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?

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.

"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.)

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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