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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall
seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim
Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all
( i have NOT googled them to check hovere


But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group.

incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is
being proposed

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.

but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non
stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay
bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you
object to

Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion
is simply to be stiffed

and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear

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.

the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it

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.

good luck

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.

indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote
that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we
begin

why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly

"an_old_friend" 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.

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

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.

"lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall
seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim
Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all
( i have NOT googled them to check hovere


But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group.

incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is
being proposed

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.

but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non
stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay
bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you
object to

Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion
is simply to be stiffed

and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear

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.

the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it

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.

good luck

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.

indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote
that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we
begin

why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly


You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

"Katie" anon@anon wrote in message ...

"an_old_friend" 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.

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

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.

"lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall
seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim
Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all
( i have NOT googled them to check hovere


But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group.

incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is
being proposed

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.

but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non
stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay
bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you
object to

Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion
is simply to be stiffed

and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear

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.

the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it

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.

good luck

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.

indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote
that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we
begin

why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly


You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ
is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT
need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to
prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in,
accept
it, and stop whining.




Well said! Now Mark, take that! Ha!



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

Katie wrote:

You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously?

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.

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.

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...

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'.

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.