On 12/2/2014 10:52 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:43:08 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.

More unfounded conjecture.

Not at all, Spike is quite correct that fair and intelligent moderation
is in no way guaranteed with the initial moderators certain to remain
in post until the death of Usenet.


That is not what he said, Brian.

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

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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:40:45 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:



So what's the real reason, Spike?

He's set his chins against it, and aligned his bloated usenet ego with a
no vote?

On 02/12/14 16:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:16 AM, Spike wrote:

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.

And there is no reason to think the current moderators of rram will
become the moderators of ukrram,

"*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed"

It's complete rebuttal of your claim that it "... is an entirely
different newsgroup, with entirely different moderators".

Which is why I said "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck".

Nope. No rebuttal at all. You're comparing apples and oranges. They
are two different newsgroups with two different audiences and two
different sets of moderators.

"Only by noting that 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".

An entirely different newsgroup, formed by the same chap and running a
cut-and-paste Charter and ModPol, so the success of them can be already
seen in the group this was all lifted from. It's, well, crap.

So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.

They are two different newsgroups. You're comparing apples and oranges.

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.

Many of us refuse to post to rram for various reasons, but would gladly
embrace ukrram.

That's your problem. Please don't lumber us Brits with it.

I never said anything about it involving you.

Non sequitur.

You can always RFD for change (or whatever you call it over there).

Why? I'm quite happily ignoring it - as you should ukrram if you don't
like it.

You're not happy at all. You want the Brits to host you a moderated
group so you can play in it.

You've already got one, but because you've blotted your copybook you
want another one to play with. I don't see why we should all be lumbered
because of your shortcomings.

This has zero to do with rram, but you can't seem to get that fact
through your thick skull. And the creation of ukrram has absolutely
nothing to do with rram. I know you can't understand that, either.

I think you're struggling with this:

"Only by noting that 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".

So what's the real reason, Spike?

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.

And we don't want Stuckle over here. Isn't the US big enough for you?


--
Spike

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

On 12/2/2014 11:52 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 16:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:16 AM, Spike wrote:

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.

And there is no reason to think the current moderators of rram will
become the moderators of ukrram,

"*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed"


Unsupported conjecture and fear mongering. IOW, FUD.

It's complete rebuttal of your claim that it "... is an entirely
different newsgroup, with entirely different moderators".

Which is why I said "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
has the antecedents of a duck, it's a duck".

Nope. No rebuttal at all. You're comparing apples and oranges. They
are two different newsgroups with two different audiences and two
different sets of moderators.

"Only by noting that 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".


So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.

They are two different newsgroups. You're comparing apples and oranges.

An entirely different newsgroup, formed by the same chap and running a
cut-and-paste Charter and ModPol, so the success of them can be already
seen in the group this was all lifted from. It's, well, crap.

So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.

They are two different newsgroups. You're comparing apples and oranges.

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.


So? They are two entirely different newsgroup. You're comparing apples
and oranges.

Many of us refuse to post to rram for various reasons, but would gladly
embrace ukrram.

That's your problem. Please don't lumber us Brits with it.

I never said anything about it involving you.

Non sequitur.


You asked me not to lumber you Brits with it. No one is.

You can always RFD for change (or whatever you call it over there).

Why? I'm quite happily ignoring it - as you should ukrram if you don't
like it.

You're not happy at all. You want the Brits to host you a moderated
group so you can play in it.


No, I want a moderated newsgroup so that I can chat with some of the
people I've met on ukraa without having to put up with the cesspool that
certain people have made it to be.

You've already got one, but because you've blotted your copybook you
want another one to play with. I don't see why we should all be lumbered
because of your shortcomings.

This has zero to do with rram, but you can't seem to get that fact
through your thick skull. And the creation of ukrram has absolutely
nothing to do with rram. I know you can't understand that, either.

I think you're struggling with this:

"Only by noting that 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".


No, you're struggling with the fact that they are two different
newsgroups with two different audiences and two different sets of
moderators. The chap who is behind the RFD only submitted the RFD. He
has NOTHING to do with the moderation of the newsgroup or any other
operation of the newsgroup. But you seem to have trouble with that very
simple concept.

So what's the real reason, Spike?

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.


And you can't understand that you're comparing apples and oranges.

And we don't want Stuckle over here. Isn't the US big enough for you?



Since when do YOU speak for the entire UK? What you REALLY mean is YOU
don't want me there - probably because I don't put up with trolls.

But you still haven't answered a simple question - what's the REAL
reason you don't want it? Since you can't seem to answer such a simple
question, let me do it for you. You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool. You are deathly
afraid that you won't be allowed to post your crap in a moderated
newsgroup. And you're afraid all the "good" people will leave ukrra for
ukrram, and only you and your fellow instigators will be left on ukrra.

And that takes all the fun out of it.

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

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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:46:41 +0000, gareth wrote:

I agree with much that you've posted in this thread.

That is because you are as two peas in a pod; both posting page after
page of non-technical waffle;

Oh come on, we all do that at times. Look at how you go on nineteen to
the dozen, Brian too. I often waffle on in a kind hearted liberal kind of
way.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:17:56 +0000, Brian Morrison wrote:


Spike is not one of the badly behaved posters,

Oh yes he is.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:40:45 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

it's a duck".


Nope. No rebuttal at all. You're comparing apples and oranges.

If it sounds like Christmas ...............



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:

*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.

More unfounded conjecture.

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?



--
Ian

On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:





*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.

More unfounded conjecture.

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.



If people don't like how the group is run, it will fall into disuse,
just as RealOPs has.

On 02/12/14 15:52, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:43:08 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.

More unfounded conjecture.

Not at all, Spike is quite correct that fair and intelligent moderation
is in no way guaranteed with the initial moderators certain to remain
in post until the death of Usenet.


Afraid not Brian.

Spike is just being emotive. If nothing else, the phrase 'freemason-type
succession policy' is meaningless, another figment of
Spikes over active imagination.