Roger Leo wrote:
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

Oh, oh. A misspelling. Quick, someone get Heil.

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.

Thanks, but Mark has no reason to "out-asshole" me.

I think his bedroom preferences are off-topic in an amateur radio news
group, and have no idea why anyone would go out to the web and bring
something like that back here.

Mark will talk ham radio with you if you like, or we can go on talking
about why this newsgroup has become all about Robesin.

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.

I might have agreed with you except that I have seen Robesin viciously
attack other people on RRAP, myself included. Now I have no
disagreement with any method used to control Robesin. But thanks for
asking.

Mark is rude.

He can be, but so can I. Ditto you.

He is thoughtless.

Actually, no. Robesin has deeply hurt Mark. An apology is in order.

Robesin didn't cause that.

Sure he has.

I could touch on Mark's obvious mental illness, but there is little need for that, is there?

Dyslexia is not a mental illness. Mark is fine when he's not being
made fun of or being accused of lyng or rape. Try treating Mark as a
human being and he will respond in kind. If you respect yourself it
will be a lot easier to respect other people. Best of Luck.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Roger Leo wrote:
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

Oh, oh. A misspelling. Quick, someone get Heil.



I disagree. if the gruop that is the Oficail site for such thing do
not funtin then the voting process and discussion are curprted and
result in a less railble pictice of the opion on Hams radio usenet
users

......

Oh, wow! There's some further misspelling, and hardly the "occasional"
misspelled word you alluded to.

Someone get a spell check program!

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
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


Hi All,
I've been following along the discussions.
And Mr. Brock, I have to say I personally am in favor of discussion of the
NG's topic. Self-moderation has proven it's self to lead to name calling,
personal attacks, CB'ers attacking hams and may more such useless posts and
cross posts.
I agree with KH6HZ , who said

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


I think KH6HZ has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better.
73 all, Ace - WH2T

Dr.Ace wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:44:45 -0500, wrote:

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

73


Hi All,
I've been following along the discussions.
And Mr. Brock, I have to say I personally am in favor of discussion of the
NG's topic. Self-moderation has proven it's self to lead to name calling,
personal attacks, CB'ers attacking hams and may more such useless posts and
cross posts.

why do you complain about behavoir you yourself enegaed in ?
I agree with KH6HZ , who said

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


I think KH6HZ has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better.
73 all, Ace - WH2T

Typo correction

CB'ers attacking hams and *many* more such useless posts

73 all, Ace - WH2T

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:00:35 -0500, "Dr.Ace" wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
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


Hi All,
I've been following along the discussions.
And Mr. Brock, I have to say I personally am in favor of discussion of the
NG's topic. Self-moderation has proven it's self to lead to name calling,
personal attacks, CB'ers attacking hams and may more such useless posts and
cross posts.
I agree with KH6HZ , who said

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


I think KH6HZ has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better.
73 all, Ace - WH2T


You guys do realize that you don't get to "vote" don't you? I
guessing that the constant referrals to getting to vote are some kind
of an inside joke.

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, are you a rapist?

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:00:35 -0500, "Dr.Ace" wrote:


[snip]


You guys do realize that you don't get to "vote" don't you? I
guessing that the constant referrals to getting to vote are some kind
of an inside joke.

Actually there's no reason to make it dependent on a vote. Those who do not
wish to participate in a moderated group can continue here. This group is
not being eliminated. There is simply a new group being added.

Dee, N8UZE

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

Cecil, are you a rapist?

In general, no one can prove that he is not guilty. The
point of logic is: In general, negative assertions cannot
be proved. That's why, in this country, a person is presumed
innocent until he is proved guilty. An alibi proves a
*positive* assertion, i.e. that one was physically somewhere
else at the time of the crime.

Imagine the problem presented to the women accused of being
witches during the Salem witch trials. They were required to
prove that they were not witches. They were presumed guilty
until proved innocent which was a logical impossibility.

This characteristic of logic carries over into conditional
statements. If the 'if' portion of an 'if/then' conditional
logic statement is false, then the entire statement is true
by definition. The following is a true statement.

"If the moon were made out of green cheese, then a cow could
indeed jump over it."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com