John Smith wrote:
N9OGL:

Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is
going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is lost.
Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the
group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with a
"control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not
survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated
newsgroups.

Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one
intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is
obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking of--control
freaks managing to having halted progress...

I take issue with that I could decode them still know where a copy of
that stuff is

John

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group

an_old_friend:

Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the
picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps a
free URL to a website on hawaii!

John

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
N9OGL:

Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is
going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is
lost.
Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the
group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with
a
"control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not
survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated
newsgroups.

Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one
intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is
obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking
of--control
freaks managing to having halted progress...

I take issue with that I could decode them still know where a copy of
that stuff is

John

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group

John Smith wrote:

Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the
picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps a
free URL to a website on hawaii!


"John":

I'm amazed that you are seemingly unaware that almost every e-mail
program on the market decodes UUE automatically. The fact is, you
shouldn't be doing so in a text newsgroup.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Nothing wrong with moderate use of uuencoding in newsgroup, end of story!

Go control freak on 160-80-75-etc... your false information is NOT welcome
here... that is what ham radio has become, it has no place here on the
internet...

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
link.net...
John Smith wrote:

Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the
picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps
a free URL to a website on hawaii!


"John":

I'm amazed that you are seemingly unaware that almost every e-mail program on
the market decodes UUE automatically. The fact is, you shouldn't be doing so
in a text newsgroup.

Dave K8MN

"an old friend" wrote


(BTW reading is about working what is there not about how you can twist
it to mean what you want it to)


I tried and I tried and I tried to "work what is" but that still comes out
gibberish.

In "John Smith" writes:

Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

You asked for links, I gave you links.

I realize that it is a common practice on Usenet to criticize the
source, and not the merits, of the ideas presented. That's why I
summarized the arguments and invited you to consider their validity
independent of sources and personalities. The invitation is still
open...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometimes it is necessary to repeat good common sense, even package it
in easily understood summaries, especially in a community where even
basic common sense is lost on some participants. Common sense can also
serve as a useful gateway to more subtle and complicated concepts. I
liked Professor Timo Salmi's concise article, especially the graphics in
front of the bullet points. I even think he would be flattered that you
find his words to be common sense. I only wish that his command of
idiomatic and colloquial English was sharper (he's Finnish), so that his
writing would be more approachable and familiar to the average
Usenetter.

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are in
a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Ah yes, Power To The People, and all that. Just don't forget that
without the cooperation of many large ISP's, communications backbone
providers, and hub server sites, what we recognize as Usenet would
quickly collapse. Such entities are already enforcing de-facto policies
by dropping binaries and cancelling SPAM. If the hub sites don't carry
it, that means that their downstream sites won't get it either. Posting
binaries in this newsgroup may subject it to powerful, and potentially
undesirable, forces beyond your (and my) control.

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks" consist
of...

So you don't even want to listen to any arguments other than your own?
Well, that does explain your reaction.

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

Why not? Oh, I realize that the current Beta is in many ways inferior
to the former Google Groups. I also dislike having to crunch on its
various bugs during the Beta rollout. But for many on the net,
precisely because of the 300+ GB of binaries per day that are being
thrown back and forth, their ISP's simply don't want to deal with
Usenet, and thus Google Groups is one of their only access points to it.
It's even free. My postgraduate alma mater, unomaha.edu, recommends
that its students who want to read Usenet go to Google Groups, as
news.unomaha.edu went away several years back. My employer also wasn't
interested in running the necessary multi-Terabyte disk farm and
dedicated T-1 or T-3 links either, and gave up newsgroups at about the
same time.

Also, where else are you going to find 23+ years of archived articles?
I still have Usenet news, and a good newsreader (nn), through my ISP
from home. Still, I often find myself going to Google Groups for
archival material, advice on specific questions (avoiding the flamage
that usually contains words other than the specific key words for which
I am searching), as well as a cross-check on the propagation of articles
I post locally. For this newsgroup, I find its long-term memory
invaluable to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the experts from
the kooks.

John

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul:

I realize YOU wish to see binary banned, I realize YOU are NOT alone...

I think you can probably come up with a lot of reasons YOU think they should be
banned--and are good enough, but, freedom of exchange over-rides anything you
can come up with! end of story...

But, they are not good enough reasons to block the exchange of ideas, there is
no "gentleman's agreement", there is a bunch of cheap-shot idiots like you
attempting to push your control on the mindless.

You think if you argue long enough and hard enough you may pull the wool over
the simple minded masses eyes.

This is the internet, it was founded on the idea of free, un-hindered exchange
of information and data--you are best suited for the amateur bands where the
common mode is to suppress freedoms through regulations--GO HOME, DO NOT DARKEN
OUR DOORSTEPS!!!

You are nothing but a simple idiot we have seen before, and dealt with...

John

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In "John Smith"
writes:

Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

You asked for links, I gave you links.

I realize that it is a common practice on Usenet to criticize the
source, and not the merits, of the ideas presented. That's why I
summarized the arguments and invited you to consider their validity
independent of sources and personalities. The invitation is still
open...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometimes it is necessary to repeat good common sense, even package it
in easily understood summaries, especially in a community where even
basic common sense is lost on some participants. Common sense can also
serve as a useful gateway to more subtle and complicated concepts. I
liked Professor Timo Salmi's concise article, especially the graphics in
front of the bullet points. I even think he would be flattered that you
find his words to be common sense. I only wish that his command of
idiomatic and colloquial English was sharper (he's Finnish), so that his
writing would be more approachable and familiar to the average
Usenetter.

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are
in
a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Ah yes, Power To The People, and all that. Just don't forget that
without the cooperation of many large ISP's, communications backbone
providers, and hub server sites, what we recognize as Usenet would
quickly collapse. Such entities are already enforcing de-facto policies
by dropping binaries and cancelling SPAM. If the hub sites don't carry
it, that means that their downstream sites won't get it either. Posting
binaries in this newsgroup may subject it to powerful, and potentially
undesirable, forces beyond your (and my) control.

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks"
consist
of...

So you don't even want to listen to any arguments other than your own?
Well, that does explain your reaction.

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

Why not? Oh, I realize that the current Beta is in many ways inferior
to the former Google Groups. I also dislike having to crunch on its
various bugs during the Beta rollout. But for many on the net,
precisely because of the 300+ GB of binaries per day that are being
thrown back and forth, their ISP's simply don't want to deal with
Usenet, and thus Google Groups is one of their only access points to it.
It's even free. My postgraduate alma mater, unomaha.edu, recommends
that its students who want to read Usenet go to Google Groups, as
news.unomaha.edu went away several years back. My employer also wasn't
interested in running the necessary multi-Terabyte disk farm and
dedicated T-1 or T-3 links either, and gave up newsgroups at about the
same time.

Also, where else are you going to find 23+ years of archived articles?
I still have Usenet news, and a good newsreader (nn), through my ISP
from home. Still, I often find myself going to Google Groups for
archival material, advice on specific questions (avoiding the flamage
that usually contains words other than the specific key words for which
I am searching), as well as a cross-check on the propagation of articles
I post locally. For this newsgroup, I find its long-term memory
invaluable to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the experts from
the kooks.

John

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul:

I call this, "Schleck "Schlocking" the idiots."

John

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In "John Smith"
writes:

Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

You asked for links, I gave you links.

I realize that it is a common practice on Usenet to criticize the
source, and not the merits, of the ideas presented. That's why I
summarized the arguments and invited you to consider their validity
independent of sources and personalities. The invitation is still
open...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometimes it is necessary to repeat good common sense, even package it
in easily understood summaries, especially in a community where even
basic common sense is lost on some participants. Common sense can also
serve as a useful gateway to more subtle and complicated concepts. I
liked Professor Timo Salmi's concise article, especially the graphics in
front of the bullet points. I even think he would be flattered that you
find his words to be common sense. I only wish that his command of
idiomatic and colloquial English was sharper (he's Finnish), so that his
writing would be more approachable and familiar to the average
Usenetter.

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are
in
a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Ah yes, Power To The People, and all that. Just don't forget that
without the cooperation of many large ISP's, communications backbone
providers, and hub server sites, what we recognize as Usenet would
quickly collapse. Such entities are already enforcing de-facto policies
by dropping binaries and cancelling SPAM. If the hub sites don't carry
it, that means that their downstream sites won't get it either. Posting
binaries in this newsgroup may subject it to powerful, and potentially
undesirable, forces beyond your (and my) control.

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks"
consist
of...

So you don't even want to listen to any arguments other than your own?
Well, that does explain your reaction.

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

Why not? Oh, I realize that the current Beta is in many ways inferior
to the former Google Groups. I also dislike having to crunch on its
various bugs during the Beta rollout. But for many on the net,
precisely because of the 300+ GB of binaries per day that are being
thrown back and forth, their ISP's simply don't want to deal with
Usenet, and thus Google Groups is one of their only access points to it.
It's even free. My postgraduate alma mater, unomaha.edu, recommends
that its students who want to read Usenet go to Google Groups, as
news.unomaha.edu went away several years back. My employer also wasn't
interested in running the necessary multi-Terabyte disk farm and
dedicated T-1 or T-3 links either, and gave up newsgroups at about the
same time.

Also, where else are you going to find 23+ years of archived articles?
I still have Usenet news, and a good newsreader (nn), through my ISP
from home. Still, I often find myself going to Google Groups for
archival material, advice on specific questions (avoiding the flamage
that usually contains words other than the specific key words for which
I am searching), as well as a cross-check on the propagation of articles
I post locally. For this newsgroup, I find its long-term memory
invaluable to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the experts from
the kooks.

John

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

wrote in message
ups.com...

N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL

Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?!
\
\
"Monerator" is a rator with Mono.

"Rator" is a female rotor.

Dan/W4NTI

N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group


'snot monerated'...sounds pretty slick to me. Your really are a stupid
twit, toad.