|
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/3/2014 1:11 AM, 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. I have never seen it implied, either. 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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/3/2014 4:23 AM, Spike wrote:
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 Which has absolutely nothing to do with ukram. They are two different newsgroups, with two different audiences and two different moderation teams. The only thing they have in common is the proposer of the RFD. But that is immaterial since he has no say in the running of either newsgroup, and anyone can create an RFD. Either that or your grasping at straws to try to make your argument. And it isn't working. But you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between apples and oranges. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 03/12/14 14:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/3/2014 4:23 AM, Spike wrote: 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 Which has absolutely nothing to do with ukram. They are two different newsgroups, with two different audiences and two different moderation teams. The only thing they have in common is the proposer of the RFD. Plus the Charter and ModPol. I don't expect you to see the Americanisms in there. But that is immaterial since he has no say in the running of either newsgroup, and anyone can create an RFD. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck. Either that or your grasping at straws to try to make your argument. And it isn't working. But you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between apples and oranges. Don't go shopping for poultry, or you may be very disappointed. -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/3/2014 9:58 AM, Fred Roberts wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:44:55 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: 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. Well if you disagreed with what I'm actually talking about you might have a point. But you haven't and you don't. And he is blind (since birth, IIRC). He doesn't deserve a ham license because he's blind? I said no such thing, can I suggest you read the is thread and understand it before posting such, well, crap. I have read the thread. To refresh your memory: Stephen: 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? You: Don't you start again or I'll start again, ok? CB radio and PMR 446 exists for such people... An obvious bias against disabled people, even if you don't want to admit it. 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? I said no such thing, can I suggest you read the is thread and understand it before posting such, well, crap. Oh, and BTW - both got their licenses when the FCC was administering the exams. Good for them. You show a distinct prejudice against disabled people and their accomplishments. Where? You show a distinct lack of English comprehension and you are guilty of falling for the propaganda posted by Cole and Reay oh, you also talk crap. By your statements, as noted above. But you can't take back your words, so you start with the ad hominim attacks. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/3/2014 10:15 AM, Spike wrote:
On 03/12/14 14:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/3/2014 4:23 AM, Spike wrote: 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 Which has absolutely nothing to do with ukram. They are two different newsgroups, with two different audiences and two different moderation teams. The only thing they have in common is the proposer of the RFD. Plus the Charter and ModPol. I don't expect you to see the Americanisms in there. So what? Since you seem to be completely clueless, here's what must be a huge enlightenment to you: RFDs are not created from scratch. People almost always take the RFD (and ModPol) of an existing group and just modify it for the new group. And BTW - this happens not only in RFDs - it is a common practice around the world in many different areas. And it's also not limited to printed material. And you'll find all moderated groups will have very similar Charters and ModPols. In fact, I would highly expect that the RFD for rram was copied from another moderated newsgroup's RFD. Once again you're grasping at straws. But that is immaterial since he has no say in the running of either newsgroup, and anyone can create an RFD. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck. If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and has the antecedents of a troll, it's a troll. Either that or your grasping at straws to try to make your argument. And it isn't working. But you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between apples and oranges. Don't go shopping for poultry, or you may be very disappointed. You obviously can't understand the difference between apples and oranges. Either that or you're grasping at straws, trying to make you point - and failing miserably. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
Fred Roberts wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:46:21 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole 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. There you go again. No one has a problem with provision for the disabled. You clearly stated that you disagree with questions being read out to candidates and the answers being written down for them. Why do you continually state that the less intelligent are disabled? They are not. I have a problem with the dense. I have a problem with the dense and those pretending to be dense being given "assistance" that beggars belief. What assistance? Do you have any evidence to back this up? What do I mean by dense? Look no further than the Jocktards posting here. Do you think such scum belong in amateur radio? They don't. I have major problems as does any right thinking person about special provision being made for such people. What evidence do you have that reader and scribe services have been supplied to those who don't need it? 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? Disabled and dense are two entirely different things and you know it. It's a fine line you're walking there, Frank. Unless you'd like to share your clinical psychiatry qualifications and experience with us, I'd steer clear of defining who has a disability and who doesn't if I were you. -- Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 03/12/14 15:30, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/3/2014 10:15 AM, Spike wrote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with ukram. They are two different newsgroups, with two different audiences and two different moderation teams. The only thing they have in common is the proposer of the RFD. Plus the Charter and ModPol. I don't expect you to see the Americanisms in there. So what? Since you seem to be completely clueless, here's what must be a huge enlightenment to you: Ad hominem RFDs are not created from scratch. Only by the lazy, or those seeking some form of 'authority'. People almost always take the RFD (and ModPol) of an existing group and just modify it for the new group. And BTW - this happens not only in RFDs - it is a common practice around the world in many different areas. And it's also not limited to printed material. That explains a lot. What a glorious chance was missed here. And you'll find all moderated groups will have very similar Charters and ModPols. In fact, I would highly expect that the RFD for rram was copied from another moderated newsgroup's RFD. Ad populum. Once again you're grasping at straws. Ad hominem. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck. If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and has the antecedents of a troll, it's a troll. Oh, I'd agree with you there. But I'm a nice chap and overlook the negative side of others. Don't go shopping for poultry, or you may be very disappointed. You obviously can't understand the difference between apples and oranges. Either that or you're grasping at straws, trying to make you point - and failing miserably. I've got a feeling I might get the point across, if I say it often enough: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck. -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Fred Roberts" wrote in message
... You first Stephen, you're the one who introduced disability into this thread , not I. And it is M6CIR who is squirming and back-pedalling furiously |
Yaesu rises again!?
Fred Roberts wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:38:47 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole wrote: There you go again. No one has a problem with provision for the disabled. You clearly stated that you disagree with questions being read out to candidates and the answers being written down for them. I do. Being less intelligent doesn't mean disabled. Do you have a clinical psychiatry qualification? Why do you continually state that the less intelligent are disabled? They are not. I have a problem with the dense. I have a problem with the dense and those pretending to be dense being given "assistance" that beggars belief. What assistance? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Yes. Please post it. If you refuse to, I can only conclude that you're lying. What do I mean by dense? Look no further than the Jocktards posting here. Do you think such scum belong in amateur radio? They don't. I have major problems as does any right thinking person about special provision being made for such people. What evidence do you have that reader and scribe services have been supplied to those who don't need it? I have posted the details before only to have them roundly rubbished by Katie. Please post *evidence*, not unfounded accusations. 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? Disabled and dense are two entirely different things and you know it. It's a fine line you're walking there, Frank. Unless you'd like to share your clinical psychiatry qualifications and experience with us, I'd steer clear of defining who has a disability and who doesn't if I were you. You first Stephen, you're the one who introduced disability into this thread , not I. You attacked the provision of reader and scribe, a service for the disabled, not I. -- Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com