On 12/2/2014 4:30 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 00:11, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

BT are going to kill Giganews, and due to recent events I decided I'd
not be
chasing Usenet after I lose easy access, but this point is too
interesting
for me not to post, even if I don't see any replies. (BT puls the plug in
under 48 hours from now).

Open a free account with the well-regarded Eternal September, or pay a
massive 10 euro for News Individual Net's excellent service. Both text
only.

http://www.eternal-september.org/

http://news.individual.net/

Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet
Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful the US
version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation,
and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit
rec.radio.amateur.moderated.


Which is an entirely different newsgroup, with entirely different
moderators. There are many who refuse to take part in that newsgroup
for various reasons. There is no relationship between the two.

You're really stretching now, Spike.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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

On 02/12/14 13:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:30 AM, Spike wrote:

Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet
Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful the US
version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation,
and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit
rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Which is an entirely different newsgroup, with entirely different
moderators. There are many who refuse to take part in that newsgroup
for various reasons. There is no relationship between the two.

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

You're really stretching now, Spike.

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.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.

[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.


--
Spike

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

On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 13:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:30 AM, Spike wrote:

Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet
Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful the US
version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation,
and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit
rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Which is an entirely different newsgroup, with entirely different
moderators. There are many who refuse to take part in that newsgroup
for various reasons. There is no relationship between the two.

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

More unfounded conjecture.


You're really stretching now, Spike.

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?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.

[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.



Which has absolutely nothing to do with a completely different
newsgroup. But you have to continue to try to compare apples and oranges.

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

But why do you care? You can use it or not - it's your choice. Why are
you trying to prevent others from having a group free from the crap on
ukrra?

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

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

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.


--
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.

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


--
Spike

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

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

Ian Jackson wrote:
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?

He's objecting to anything and everything he can think of, regardless of
whether it makes sense or not. Desperate times, desperate measures. There's
a very good chance that the moderated group will pass the vote, you see.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

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?


--
Spike

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

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 15:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 13:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:30 AM, Spike wrote:

Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet
Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful the US
version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation,
and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit
rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Which is an entirely different newsgroup, with entirely different
moderators. There are many who refuse to take part in that newsgroup
for various reasons. There is no relationship between the two.

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

More unfounded conjecture.

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

You're really stretching now, Spike.

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?

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".

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.

[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.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a completely different
newsgroup. But you have to continue to try to compare 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.

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.

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

But why do you care? You can use it or not - it's your choice. Why are
you trying to prevent others from having a group free from the crap on
ukrra?

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.

--
Spike

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