| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
January 10th 07, 10:05 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
MAMMY SAY THE WHITE FOLKS WILL BAN THAT OLE GAY BOY JUS LIKE THE WHITE
FOLKS ON QRZ DID KC4UAI wrote: wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it can't be rolled out in a timly manner I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to me. the charter would exclude materail from the general topic of comuncation by RF which means it can't not truely further the interestes of the Topic amateur except in reinforcing the insular view held by some Hams that Ham radio exists in total isolation from the rest of RF How so? As I read the RFD (which I helped draft) discussions of Ham Radio as compared and contrasted to other types of service are not considered off topic as long as there is a connection of interest to Ham Radio. Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB the pronent has hardly been in RRAP in year Busy with many other things, including getting this project underway... So that disqualifies him? Hardly think so myself. (Grin) amoug the moderators areis at least one individual that has taken part.... snip No single moderator will control the group and if you have any difficulties with a moderation decision, you have the ability to appeal said decision to the whole team. The point of the proposed moderation is not to control the viewpoint expressed, but to keep things on topic and useful to the readers. the body consists of people largely unknown to a comon poster over many years what poster I know something NONE comes from that gruop that thinks Code USE is not good for the ARS not merely testing and as far as I know only one was even a member of NCI or the NoCode test movement in general I don't understand why this is an issue. No code testing is now the reality and soon will be the law of the land. Why the FCC did or did not retain this or what my personal feelings are about it does not enter into the decision to allow a post or not on the proposed group. I think the folks who have signed up thus far all would agree that this is not an attempt to limit discussion to our own viewpoint, but an effort to keep things on topic and useful by eliminating personal attacks and some of the real trash that gets posted here. Snip Ok.. You don't like it... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Were the moderated newsgroup proponents just blowing smoke? | Policy | |||
| VOTE, Moderated or Free Speech? | Policy | |||
| Conversion To Moderated Group | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
