Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

John Smith I wrote:
Why (while?) that Masters may make you suitable for the position,
if a suitable doctorate shows up--hes' got the job ...

Probably not for the same salary cap. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Why (while?) that Masters may make you suitable for the position, if
a suitable doctorate shows up--hes' got the job ...

Probably not for the same salary cap. :-)

Cecil:

OH YEAH. I do envy that salary cap! LOL

Regards,
JS

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

wrote:

...
time will tell but I have no indiaction that the code wars are over

merely about to move to another front

right now I can't be what the problem is or will be

I oppose the osrt of elist moderation I prrefer to discuss radio

I am willing to forgive most any that ask for it and give second to
some them without that but I have to see that a possible soluation
exists I don't see that yet
Regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

No. I think you can stop the "high school stuff." I seen your
arguments in the proposals, you CAN do better. Amateur radio needs
help, so help ...

Regards,
JS

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

On Jan 28, 7:45�am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
--strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring
teachers with PhD degrees?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Not even close, Cecil. The FCC was NEVER
chartered as an academic organization.

LA

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

Cecil Moore wrote in
. net:

Michael Black wrote:
It would take a pretty incapable person to not be able to tell the
difference between what was on-topic and what doesn't belong.

So is a discussion on the nature of the quantum structure
of empty space on-topic for an antenna group?

Is a strict on or off topic message grounds for not being allowed
to post? Quantum structure of empty space can be a fascinating direction
for a thread to wander into. Have the moderators said they would not
allow such a post?

The moderation group effort didn't come about due to that. More
like a few posters who have deep seated problems, as well as a
willingness to ebomb the group(s). Until I discovered Xnews, I just
found this newsgroup not worth the effort to read. Whereas most readers
were happy to allow this group to be a Black hole of Calcutta, the
miscreants were starting to spread their cancer to all the ham
newsgroups.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

"Dee Flint" wrote:

You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the
moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior.
It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have
targets to continue their tactics.

100% dead on accurate analysis.

73
KH6HZ

Schlecks' direction on moderation
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
The moderation group effort didn't come about due to that. More
like a few posters who have deep seated problems, as well as a
willingness to ebomb the group(s). Until I discovered Xnews, I just
found this newsgroup not worth the effort to read. Whereas most readers
were happy to allow this group to be a Black hole of Calcutta, the
miscreants were starting to spread their cancer to all the ham
newsgroups.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Some of that alright ...

However, look at the REAL problem. For decades now the extras (and
wannabe generals) have pulled ARRL strings (and the reverse,
self-cycling really) to control amateur radio and steer the course.
Those were and are PUBLIC airwaves they grabbed. Joe Blow Public was
unconcerned--they got away with it.

Now we set here in the PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS. They attempt to re-implement
the old strategy and find it is not working. Those USENET GODS are on
to them, they see though their thinly veiled text and to their hearts.
Those USENET GODS insist public newsgroups are PUBLIC ...

.... end of story.

Regards,
JS