Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mark hijacks again
wrote in message ... On 11 Jan 2007 04:43:59 -0800, wrote: KH6HZ wrote: Great proposal. Agreed! Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. Me too. 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. 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. Not a clunker in the bunch I know. I read several moderated reflectors. They are very well behaved. 73 es KC de JIm, N2EY gay basher is part of the problem and yet you think it proper to include a gay basher in th e moderating crew oh well you do not object to Robesons or Wismen or Hail when they engage in gay bashing either ............ It is not their place to do so. Nor is it yours. Ever stop to think that perhaps THEY don't approve of perverted lifestyles? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The Myna Bird chirps
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 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???? And now you are whining. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"Michael Black" wrote in message news:eo5p9f$hb6$ I don't know whether that was deliberate, or just cluelessness. ANd if they are getting over there but being rejected, one immediate reason I can see as a possible reason is the quoting of the full message being replied to, which often includes the full text of previous messages, with only a line or two of "new material". That makes it really hard to grasp what is being added, or even that is being added. But that isn't really a surprise, since that is some of the problem we are seeing in the rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy. (The message? Learn to quote, Mark.) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:29:21 -0500, "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. you think it is proper to include a Gay basher on the Moderating team? It is about Amateur Radio, Mark! Stay on topic and take your mewling concerns to the gay groups. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Ralph wrote: "Michael Black" wrote in message (The message? Learn to quote, Mark.) why you throwing this at me how many people are you going to pretend to be today just interested out of curiousity |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) RATIONALE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated MODERATOR INFO: rec.radio.amateur.moderated 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 at what point if any do we those asked for comets get to know some about some the proposed modartors of this proposed gruop? 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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Mark goes whining
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:27:29 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote: 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 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 But this time YOU made an off topic post and it was rejected. Leave it alone, Mark. Get used to the simple fact that you simply are not wanted there and move on. Or would that be too "grown up" for you? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
gay basing
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:41:57 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:29:21 -0500, "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. you think it is proper to include a Gay basher on the Moderating team? It is about Amateur Radio, Mark! indeed which why someone that chose to enage in Gay bashing on these NG why you YOU enegae in gay bashing in a radio NG? Stay on topic and take your mewling concerns to the gay groups. I would love to care to stop your gay basing? Nobody, especially me, is gay "basing". Stop putting words in the mouths of others, especially when they disagree with you. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
still more thread jacking of the proposal thread
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
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. 73 |
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 |