile but I am dubios myself

Perhaps those who control the Big 8 will feel the same as myself.
Perhaps they won't. Either way, it's of no real consequence since I
have no interest in subscribing to such a newsgroup.

again thank you for answering my question

Then stop all the whining!!!!

what whing the only one whinning is you and lloyd assuming you are both
not the same person

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:30 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

please try this gruop agin in few months the Procder are through
crying and NoCoder are still waiting the very end of the matter

I am curious and doing reasearch on wether there is colaration of
being for or against this NG and ones stance on code testing I
respectly ask if you were either ProCode or Nocode or none of the
above I thank esp if you satisfy my curiousity

73

I am one of those that were alleged not to exist. I've waited for
over 10 years for code to go away before I would upgrade. However, I
decided that, rather than waste time here, my efforts would be better
spent actively trying to drag ham radio into the 20th century.

thank you for indulging me in my curousity

That being said. I see no benefit to a moderated group and would not
participate in one. Self-moderation by all sides would go a long
ways. Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

I see a few benifits and might post in one to see if they are
worthwhile but I am dubios myself

Perhaps those who control the Big 8 will feel the same as myself.
Perhaps they won't. Either way, it's of no real consequence since I
have no interest in subscribing to such a newsgroup.

again thank you for answering my question

Then stop all the whining!!!!

what whing the only one whinning is you and lloyd assuming you are both
not the same person



You told me my name is "Tom" didn't ya?



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

....and already the "you people" remarks start.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Bob Brock wrote:
Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

Do you really think that vulgarity, profanity, and
sexuality along with ad hominem attacks have a
place in an amateur radio newsgroup?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
 

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:40 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote:


You don't get to make comments, you idiot! Don't you get it? The proposed
group is about Amateur Radio...and they intend to keep you and your ilk out
of it. This ain't a Democracy, Mark.


Just what do you think the acronym "RFD" means? Just curious...

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:03:44 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

Do you really think that vulgarity, profanity, and
sexuality along with ad hominem attacks have a
place in an amateur radio newsgroup?

I think that freedom of speech is inherent to any open discussion. If
you don't like what they have to say, you are under no compulsion to
listen to them. I came and looked a few years ago and didn't like
what I saw, so I moved on. I'd have to see how much bias the
moderators have and I have to be honest with you, if they are regular
posters to these ng's, serious doubts about their ability to be
objective and judge each post on it's own merits or lack thereof.

I see the moderated ng's becoming the playground of one group or the
other and gaining the respectability of being part of the Big 8
hierarchy. That is unless those who make the decisions realize what
is going on. I notice no one has answered the question about why you
guys don't just start a yahoo group or something along those lines.
You don't really need permission for that you know and it's a lot
easier. You can still have your own private playground and decide who
gets to play in it.

I gave up on these two ng's long ago. However, I have hopes that now
that the code debate has been decided, things will improve. Flame
wars, name calling, and personal attacks are part of un moderated
Usenet. Learn to deal with it, leave it along, or move to a moderated
format. I have a really good set of filters to keep out most of the
riffraff.

Those are about your only choices.

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of
several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they
would all make good moderators IMHO.

I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team
over the years.

I certainly have no problems with any of them.

Same here.

I believe the only ones who will are those who have issues with
self-restraint, which is exactly why this newsgroup has become a cesspool.
Best to stay above the fray and ignore the anklebiters.

One point that some seem to miss is that the new NG will not replace
RRAP. Both will exist, and people can post to both. The big difference
is that off-topic comments and personal attacks will be removed from
the moderated group.

I don't see what the big problem is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

Nope.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Dimwits always annoy me.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

The credibility of the RFD's proponents, dimwit.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

You should try reading the RFD, dimwit.


Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Haven't seen a Robeson post in weeks. Can't say the same thing about
Mark or you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:46:00 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:18:01 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:40 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote:


You don't get to make comments, you idiot! Don't you get it? The proposed
group is about Amateur Radio...and they intend to keep you and your ilk out
of it. This ain't a Democracy, Mark.


Just what do you think the acronym "RFD" means? Just curious...

to be Honest I don't what it means in this case myself

which is amoug my objections to how this whole thing has been handled
we are all expectted to KNOW a bunch of rules and "regs for a process
at least I have never seen before
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

The rules concerning newsgroup creation are available on the web. Just
do a google search on newsgroup creation or I can post it if
necessary. The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion." The
process is not unique to only the rec newsgroups...there are seven
others in the Big 8.

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
 

Bob Brock wrote:
The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion."

I always thought it was, "Rural Free Delivery". :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
 

Cecil Moore ) writes:
Bob Brock wrote:
The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion."

I always thought it was, "Rural Free Delivery". :-)

Well those "internet types" have co-opted the acronym.

Actually, I always wondered what "RFD" meant in reference to mail
delivery, and I don't think I saw an explanation until I saw someone
mention the meaning on the internet.

Michael VE2BVW

RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:59:02 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:49:25 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:46:00 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:18:01 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:40 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote:


You don't get to make comments, you idiot! Don't you get it? The proposed
group is about Amateur Radio...and they intend to keep you and your ilk out
of it. This ain't a Democracy, Mark.


Just what do you think the acronym "RFD" means? Just curious...

to be Honest I don't what it means in this case myself

which is amoug my objections to how this whole thing has been handled
we are all expectted to KNOW a bunch of rules and "regs for a process
at least I have never seen before
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

The rules concerning newsgroup creation are available on the web. Just
do a google search on newsgroup creation or I can post it if
necessary. The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion." The
process is not unique to only the rec newsgroups...there are seven
others in the Big 8.

I have had tried to read though a lot of it but it gets rather
confusing indeed the Intel person peron I am professional at imes gets
suspious that it is intended to be confusing

but even after a few back and frth with a moderator on the proposal
gruop I still don't what is off topic for that gruop in expressing
resverations about a proposed memebr of the moderating gruop/

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

I guess it needs to be posted since so many seem to be unaware of the
process evidenced by comments about discussion not being allowed. You
are indeed allowed to post questions regarding the proposal and the
proponents are required to answer your question. Just post your
concerns as questions and not comments. They should go through.

It is interesting to note that discussions here should have follow ups
set to go to the ng proposals ng. However, there seems to be an
effort to keep that from happening. I guess that some people don't
want those on the decision board to know about some discussions.

Please note that those on the creation board do not have a vested
interest in the formation and probably do not post to these ng's. The
process is designed to be as fair as possible and the ng created if
their will be sufficient traffic to justify it and a need has been
established.

I have no intention of using the ng's when created because I have
serious reservations about the ability of the moderators to be
impartial. Nuff said about that.

Here. I hope that this helps you understand the process a little
better. If I were you, I'd just go with the flow. Ask any questions
that you have about the charter, FAQ, and moderation over there. The
proponents are required to reply to questions in a polite and
informative manner and the BS experienced here will not be tolerated
from either position. Sometimes, moderation is a necessary evil.

Here...hope this helps you understand the process at least.

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...icies:creation




1. Informal Discussion
Anyone wishing to propose a newsgroup may do so simply by posting a
message to that effect in news.groups or by writing the Big-8
Management Board or one of its committees. There are no requirements
on the format or content of that message. For example, “Yo, dude, a
surfing newsgroup would be WAY COOL!” would be a perfectly fine way to
initiate a discussion. Of course, more information is always welcome,
but it is not required at this point in the process.

The idea is to get ideas out in the open quickly, where they can be
discussed and fleshed out before the formal RFD is written.

The proponent of the newsgroup ought to cross-post the idea to other,
relevant newsgroups in addition to news.groups. In these cross posts,
follow ups should be directed to news.groups so that discussion of the
idea is confined to a single location. This makes it easier for
interested parties to follow the entire discussion in one place, and
for uninterested parties to avoid the discussion simply by staying out
of news.groups. However, this is merely a recommendation – the
proponent should do what s/he feels comfortable with during the
informal discussion of the proposal.

The proponent may choose to conduct an interest poll during the
informal discussion phase. See the notes on Traffic Analysis for
further information.

Proponents who have experience with the newsgroup creation process and
believe that they have a well-developed idea may skip the informal
discussion and start with step 2, the RFD.

2. Request for Discussion (RFD)
The proponent submits his/her proposal to the newsgroup
news.announce.newgroups by posting to the group or by emailing the
proposal to . This
submission is known as a Request For Discussion, or RFD.

The RFD should be cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers might be
interested in or affected by the proposed group. It should also be
cross-posted to news.groups.proposals, and followups should be
directed there. (If you do not know how to set followups in your
newsreader, we will help you figure it out. The line that needs to be
included in the RFD header field is “Followup-to:
news.groups.proposals”.)

Some information is required in the RFD:

newsgroup name
Checkgroups file entry
whether the newsgroup will be moderated or unmoderated
if moderated, who the initial moderator(s) will be, including their
contact addresses
Some information is not required, but is strongly encouraged:

rationale
charter
moderation policy, if moderated
Other information which supports the creation of the newsgroup may be
included. For example, this could include:

traffic analysis
moderation site and software
Each of these items is discussed in greater detail here.

As discussion of the RFD progresses in news.groups, the proponent
should submit revised RFDs to news.announce.newgroups et al.



3. Discussions of the Proposal in news.groups.proposals
News.groups.proposals is a moderated newsgroup in which Big-8
newsgroup proposals are discussed. We ask proponents and others
interested in a proposal to subscribe to news.groups.proposals for the
duration of the discussion period and, so far as possible, to bring
the discussion of this group elsewhere into n.g.p. by using the
“Followup-to: news.groups.proposals” header along with a line in the
body of the post saying “Followups set.”

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals. If desired by the readership of closely
affected groups, the discussion may be crossposted to those groups,
but care must be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in n.g.p.
The purpose of the discussion is to evaluate all of the elements in
the RFD: name, charter, rationale, traffic analysis, moderation
policy, moderators, distribution list, etc., along with other concerns
about how the topic fits into the Big-8 and Usenet as a whole.

It is very important that proponents answer questions about their RFD
in news.groups.proposals. Failure to participate in the discussion
will result in the proposal being removed from the active queue. At
the same time, proponents who are responding to reasonable questions
and requests for clarification may use their discretion in not
responding to repetitious or contentious questioning.

As a general rule, members of the Board are expected to follow the
discussion in news.groups.proposals. Members of the Board who wish to
do so may participate in the discussion either to express their
personal views or to clarify matters of policy and procedure.

The Board may, at its discretion, conduct polls of various kinds to
help settle the question of whether the group should be created.
Proponents may also initiate polls to show that creating the group is
desirable.

4. The Proponent Asks the Board Make a Decision
When the proponent is ready for the board to make its decision, he or
she should submit an RFD/Last Call For Comments to
news.announce.newgroups. The Board may also take the initiative to
suggest to a proponent that the time has come to end the discussion
and make a decision on the proposal.

If the board believes that the proposal is ready for a decision to be
made, the Board will publish the RFD/LCC under its own name. The RFD
will announce that the Board will begin voting after 5 days, and that
interested persons should make any final comments that they wish the
Board to consider when making its decision.

Alternatively, the board may request that the proponent make
additional changes to the RFD/LCC, or supply additional information;
or they may request that the proponent continue to discuss the
proposal in news.groups.proposals.

5. The Board Votes on the Proposal
The Board will decide whether the new group will be created. In making
its decision, the Board will use its standard voting procedures.

The Board will wait five days after the Final RFD and Last Call for
Comments is issued before beginning to vote. After the five-day
period, the Board’s vote may take one to seven days.

If the Board decides not to create the new group, the Board’s
announcement of the decision will include an explanation of why the
proposal was rejected. Furthermore, the Board will explain to the
proponent, either privately or in the decision announcement, what, if
anything, he or she can do to improve the proposal before asking the
Board to reconsider it.

6. If the Proposal Passes, It is Implemented
The Technical Team will take responsibility for properly formatting
and circulating the request to create the new group. This formal
request will be archived at the ISC website.

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:


Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

he wants to be inded he so all over this I am sure he is not in on it
and fears it come off and leave HIM out

He is speaking as if he were one. I wonder why?

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

yep

He'll be the kind of moderator that Miccolis and Robesin dream of.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

who knows, not sure even lloyd knows what he is saying

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

I suspect some of the thread is likely to happen althought nothing
like RRAP nothing about wether the forgers will allowed to alter
atrubtes and such I don't think the proponent have thought about what
it will take the stop the constan personal attack and fraud

I suspect they will have their hands full with Robesin, if they want to
do a conscientious job of it. He's a slippery one.

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

as I have said it has merit they convince that t will be possible to
post thoughts about the ARS that are critical of aspect of the
service and and I will bite

If they can truly asure us I would encourage you to as well

We'll see. The new group just might become a single, monthly posting
from Miccolis on the number of amateur operators. I wonder if that
will be on-topic?

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Lloyd wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

Nope.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Dimwits always annoy me.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

The credibility of the RFD's proponents, dimwit.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

You should try reading the RFD, dimwit.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

Haven't seen a Robeson post in weeks.

I think I have. I think you have, too. Notice your forging of the
attribute chain...

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Tex wrote:

Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

It wasn't always that way. At one time attribute forging,
thread-jacking and avalanches of postings were the exclusive domain of
Robesin. What you are witnessing now is Robesin's tactics turned
against Robesin, i.e., "out-assholing" Robesin. Don't like it? You've
had almost a decade to speak up, and didn't. Best of Luck.

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:41:24 -0500, "Tex" OutYonder@up wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

hi steve

Steve currently post only occasionaly atleast in his own name
(anymouses it seems more)

If you'll go back up to "Loyd's" response to my last post, you'll see
where he couldn't resist forging the attribute chain. That Robesin is
posting everyday is a given.

second what has the number of my post got to with anything I have
unaware there was a numerical quoate on posting

Only Google limits the number of postings in any one session.

and obviously the problem exists outide my head as BB sees and len
anderation and few other

Well, I see this sort of thing as a disruption of the group. However,
there was a valid purpose for it and it seems to be working. Robesin
as Robesin has all but disappeared, or rather has been driven
underground to post his bile as an anonnie. Nevermind that Robesin as
Robesin has posted chapter after chapter about how despicable anonnies
are. He is a man without conscience.

Bad followups
 

wrote in message
ps.com...

Tex wrote:

Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's
occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

It wasn't always that way. At one time attribute forging,
thread-jacking and avalanches of postings were the exclusive domain of
Robesin. What you are witnessing now is Robesin's tactics turned
against Robesin, i.e., "out-assholing" Robesin. Don't like it? You've
had almost a decade to speak up, and didn't. Best of Luck.

Well, Mark has certainly "out-assholed" just about everybody in these
groups, save for yourself perhaps.
Again, using Robesin as an excuse to post 300 to 400 times a week, and to
crap on as many posts as he can is folly. Even YOU should be capable of
realizing that.

Mark is rude. He is thoughtless. Robesin didn't cause that. I could touch on
Mark's obvious mental illness, but there is little need for that, is there?

Bad followups
 

Roger Leo wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Tex wrote:

Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's
occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

It wasn't always that way. At one time attribute forging,
thread-jacking and avalanches of postings were the exclusive domain of
Robesin. What you are witnessing now is Robesin's tactics turned
against Robesin, i.e., "out-assholing" Robesin. Don't like it? You've
had almost a decade to speak up, and didn't. Best of Luck.

Well, Mark has certainly "out-assholed" just about everybody in these
groups, save for yourself perhaps.
Again, using Robesin as an excuse to post 300 to 400 times a week, and to
crap on as many posts as he can is folly. Even YOU should be capable of
realizing that.

Thanks for not forging the attribute chain in your response. I
appreciate it.

Mark is rude. He is thoughtless. Robesin didn't cause that. I could touch on
Mark's obvious mental illness, but there is little need for that, is there?

Sure, Mark has dyslexia. Too bad.

Robesin was the catalyst for many of the problems in this group. If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist..., and
instead sues Mark (Mark is still waiting to be served). His mental
stability has been the focus of numerous postings.

Bad followups
 

wrote:
If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist...

Nobody, including you and me, can prove that he is
not a rapist. It's simply a fact of logic.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Bad followups
 

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

Robesin has posted chapter after chapter about how despicable anonnies
are. He is a man without conscience.


indeed he is and he is all but elimated except when he takes his
vacation time to flood RRAP

Whereas if he sat on his lazy ass all day, as you do, he could flood the
groups every day, seven days a eek...as you do.

Bad followups
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist...

Nobody, including you and me, can prove that he is
not a rapist. It's simply a fact of logic.

The "he" that I used there did not refer to Mark. It
was meant as an impersonal "he" which includes me. I
cannot prove that I am not a rapist. It is generally
impossible to prove a negative.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Bad followups
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:08:16 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist...

Nobody, including you and me, can prove that he is
not a rapist. It's simply a fact of logic.

The "he" that I used there did not refer to Mark. It
was meant as an impersonal "he" which includes me. I
cannot prove that I am not a rapist. It is generally
impossible to prove a negative.


indeed which is Why Robeson action in making that acussation are and
remain despectable

I have occionaly managed to prove a negitive but it is rough

Sure you have, Mark. Just like you are a geophysicist, a Colonel in the
Army, and a consultant.

How does a person who cannot spell "negitive", prove one?

Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
 

wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:41:24 -0500, "Tex" OutYonder@up wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

hi steve

Steve currently post only occasionaly atleast in his own name
(anymouses it seems more)

If you'll go back up to "Loyd's" response to my last post, you'll see
where he couldn't resist forging the attribute chain. That Robesin is
posting everyday is a given.

second what has the number of my post got to with anything I have
unaware there was a numerical quoate on posting

Only Google limits the number of postings in any one session.

and obviously the problem exists outide my head as BB sees and len
anderation and few other

Well, I see this sort of thing as a disruption of the group.

I agree BTW it was a dispution of the NG I regret that but decided it
was the lesoor of eveil at that and the Disputing a Ng whose primary
prupose was harassment seem like less an evil than surrender to the act
of a cyver terorist

However,
there was a valid purpose for it and it seems to be working.

thank you and again I doi regret but I would have regretted not doing
it more

Robesin
as Robesin has all but disappeared, or rather has been driven
underground to post his bile as an anonnie.

mostly and it will take awhile to "earn' more vacation time

Nevermind that Robesin as
Robesin has posted chapter after chapter about how despicable anonnies
are.

sociopaths never think the rules that aply t others apply to them

He is a man without conscience.

oopps just noticed I have already seen this one amazing how different
some post in 2 different Newraders

Bad followups
 

Roger Leo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:08:16 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I have occionaly managed to prove a negitive but it is rough

Sure you have, Mark

thank you
. Just like you are a geophysicist,...
nice of you to adknowledge

... a Colonel in the
Army, .....
no I am Col and was in the army never said I was an army colnel

....and a consultant.

as I am

but none of these things involve proving a negitive

How does a person who cannot spell "negitive", prove one?

it take doing and is something I can only manage rarely

Newsgroup Sociopaths
 

sociopaths never think the rules that aply t others apply to them

Nice observation, Mark. You just described yourself to a "T".

Newsgroup Sociopaths like ogwer and robeson
 

Roger Leo wrote:

sociopaths never think the rules that aply t others apply to them

Nice observation, Mark.

thank you

You just described yourself to a "T".

nope the same rules apply to me

as do the same rights I have the right to defend myself

Robeson is nor you are vitctums of any action of mine

Newsgroup Sociopaths
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Roger Leo wrote:

sociopaths never think the rules that aply t others apply to them

Nice observation, Mark.

thank you

You just described yourself to a "T".

nope the same rules apply to me

as do the same rights I have the right to defend myself

Robeson is nor you are vitctums of any action of mine

You are not a victim, nor are you defending yourself. You are a protagonist.
Your fixation with Robesin has gone well past simply responding to his
comments. You've turned into a stalker and your cruel comments about his
deceased daughter put you on a nasty level far lower than anything Robesin
has ever done.
It is you who should seek professional counsel, not Wiseman.

Bad followups
 

wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 13:37:18 -0800, "
wrote:

wrote:
Roger Leo wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Tex wrote:

Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's
occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

It wasn't always that way. At one time attribute forging,
thread-jacking and avalanches of postings were the exclusive domain of
Robesin. What you are witnessing now is Robesin's tactics turned
against Robesin, i.e., "out-assholing" Robesin. Don't like it? You've
had almost a decade to speak up, and didn't. Best of Luck.

Well, Mark has certainly "out-assholed" just about everybody in these
groups, save for yourself perhaps.
Again, using Robesin as an excuse to post 300 to 400 times a week, and to
crap on as many posts as he can is folly. Even YOU should be capable of
realizing that.

Thanks for not forging the attribute chain in your response. I
appreciate it.

Mark is rude. He is thoughtless. Robesin didn't cause that. I could touch on
Mark's obvious mental illness, but there is little need for that, is there?

Sure, Mark has dyslexia. Too bad.

Robesin was the catalyst for many of the problems in this group. If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist..., and
instead sues Mark (Mark is still waiting to be served). His mental
stability has been the focus of numerous postings.

Robesin claims to be a nurse. Nurses are supposed to be
considerate of those with medical problems...yet Robesin was
cruel and a bully to Morgan without consideration of his
dyslexia. Continually.

and when that was not enough to bully me into silence he went stalking
and thought he could blackmail me with my sexuality which i prefer not
advertise in places it does not belong but I do not hide it either

Robesin is a dirt bag. Your preferences were unknown to the group
until Robesin decided it was on-topic.

But, acting the bully was TYPICAL for Robesin anytime someone
disagreed with anything he said. Ergo, that made Robesin a
classic catalyst to bring others (mostly anonymous) in here to
increase the filthy postings.

therby making him respoble for them to some extent

He was/is the catalyst.

The slightest disagreement with Robesin would set him off. He
was/is a loose cannon, firing off round after round of filth at all
those he didn't like (practically everyone posting after a while).

There's thousands of archived postings to prove all the charges.
There's lots of memories among those of us who've been reading
the newsgroup for years.

LA

Loyd Roger Leo has a short memory. He is probably a moderator in
disguise.

Bad followups
 

wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 12:04:58 -0800, wrote:


Roger Leo wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Tex wrote:

Considering the FACT that Mark posts hundreds of times to Steve's
occasional
post, the "problem" exists solely in Mark Morgan's jumbled noggin'.

It wasn't always that way. At one time attribute forging,
thread-jacking and avalanches of postings were the exclusive domain of
Robesin. What you are witnessing now is Robesin's tactics turned
against Robesin, i.e., "out-assholing" Robesin. Don't like it? You've
had almost a decade to speak up, and didn't. Best of Luck.

Well, Mark has certainly "out-assholed" just about everybody in these
groups, save for yourself perhaps.
Again, using Robesin as an excuse to post 300 to 400 times a week, and to
crap on as many posts as he can is folly. Even YOU should be capable of
realizing that.

Thanks for not forging the attribute chain in your response. I
appreciate it.

Mark is rude. He is thoughtless. Robesin didn't cause that. I could touch on
Mark's obvious mental illness, but there is little need for that, is there?

Sure, Mark has dyslexia. Too bad.

to corect you Dyslxia is a Disabilty not a Mental Illness

Got it.

Robesin was the catalyst for many of the problems in this group. If he
had only been able to apologize for calling Mark a rapist..., and
instead sues Mark (Mark is still waiting to be served). His mental
stability has been the focus of numerous postings.
inded that apolgilogy would have or just answer vaguely sane answer to
the question of "why is my sexaulity relavant to Ham radio? if he
could have answered that it would have also stopp more than a year ago

Robesin can't do the stand-up thing. Instead he sues you, and then
posts the infamous excrement eating post.

today it could stopp but would take a bit more on his on the
annymouses

Some of the anymous posting are Robesin.

Newsgroup Sociopaths
 

Roger Leo wrote:

sociopaths never think the rules that aply t others apply to them

Nice observation, Mark. You just described yourself to a "T".

Steve, I see Mark describing Robesin.