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.

that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your
ability to deliver the rest

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.

as defined by whom most of the ProCode member from the recent
discussion felt no relatavcnce existed no indaiacted is given that you
will see these matters differently

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)

yes it does indeed I find post fromhim her or you or the rest

being unfamilier with the territory seem to be disquailifing to me


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.

and yet if someone has to appela many or most discision made by a
single moderateor as seem likely then it is possible fr siad moderator
to effectively sideline anyone he wishes that I objected to a
particaular moderator fro bring his religious views into the subject of
discussion and indeed being a particapate in the behoavir mdoeration is
suposed to curb does not inspire confednce

but I disagree the point DOES seem to control the veiwpoints expressed
the scruour behavoir of the PrOcder Like Ace and Robeson in seking to
use sexaulity as issue was acceptable to most the problem only seem to
arive when one of the targeted persons choose to resist vigorously

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.

thatbis precisely why it is one that you don't understand the matter .
In the mind sof many it is hardly settled that I still am geting a at
least one threat of violence over my stand shows it is not settled yet
in the minds of many

incentive licensing in the 50's is still brought from time to time here
in RRAP the Code test issue seems certain to have at least the same
longeivity

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.

I saw none of you obejecting to the ProCode acusing everyone on the
other side with charges of Pedhia attacking the sexuaility of the
poster making accusations of criminal behovois involed fraud child
abuse and elder abuse. I have seen from some of the list of moderators
is one particapted in these attacks on ME and other and other such as
Pual objecting to my responding to the widespread effrot to importer me
while asserting the right to defend Himself from such action

In moderatortion I would like to see some balcane and frank that has
been lacking to date

Snip

Ok.. You don't like it...

you respond dismissively to coment on the propaosal and serious expect
me or anybody else NOT to see this as some sort of power play?

an_old_friend wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:
SNIP
Big SNIP
I saw none of you obejecting to the ProCode acusing everyone on the
other side with charges of Pedhia attacking the sexuaility of the
poster making accusations of criminal behovois involed fraud child
abuse and elder abuse. I have seen from some of the list of moderators
is one particapted in these attacks on ME and other and other such as
Pual objecting to my responding to the widespread effrot to importer me
while asserting the right to defend Himself from such action

In moderatortion I would like to see some balcane and frank that has
been lacking to date

Again, I don't understand your objections for a number of reasons.
First, I'm finding it difficult to wade though your post and determine
exactly what you are trying to say. (I think there is some spelling and
gramar issues that are causing me problems, so forgive me if I get
something wrong here.) Second, this group is not moderated so my
failure to attempt to moderate (by objecting to what he posted) a
poster in this group is a reason you would not support a moderated
group? That doesn't make sense to me. Had I come out and railed
against all the trash that gets posted here it would be used to bash
the proposal just because my name is on the proponent list? I don't
read all the trash that gets posted here mainly because it's not worth
the time to sort through all the garbage, I'm sure I'm not alone. This
is the reason I started to work on this RFD months ago. Given this,
how can a failure to denounce specific posts be used as reason to
reject this RRD?

Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to
evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it
will be used fairly?

Given our past discussions, it seems that you want your cake and to eat
it to... On one hand you want me to openly object to content in these
unmoderated groups, but on the other you are afraid of having your view
point squashed by the establishment of a moderated group being created.
Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. I cannot speak
for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read,
but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected
based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. I certainly don't agree
with many of the view points you may have, but we can still have a
meaningful debate of the facts, agree that we don't agree, and move on
without having to get into nasty personal attacks.

Further, these forums will not be changed by this RFD should it be
approved. They will continue to be as they are now, free for all to
post what they want. The only thing that will change is that there
will be a new place that will hopefully be a lot less garbage to wade
through so meaningful debate can more easily take place.

-= bob =-

"an_old_friend" ) writes:
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.

that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your
ability to deliver the rest

It's likely worth pointing out that their "ability to deliver" actually
rests on outsiders.

This isn't a popularity vote (and of course this isn't yet a vote). The
process is about ensuring that not yet another unneeded newsgroup is
created. So while I forget the exact proportions, a Call for Vote
requires not just sufficient votes in favor, but those votes have
to be greater than the no votes. And unlike those particularly
interested in the topic at hand, the no votes can come from everywhere,
because yet another newsgroup requires more resources, and the voting
process is to filter out the unneeded.

So a vote, if it gets that far (and getting to a vote also
depends on those outsiders), will require not just convincing
hams to vote for it, it requires convincing outsiders that there
is good reason not to vote against the new newsgroup.

I should also point out, while I'm posting, that you'd actually
want disinterested moderators. Because then they'd be filtering
the junk, and not being concerned with what is being said beyond
making sure it's not off-topic. "Balanced" moderators may be
worse than disinterested moderators.

Michael VE2BVW