John,

I don't see a serious problem with Paul considering your quote or
anything else that I've seen so far.

Let's see... He clearly says that we are not going to require a
specific licence class to be a moderator. That seems fair.

So Where's the beef in your quote?

I can tell you that nobody in the team even noticed that we all where
extras until Mark brought it up. So to my knowledge that was not a pre-
condition for acceptance in the team. I do recall that they needed to
be Hams, but that seems reasonable. I was there from the start of
this, being responsible for setting up the mail reflector we use as
well as setting up the shell account we use for the moderation
software, so I should know.

It seems to me that you guys just oppose the creation of the moderated
group and you have chosen to engage in personal attacks on the
proponents in an effort to keep it from happening.

This is the best you can do? Do you have any real evidence here?

-= KC4UAI =-

On Jan 28, 12:39 am, John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:

KC4UAI wrote:

...
Let's see... He clearly says that we are not going to require a
specific licence class to be a moderator. That seems fair.

So Where's the beef in your quote?
...

KC4UAI:

What part of "LIAR" don't you understand, I don't believe I have miniced
my words when it comes to "Paul W. Schleck."

The man has NO credibility with me, he could stand next to my
representative in congress and I could not tell them apart--smooth liars
are that way.

I think he would brow beat the new licensees who pass a no code exam, I
think he supports henchmen would would do this also. I think past posts
can be dug up to support that rather nicely! I think the man is all
about a world where "EXTRAS RULE" the school yard!

Regards,
JS