"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
Fred Roberts wrote:
snip, educationally subnormal "special"
people who get the - ha ha - exam and answers read to them snip

I, for one, am very happy that our hobby has provision to accommodate
disabled individuals, through supply of reader and scribe assistance. Why
aren't you, Frank?

How could such people ever pratice technical matters?

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
+1. I've never understood many of the anti squad's distaste of Americans,
it always seems to be bubbling away just under the surface, ready to show
its shameful face in an argument as it has here with Spike. Maybe a GI
nicked their girlfriend during the war and they're still smarting over it?

Well, we're all awaiting the arrival of your holier-than-thou abuse
statistics,
but will they include your reversion to type of the last day or so?

Leopards, spots, anyome?

In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

If the moderation policies out to be unsatisfactory, there are remedies
- and if all else fails, simply pretend that the moderated NG doesn't
exist - which is what I already do with the 98,299 NGs out there, but I
don't subscribe to.

Wrong argument, Ian. We're talking about the succession, not about the
moderation policies

So you are objecting to the moderators, and their heirs and successors,
regardless of their actual moderation policies?

Could you point me to where you think I said that?

About 3" further up my screen.


--
Ian

On 03/12/14 00:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 6:20 PM, Spike wrote:

Are you an engineer or technician? You sound like one or the other.

Yes. And I have been for around 40 years.

Ah, now I understand.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

[1] 61.7% blog posts

[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months

[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.

TTFN

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

On 03/12/14 06:11, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:19:30 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, but there is no indication the moderators of rram will take over
as moderators of ukrram.

I have not seen that suggested,

It's been implied many times.

what Spike is trying to say is that if
the initial moderation team disbands and is replaced, those
replacements could have any attitude and agenda and there would be no
recourse to any mechanism to prevent it.

Incorrect. At any point, any individual can RFD to remove/replace
moderators.

Has that ever been done? How long did the process take, and what was the
outcome?


--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

On 02/12/14 23:35, Chronos wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 23:20:42 +0000
Spike wrote:

Not my problem.

Thank you for your vigilance, Spike. I killfiled Stuckle a while back
as he makes my teeth itch. You're made of sterner stuff than I ;-)

No, it's just a case of repeating what's been said, because he failed to
grasp it the previous time, and avoiding his silly attempts to move the
goalposts.


--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

On 03/12/14 08:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

If the moderation policies out to be unsatisfactory, there are
remedies
- and if all else fails, simply pretend that the moderated NG doesn't
exist - which is what I already do with the 98,299 NGs out there,
but I
don't subscribe to.

Wrong argument, Ian. We're talking about the succession, not about the
moderation policies

So you are objecting to the moderators, and their heirs and successors,
regardless of their actual moderation policies?

Could you point me to where you think I said that?

About 3" further up my screen.

Oh, the bit where I said "Wrong argument, Ian. We're talking about the
succession, not about the moderation policies".

The Succession of Moderators != Moderators.

HTH



--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

Fred Roberts wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 06:11:44 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Fred Roberts wrote:
snip, educationally subnormal "special"
people who get the - ha ha - exam and answers read to them snip

I, for one, am very happy that our hobby has provision to accommodate
disabled individuals, through supply of reader and scribe assistance. Why
aren't you, Frank?

Don't you start again or I'll start again, ok?

I'm not starting anything, Frank. I'm genuinely interested to understand
your POV on this, as I simply can't wrap my head around the suggestion that
provision for the disabled is a bad thing.

CB radio and PMR 446
exists for such people. This is a technical pursuit not a hobby that
was always within reach of anyone prepared to make an effort - ANYONE.
It did not need to be dumbed down to the level it has been. You *seem*
to be a clever chap Stephen you tell me why such people aren't allowed
readers and scribe assistants in their pursuit to become brain
surgeons and why such people aren't allowed to drive on our roads.

None of that remotely addresses the question, which is; why shouldn't
people with disabilities be provided services (reader and scribe) to help
them access amateur radio?

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

"Fred Roberts" wrote in message
...
Don't you start again or I'll start again, ok? CB radio and PMR 446
exists for such people. This is a technical pursuit not a hobby that
was always within reach of anyone prepared to make an effort - ANYONE.
It did not need to be dumbed down to the level it has been. You *seem*
to be a clever chap Stephen you tell me why such people aren't allowed
readers and scribe assistants in their pursuit to become brain
surgeons and why such people aren't allowed to drive on our roads.

WHS +100

On 12/3/2014 4:18 AM, Fred Roberts wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 06:11:44 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Fred Roberts wrote:
snip, educationally subnormal "special"
people who get the - ha ha - exam and answers read to them snip

I, for one, am very happy that our hobby has provision to accommodate
disabled individuals, through supply of reader and scribe assistance. Why
aren't you, Frank?

Don't you start again or I'll start again, ok? CB radio and PMR 446
exists for such people. This is a technical pursuit not a hobby that
was always within reach of anyone prepared to make an effort - ANYONE.
It did not need to be dumbed down to the level it has been. You *seem*
to be a clever chap Stephen you tell me why such people aren't allowed
readers and scribe assistants in their pursuit to become brain
surgeons and why such people aren't allowed to drive on our roads.


I disagree with you 100%, Fred. I know one ham in North Carolina who is
an accomplished two-way business radio tech. He also built the Piedmont
Coastal Repeater Network, a series of linked repeaters covering much of
North Carolina. And he is blind (since birth, IIRC). He doesn't
deserve a ham license because he's blind?

I had a roommate back in the 70's who was also a ham. He had a First
Class Radiotelephone license and was an engineer at a local radio
station. He's been blind since birth. He doesn't deserve a ham license
because he's blind?

Oh, and BTW - both got their licenses when the FCC was administering the
exams.

You show a distinct prejudice against disabled people and their
accomplishments.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================