In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

writes:

[...]

Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.

As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.

[...]

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:


"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."

And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.

I'm sure that you'll have plenty of comments once the RFD is posted
here.

With most bestest regards,



You're still not getting a "73" from me.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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