g8dgc wrote:
Spike wrote:

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

TINW

+1

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

+1

The main fear that the vocal anti group have is, as you describe, being
left with no-one to squabble with. It's utterly transparent and becomes
ever more so with the increasingly petty "concerns" that they're raising.

I sincerely hope that the moderated group passes the vote and is created.
There's well over a decade of abuse and insanity on the record in the ukra
archives and absolutely no hope whatsoever that those who have contributed
to that library of shame and degredation will change their ways if left to
their own devices. Creating the moderated group will at least give us
normal folk a place to hold civil and constructive conversation on amateur
radio while these maniacs consume themselves.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

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 12/2/2014 12:12 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:41:10 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.


Moderators don't have to continue for ever, they can be replaced by
other people without any vote being held. If the group creation
succeeds then the moderation team could change to people who are not so
well regarded as the current two moderator candidates.


Yes, but there is no indication the moderators of rram will take over as
moderators of ukrram. It is unfounded conjecture and FUD.

Even if they did - the worse that would happen is the newsgroup would die.

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

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

On 12/2/2014 12:17 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:06:44 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool.

Spike is often combative and questioning, but one thing he isn't is
rude and abusive in an ad hominem manner. He also uses facts
in his arguments that are drawn from documented sources. Objections seem
to hinge on people who don't like his attitude conflating that with
abuse. His criticism is founded on what people say and do but that
seems to be too far for some.

Spike is not one of the badly behaved posters, but he will press his
point.


His unfounded conjectures about the moderators do not pass this test, Brian.

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

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

On 02/12/14 17:17, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:06:44 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool.

Spike is often combative and questioning, but one thing he isn't is
rude and abusive in an ad hominem manner.

Nonsense.

He also uses facts
in his arguments that are drawn from documented sources.

Nonsense. His use of red herrings is beyond belief. Not to mention his
Walter Mitty stories.


Objections seem
to hinge on people who don't like his attitude conflating that with
abuse.

He is abusive.


His criticism is founded on what people say and do but that
seems to be too far for some.

His criticism is founded on his own prejudice and imaginary evidence.


Spike is not one of the badly behaved posters, but he will press his
point.


Nonsense, in particular as it relates to the formation of uk.ram. He is
so fearful it will happen he has lost control.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:58:17 +0000, 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, 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.

Still playing in defence then, Bri'.

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
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.

What happens if all voters abstain?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:15 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth
getting all upset over.

Then why bother responding at all?


If you both cut each other a lot more slack, you'll both have more room to
maneouvre. For past couple of days you both reminded me of boxers in a
clinch, bounding together from rope to rope. Not a lot I can do about that,
but I can at least say how it looks.


Notice how he has to respond to my comments even when I'm not talking to
him? Another trait of a troll. The poor guy.

If you had been on USENET as long as you claim, you would know USENET is
an open forum and everybody is free to respond to anybody.

And you can shove your troll comment up your egomaniacal Stuckle.



--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 1:11 AM, the well-known troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth
getting all upset over.

Then why bother responding at all?



Because I try to be polite

Since when?

Do you think calling people trolls, liars, incompetent, etc. is being polite?

If you were polite you wouldn't be in ****ing contests on a regular basis
that only stop when the other person no longer responds to you.


--
Jim Pennino