In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm


In "Herb" writes:

The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.

Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug

You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.

My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.

One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.

I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.

Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.

That is remarkable naivete!

Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.

As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.

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

I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.

It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"

Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"

Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"

The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.

I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.

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.

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

Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).

Nevertheless, if you feel that I owe some credit to the Senator for my
wording above, I don't think it's fair to conclude that he was
unsuccessful, and thus not worth paraphrasing, because he ran in an
election that was substantially not his to lose (Hint: It was arguably
more the responsibility of the individual at the *top* of the ticket.)
Many would credit his statement as underscoring a specific perceived
weakness in the opposing ticket, one that arguably was successfully
exploited in his party's 1992 victory.

In addition to serving 4 terms as Senator, including re-election to the
office at the same time his running-mate for the *other* election lost,
his nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury was voted out of the
confirmation committee by acclimation (and standing applause). After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.

Nor does he need to be a clone of me.

Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...]


Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has
lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face
the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be
shut down for an indefinite period.

For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.




--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

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

writes:

Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug

You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.

"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]

What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.

So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"

You are imagining things which aren't there.

Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.


My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.

Not necessary. :-)

You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)


One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.

I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.

I am happy that you are happy.

I am NOT happy that some are acting as military veteran
imposters. Extremely few REAL veterans are happy about
imposters.



Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.

As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.

What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?


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

Because I can! :-) Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions,
there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind
on any amateur radio policy issues.


I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.

It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"

Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.

I do not have to "stereotype, or overgeneralize" anything by
such individuals (trolls, misfits, anonymous cowards, and
identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men").

THEY mark themselves.

Yes, there are only a very few "representatives" of a "much
larger population" (of radio amateurs) in here. But, those
that do put themselves on public view do not always reflect
well on a pleasureable radio activity hobby enjoyed by
thousands. Rather they reflect mostly personal preferrences
within their hobby. "Objective" applies to little of what
is written.

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"

Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"

The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.

I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.

Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.

Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.

Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."

I do not use hats.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.

How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?

Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.

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.

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

Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).

Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.


... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.

I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.

I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]


For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?

It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."

Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]

Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.

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

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.

I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

Beep, beep,

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

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.

I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't
behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM

Beep, beep,

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

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.

I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't
behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM

"Beheading?" Hardly. Perhaps doing-in some no-code-test
advocate as was done to William Wallace of Scotland long ago:
"Quartering" with all parts buried in different locations. :-)

It will probably be a la the ARRL "sinning by omission." A simple
deletion and ignoring of any non-MMM poster. That way only
ONE way or viewpoint is visible to the public. The public will then
assume that the MMM view prevails. No problem...

The FCC regulates US amateur radio, not the "participants" in it.
Some "participants" think they rule, but they don't.

"Give a ham an inch and they think they are rulers!" :-)

Beep, beep,

In . com " writes:

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

writes:

Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug

You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.

"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]

What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.

So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"

"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." I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below). You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

You are imagining things which aren't there.

Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.


My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.

Not necessary. :-)

You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)

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." Rather, it seems to be
one where the only acceptable evidence in Len's mind is that which
advances Len's arguments.

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?

Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and
anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away
with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should
KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was
speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their
agreement with me in further followups.

What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?

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.

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

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

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"

Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"

The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.

I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.

Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.

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

Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.

Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."

I do not use hats.

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.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.

How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?

Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.

How about this, Len:

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.

Would that satisfy you?

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.

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

Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).

Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.


... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.

I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.

I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]

Let's recap:

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?

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 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. 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. If I wanted to crib the Senator's words,
I may as well have copied them exactly:

"Herb, I served with Dave Heil, I knew Dave Heil, Dave Heil was a friend
of mine. Herb, you are no Dave Heil."

but that would have been a very different quote, now wouldn't it?

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.

For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?

It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."

Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]

Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.

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? Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else? Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours? That's solipsism.

Here's a challenge to you, Len. I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:

"Paul and I share a common goal to advocate the elimination of the
manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing."

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

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.

I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

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. 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.

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

- Provocation/Prevarication

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

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

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

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

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

Beep, beep,



--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

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?

--

And to get back on topic:

1) I think it would be useful to the amateur radio community for us to
know the involvement of local amateurs in bringing Gerritsen to
justice. IOW, what worked and what didn't, what hams can do and what
they should not do in such cases, etc.

2) "Amateur Radio Policy" goes far beyond the Morse Code test issue.
Sooner or later, the FCC will announce what it will do wrt the recent
NPRM.

IMHO, FCC may do the following:

A) Increase code testing (chances of that are infinitesimal)

B) Leave the present requirement unchanged (possible but unlikely)

C) Eliminate code test for General but keep it for Extra (majority of
commenters want this, but it's not very likely)

D) Combine code and written testing in such a way that the code test
still exists, but there are other testing options, so that the Morse
Code test is no longer an absolute, no-other-option requirement for any
class of amateur license. This has been done in Canada and was
suggested in my comments. (Possible)

E) Completely eliminate Morse Code testing. (Most likely)

If the FCC does A, B or C, the Morse Code test debates will probably
continue.

But if FCC does D or E, what policy issues should be on the table next?


73 de 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

In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

[...]

In .com writes:
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?

There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
enhancement we would add).

The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
unforged "Last Name or Callsign."

Incorrigible users with demonstrated and ongoing records of simply not
being able to respect, or debate fairly with, others could easily be
locked out of the newsgroup. Their articles wouldn't even be considered
by the newsgroup, as they would be bounced back without being viewed by
a moderator. Such permanent blacklisting should only be done in
exceptionally grave cases. We're contemplating starting everyone out
with a "clean" record, then applying a sliding scale of warnings and
temporary bans up to that ultimate penalty based on future behavior.
Specifics will be in the RFD.

And of course, there would be the gray areas such as submitters who can
contribute positively but need every article scrutinized for lapses, new
submitters without an established three-article track record for
white-listing, articles coming through open news servers such as Google
Groups or aioe.org where the source cannot be reasonably authenticated
by automated means, as well as other things that may require moderator
review such as SPAM that got through other filters, off-topic
submissions, etc. These will be directed to a queue for prompt review
by a member of the moderation team. Over time, the gray area should get
smaller and smaller, and thus our workload should reduce.

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 Dee Jim, N2EE

Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
debate Morse code testing:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5697020?lnk=st

In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:

- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.

- Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
put forward in RM 11306.

- How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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