From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm

writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
have used the word "enjoy."

"Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?

I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
read minds of others.

I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below).

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
any minute? :-)

Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!

Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)


You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
understanding that "this is not a court of law."

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?

I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
so disturbed by things in here. :-)

[I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]

I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all,
those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
expect ME to "control them?" :-)


I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.

Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?

The probable (note supposition, not fact) "moderation" to
be seems evident.


If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?

Because I can! :-)

I guess I can't argue with that.

Right! Now you are beginning to see the problem! :-)

This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
your name ".

That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
of time.

I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.

Then you would be a poor choice for moderator. I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years. It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation. You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.
Such as what you want to do in here...


Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED
venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues.

Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and
Petitions process is unbiased to submitters.

"Admit?!?" [bad choice of a word, Paul]

I have STATED what I wrote before. The FCC has stated that.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC must
accept commentary from all citizens on radio regulations,
ALL radio regulations. It is STATED in law.

We have/had some on this
newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.

NOT my problem, NOT my words you talk about. "You want to
make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to
defend themselves and ..." Do not blame me for "others
words."


I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
arbitrary, and said so.

So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by
"officials" for partially agreeing with him?


Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.

Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others'
words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies
made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test
advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen.
Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED.

["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned
by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers]


I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.

As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]

This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
in US amateur radio regulations. It has become a sewer
of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
"debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.

Would that satisfy you?

Why do you ask? I am a no-code-test advocate. My FCC
license is a Commercial one. I don't parrot ARRL maxims.
I am merely a US citizen, one who has made a career in
electronics-radio, and served his country honorably in
the US military. Why ask ME? I'm not a "participant"
in licensed amateur radio...the kind where all the
licensees think they "run" it. I'm not one to slavishly
hold to old standards and practices in amateurism when
they are out of date. I don't need the emotional
sustenance of rank-status-title for "privileges" that
were lobbied for by older rank-status-title amateurs.

If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
who WILL inherit the future involving radio. They will
outlive the rest of us. Will those of the near-future
look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
on that statement. Only time will tell...



Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397
thousand members worldwide)

As is typical, Len says in fifteen paragraphs that which could be easily
stated in one sentence.
Brevity is NOT one of Len's strong points.

Prattle on, Len. Thank you for the left eye wink humor.

wrote:
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1

And on my birthday! Happy Happy BD to me!

Why does Morkie keep insisting that I am "lying" when all I am
doing is quoting HIM verbatim?

I'm not.

Here's YOUR words AGAIN, Morkie:

Message-ID: .com

KB9RQZ Said: "oh learning code is easy"

There you have it, folks! Morkie says learning code is easy!

Quoted Word For Word!

Steve, K4YZ

From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
Email: Paul W. Schleck


writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Let's recap:

Why? :-)

Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."

Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
choice of words..."

Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)


Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
his goals?

You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)

Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
"commentary" by ANYONE. If you take offense at every
negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
yours, your perception.

["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts]


You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting
the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge
multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that
the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election.

This newsgroup is not a national political election forum.
Really.

It's reasonable to
argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
existed well before our times.

Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this
newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm
sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere.

This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics
of the USA of the past millennium. Really.


Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the
first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its
iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his
writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example.

Should I bring that up at the next Writer's Guild meeting
in North Hollywood? How about the ABA in NYC? :-)

If you wish to admonish someone on use of the English
language a la the academia way, try hundreds of postings
by OTHERS in this newsgroup for the past week. :-)

Oh, and in passing, academia itself is divided on this
Shakespeare thing, especially on so few (read almost
none) original manuscripts surviving and scant factual
information about his life. BTASE, carry on with what
you want to discuss in a Literary Review forum someplace
else.


What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
participation in here?

Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse
code test in US amateur radio licensing."

Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there
arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me?

Please, turn DOWN your Personal Sensitivity control. If you
continue with it fully clockwise, your life as a moderator
will be very short indeed. Moderators need armor-plated
stainless steel cojones on the job, plus emotional shielding
to protect their sense of self.

Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else?

Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with
others, then they collide. TS.

I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
would do in person. No formality is required, although
the self-righteous in here seem to think that de rigeur.
[i.e., "the court of law" syndrome of the overly
sensitive to any negative against Theirs...:-) ]

Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours?

Yes. "Carbon copies" of what Others say aren't required.

That's solipsism.

No, that's just the way computer-modem communications
work in public access. It was that way when ARPANET
got big, it was that way when it morphed into USENET,
and was that way when it was picked up on BBS networks.
And it remains that way on the Internet in those forums
called "Usenet." shrug

You have to realize that not all people agree on things.
Really. That's what makes us all unique...with some
possible exceptions of certain membership organizations
in the NE USA...but that is more religion than anything
else. :-)


Here's a challenge to you, Len.

I've had thousands of "challenges" in my time. I do not
need any from anyone in this group.

Remember what happended to STS 51J?

I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:

I decline. There is little proof available of this
alleged "objectiveness." :-)

If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of
your own.

Thank you ever so much, your worship. ["highness?"]

Condescenion does not become you.

Oh, I feel perfectly free to come up with whatever I want
whether you like it or not. :-) Just as you are
perfectly free to express the usual disdain, condescension,
elitism of the federally-licensed high-born as practiced
by others in here. :-) All that and more have been
going on in here for years.


I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt.

Ah, so the "voters" (in whatever Mt. Olympus like domain
of the newsgroup powers-to-be) haven't got a clue as to
what to do? Certainly sounds like that.

Hint: Do NOT advertise possibilities of the future in
regards to "actions" of moderation. Just DO it. You
don't even have to wear Nikes on that job. :-)

Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.

Oh, goodie, it sounds like it will be weeks before someone
considered offensive will be dealt with. Meanwhile, their
offensive words will remain in view of all with access.

Remember what happened to the fabled Maginot Line? :-)


However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:

Why do you address that to me? "Been there, done that" in
computer-modem comms, remember? :-)

You WILL find that true moderator tasks will have to be
more draconian. But, you seem to think that the powers-
that-be invented moderating. shrug

That's like the myths held (dearly by some) by amateurs
that amateurs invented radio. :-)

- Provocation/Prevarication

[such as "here's a challenge for you..."?]

- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)

[all march to the same drum beat?]


- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants

[such as "little red-hatted monkey?"]


- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others

[such as "We amateur extras are better than you!"]


- Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!"

[tsk, "it" was started with the Incestuous Licensing Plan...]


In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification.

Heh heh heh, you (as a member of the moderating team) have to
get the last little "dig" in? :-)

---

Tscha, my suggestion is still the For an indefinite
period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
can control them with group "moderating?"

You have been a victim of forgery in here, an insidious
little malignancy of a URL modification is all that was
needed. What is there to stop forgeries in the future?
"Noble intentions?!?" raucous laughter elided

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I?

Heck, Len, you don't seem to be able to control your *own* actions
here...;-)

This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
your name ".

Gee, Len, you've posted here under at least seven different screen
names - probably more. Sometimes you don't identify yourself anywhere
in your posting. And you once denied posting here under a certain
screen name ("Averyfine" or "Averyfineman") but then were shown to have
been mistaken.

That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
of time.

Why? If what goes on here bothers you too much, just leave. There are
other forums.

I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.

Then you would be a poor choice for moderator.

I think Paul W. Schleck would be a great choice for moderator, even
though I disagree with him on many amateur radio policy issues. K2UNK
and K2ASP would be excellent, too. There are lots more - most of whom
don't post here anymore.

I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years.

BBS's are old technology, Len. Does anybody even use them anymore?

It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation.

Len, you're not polite in here to anyone who disagrees with you.

You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.

That's simply not true.

All the moderator has to do is to point out when someone is beginning
to push the group rules too far. If that person persists, they're
banned from posting for a time.

Of course, that means things like name-calling would not be allowed.
Making fun of someone's gender, ethnicity, work experience or
education, religion, etc., would get people kicked out.

Such as what you want to do in here...

Seems to me that what Paul really wants is to discuss amateur radio
policy without all the shenanigans.

I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.

As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]

Why? If it's that bad, why are you here at all, Len? There are other
forums - but most of them are moderated.

This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
in US amateur radio regulations.

It's also a forum for the discussion of other amateur radio policy
issues, such as the number of license classes, the written exams,
subband allocations, amateur radio license numbers, and much more. Most
of which is being lost in the noise now.

. It has become a sewer
of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
"debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.

Agreed!

If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
who WILL inherit the future involving radio.

Who are "the public", Len? Why would they want radio for its own sake?
The appeal of amateur radio has always been to the few.

They will
outlive the rest of us.

Not all of them. "The public" keeps getting older and older....

btw, it was *you* (Leaonard H. Anderson) who suggested in official
comments to FCC that there be an age requirement for all classes of
amateur radio license. You specifically requested that the FCC keep
anyone under the age of 14 years out of amateur radio. You wanted to
ban some of the very people who would inherit the future involving
radio.

Will those of the near-future
look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
on that statement. Only time will tell...

We do know this: Lowering the code and written test requirements back
in 2000 has not brought about sustained growth in the number of
licensed US radio amateurs. The number of amateurs today is more than
15,000 lower than it was in 2000.

And on the subject of Mr. Gerritsen:

The Morse Code test did not "filter" him out of amateur radio. He never
took one!

Jim, N2EY

In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.

Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.

Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.

The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.

That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.

The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.

Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?

Good questions!

Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17

that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.

Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
send the same message over and over and over and ...

Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
base of expertise then results. There are arguably many more
"unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
the administrative burdens.

Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
still nearly so). It is publicly archived at Google. All forums are
indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
replacement mailing lists?

I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote nothing of any
importance, as usual, in a message:
////remaining drivel flushed/////


Moderated Group?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.

Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.

Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.

The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.

That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.

The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.

Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?

Good questions!

Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17

that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.

I'll take a look!

Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
send the same message over and over and over and ...

Agreed to a point.

Part of the question is size. How many people will really read a
moderated policy group? The number of posters here has always been
pretty small, and when you eliminate the anonymous, the people using
multiple IDs and the noise, the numbers may be smaller than many
reflectors I know of.

Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
base of expertise then results.

Agreed to a point. But at the same time, how much use does Usenet get
anymore? For example, some time back, AOL discontinued direct access,
citing low usage.

There are arguably many more
"unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
the administrative burdens.

Maybe. The irony of the "information superhighway"

Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
still nearly so).

I see access going down, though. Besides AOL's discontinuance, Google
has moved it to a back page, as it were. Website-based forums like
qrz.com and eham.net seem much more active nowadays.

It is publicly archived at Google.

To the chagrin of some posters to rrap.....;-)

All forums are
indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
replacement mailing lists?

All I'm saying is that I've seen email reflectors work well with
several hundred subscribers. How many people actually read rrap?

I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.

Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Schleck's moderated group, if it ever happens, and that is
VERY doubtful, will consist of him and maybe a half dozen
or less other people, with OF COURSE, Schleck as the
*CENSOR-IN-CHARGE* drum rolls bugles

eham, qrz.com, qth.com and others have multiple ham
forums, with thousands of participants. You are only about
two decades behind times Schleck. Nevertheless, have fun
building your tiny little empire. It will do wonders for your
thin skin and ego. ROTFLMAO!

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
Email: Paul W. Schleck


writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Let's recap:

Why? :-)

Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."

Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
choice of words..."

Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.


Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
his goals?

You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)

Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
"commentary" by ANYONE.

Just a couple of days ago, you made a post where you felt compelled to
state that I reply to posts not directed to me. You've gotten yourself
into a little dilemma, old boy.

If you take offense at every
negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
yours, your perception.

Then why do you feel the necessity of going to ALL CAPS and raving of
PERSONAL denigration, especially after you've engaged in personal
denigration?

["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts]

You certainly have been there and done that, t-shirts not withstanding.


It's reasonable to
argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
existed well before our times.

Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this
newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm
sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere.

Please remember that you wrote the above words. You are very likely to
see them again.

This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics
of the USA of the past millennium. Really.

Is it about your military escapades of better than a half-century back?
Does it concern itself with your PROFESSIONAL experience?


Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else?

Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with
others, then they collide. TS.

And if others react to your direct opinions and to the manner in which
they are presented?

I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
would do in person.

If you had said some of the things in a face-to-face encounter that
you've written here, odds are that you'd find yourself on the seat of
your pants fairly often.


Tscha, my suggestion is still the For an indefinite
period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
can control them with group "moderating?"

That should be easy to figure out, Len. Their posts don't appear.

Dave K8MN