KH6HZ wrote:

...
I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and
Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all
viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings,
including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members.

*snicker*

73
kh6hz



HA HA ...

No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ...

The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is
going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen
again, but, has been going on far too long ...

With the focus of this group being forced away from "code/no code" we
should be able to search out some common ground. I think bringing out
the welcome wagon for new licensees would be a good idea.

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:

...
I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian
Burke, and Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and
equitable to all viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good
balance of postings, including posts from Extra-class operators and
ARRL members.

*snicker*

73
kh6hz



HA HA ...

No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ...

Yes, It would be bad. Len can't control his behavior. Ten years of his
archived newsgroup posts exists to back up my statement.

The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is
going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen
again, but, has been going on far too long ...

There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

...
There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Again, when will you guys quit, let's cut straight to the chase--seems
no one would make a good moderator, excepting those with extra licenses.
If push comes to shove, probably the best compromise you could expect
is they would allow a general in ...

Regards,
JS

On Jan 28, 4:21�pm, John Smith I wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:* ...

I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and
Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all
viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings,
including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members.

*snicker*

73
kh6hzHA HA ...

No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ...

No sweat. I can do it. Have done it. Problem is that I
could hardly post a thing. To be effective, moderators
CANNOT get into the thick of a contentious subject.

The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is
going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen
again, but, has been going on far too long ...

That's true. But, these olde-tymers have "had their way"
as "superiors" that I doubt (sincerely) that they could
stop.

With the focus of this group being forced away from "code/no code" we
should be able to search out some common ground. *I think bringing out
the welcome wagon for new licensees would be a good idea.

Yes, but the "welcomes" would STILL be out of the ARRL
hymn book, unchanged.

You forget that so many hams are so into THEIR thing
that they've seldom reached out of their own experiences
to imagine How To Do It with total strangers.

For example, that hoary old schtick "Talk anywhere else
in the world on your own radio!" with a ham license.
While true, the ionosphere is not open 24/7 and folks in
far lands aren't keeping the same time as any in the 7
time zones of the USA. A little handheld cell phone
can do it, no sweat. Co$t? Much less than a fraction
of a ham station, antenna, cost and the nasty looks from
spouse or family on wasting time with ham radio.

"Learn a lifelong whatever?" Possibly for a teen-ager.
For Mr/Ms Ordinary Other Job Skill probably NOT.
One thing all these "I-learned-it-as-a-teenager" extras
forget that there isn't any set "requirement" to do it
that way. Since they kept harping on the "no age
limit" thing they've totally forgotten that it works the
OTHER way on the "age spectrum."

When you boil everything down to a slow simmer you
won't find ANY of these lofty radiomen interested in
helping others, only themselves. Everything from
collecting Titles and Certificates to Club Calls for
clubs that don't exist.

They won't step out of their Personal-Interest area to
see how other groups do it, won't acknowledge other
groups surviving, and think the world of reality is still
the same as when they were young long ago.

I don't know the "answers" to getting anyone involved.
I can - dispassionately - tell them what the amateur
radio service is supposed to be. I would rather tell
them about the wonderful opportunities in engineering
or many other technologically-oriented occupations.
It's NOT my job to "tell" these lofty "superior" amateurs
how to do it. If they were so damn "superior" they
would already KNOW. shrug

36.5,
LA

wrote:

...

Len:

Don't get excited OM. Your chances are about even with mine ... or
anyone with a general or less ...

Get your license Len, on the 23rd if possible! grin Make that an
extra waitress!

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

...
There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Again, when will you guys quit, let's cut straight to the chase--seems
no one would make a good moderator, excepting those with extra licenses.
If push comes to shove, probably the best compromise you could expect
is they would allow a general in ...

Regards,
JS

I think you should quit, anonymous John. Which general--Wesley Clark?

You seem to see some conspiracy in the creation of the moderated
newsgroup. There are other moderated newsgroups which work quite well.
There are a number of moderated e-mail reflectors which works quite
well. No one who behaves as Len Anderson is permitted to post to the
topband reflector, the Ten-Tec reflector, The Butternut antenna
reflector or the DX reflector. No Mark Morgans issue countless "Wogger
on rrapage" posts. No Roger Wisemans foul the reflectors with demented
filth.

As soon as one of Len's tirades veered off course into an anti-ARRL
rant, filled with "tsk, tsk" and "poor baby", his post would be dumped.
His "Spanky Spanky", "Herr Oberst", "Sister Nun of the Above" and the
like would get him banned in short order. He'd have to behave or he'd
be given the boot.

It really is that simple.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
...
I think you should quit, anonymous John. Which general--Wesley Clark?

You seem to see some conspiracy in the creation of the moderated
newsgroup. There are other moderated newsgroups which work quite well.
There are a number of moderated e-mail reflectors which works quite
well. No one who behaves as Len Anderson is permitted to post to the
topband reflector, the Ten-Tec reflector, The Butternut antenna
reflector or the DX reflector. No Mark Morgans issue countless "Wogger
on rrapage" posts. No Roger Wisemans foul the reflectors with demented
filth.

As soon as one of Len's tirades veered off course into an anti-ARRL
rant, filled with "tsk, tsk" and "poor baby", his post would be dumped.
His "Spanky Spanky", "Herr Oberst", "Sister Nun of the Above" and the
like would get him banned in short order. He'd have to behave or he'd
be given the boot.

It really is that simple.

Dave K8MN

Well then, anyone with less than a general would be a good candidate for
support to "Joe Blow Ham." Well, as long as they weren't a good ole'
buddy of the "evil extras."

Maybe one extra, one general, one tech, etc. Can't see how that would
look "stacked", long as they demonstrated they weren't all "good ole'
buddies."

Many ways really, only one not acceptable really ... extra, extra read
all about it ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:

Yes, but the "welcomes" would STILL be out of the ARRL
hymn book, unchanged.

[insults]

You forget that so many hams are so into THEIR thing
that they've seldom reached out of their own experiences
to imagine How To Do It with total strangers.

For example, that hoary old schtick "Talk anywhere else
in the world on your own radio!" with a ham license.
While true, the ionosphere is not open 24/7 and folks in
far lands aren't keeping the same time as any in the 7
time zones of the USA.

You've introduced another of your factual errors, Leonard.
Barring a solar flare, it is quite possible for me to talk to radio
amateurs in other parts of the world around the clock if I have some
knowledge of propagation and of sunrise/sunset times. I can work the
Japanese, Asiatic Russians, Australians, New Zealanders and the like on
160, 80 and 40 meters near my sunrise. I can work Europe, the Middle
East and Africa during my morning and afternoon hours on at least one of
the bands 10/12/15/17/20m. Near my sunset I can work the Europeans,
Middle East and Africa on 30, 40, 80 or 160m.

I would have thought that a man with your expertise would have known
these things.

A little handheld cell phone
can do it, no sweat. Co$t? Much less than a fraction
of a ham station, antenna, cost and the nasty looks from
spouse or family on wasting time with ham radio.

Does it cost less? Start calling folks in Japan and Australia. See
those minutes add up. Do you think you'd get funny looks from your
spouse or family if you told them that you were just calling a series of
overseas friends every day for a chat?



"Learn a lifelong whatever?" Possibly for a teen-ager.
For Mr/Ms Ordinary Other Job Skill probably NOT.
One thing all these "I-learned-it-as-a-teenager" extras
forget that there isn't any set "requirement" to do it
that way. Since they kept harping on the "no age
limit" thing they've totally forgotten that it works the
OTHER way on the "age spectrum."

It is difficult to make out just what you mean, Len. What works what
OTHER way on the "age spectrum"? Do you mean that there is an upper age
limit? Do you mean that old folks have other things to do? Do you mean
that amateur radio wouldn't be lifelong for an old person?


When you boil everything down to a slow simmer you
won't find ANY of these lofty radiomen interested in
helping others, only themselves.

Now you're making additional factual errors based on your lack of
personal knowledge. Now you can let your slow simmer turn to a slow burn.

Everything from
collecting Titles and Certificates to Club Calls for
clubs that don't exist.

Pardon me for noticing, but the above doesn't appear to be factual or a
sentence.

They won't step out of their Personal-Interest area to
see how other groups do it, won't acknowledge other
groups surviving, and think the world of reality is still
the same as when they were young long ago.

Excuse me, Leonard. I hate to interrupt spirited soapbox oratory, but I
don't understand what when you write "to see how other groups do it" and
"won't acknowledge other groups surviving".

I'm under no misunderstanding that today's world is the exactly the same
as it was when I grew up. Some things don't change. There are parents
and children and family budgets and competing areas of interest.

I don't know the "answers" to getting anyone involved.
I can - dispassionately - tell them what the amateur
radio service is supposed to be.

....as you've been told and as you understand it.

I would rather tell
them about the wonderful opportunities in engineering
or many other technologically-oriented occupations.

I think you'd be the last guy in the world I'd want to ask about leisure
activities then.

It's NOT my job to "tell" these lofty "superior" amateurs
how to do it.

You've told us for years that it was your job. You became a
self-appointed advocate.

If they were so damn "superior" they
would already KNOW. shrug

If you were so damn "superior", you'd have had that "Extra right out of
the box" for seven years.

36.5

33 1/3

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

...

Dave:

You know, I am glad you brought this all up.

No, not a conspiracy in terms of "gov't. conspiracy." Just normal
"human conspiracy", like when the republicans oppose the democrats and
the reverse, and they get together and put together a "game plan." Just
dirty little street smart tricks and tactics to get ones wishes put over
on another. Like when you call up a friend and get him to help and/or
support what you wish to accomplish, or join a group or club which
supports your interests, or join a lobbying group, etc.

You know, exactly what Mr. Schleck is so good at, why I call him
"political", why I refer to those aiding him in his "game plan", the
henchmen. You know, like stacking the deck with all extras which are in
agreement with him and have egos equal his size.

Ban Len, you mentioned banning Len in your post I am responding to?
Well yes, that is "part of the game plan" I would imagine, and anyone
else not falling into the moderated plan.

Yes, that is what they EXACTLY have in mind, take a public newsgroup and
turn it into a "good ole' boys club."

Well, if that is what they want, let them engage in a private forum
which is available on the internet. You know, they can set up a room
for themselves on an instant messenger. They can create a private chat
room on IRC. Hell, they can set up a private email list and sit there.

Why confuse a public newsgroup with a private chat room or private
instant messenger chat room.

Naaa, that "Military Conspiracy" stuff is all theirs. That is why they
have to run things they way they are attempting ...

Regards,
JS

On Jan 28, 2:45�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ...

N2EY:

I suspect you attempt to wear me out, when you pick apart the longest
posts and stretch them to eternity.

You suspect wrong, John. I'm just looking for information.

Besides, with 174 postings to rrap so far this month, I don't think I
could wear you out by simply asking some questions.

Let us cut to the chase, do you support making "the committee"
(moderators) for the moderated group out of a balanced range of
licenses, thoughts, ideas and "styles." *

Depends on what is meant by "balanced". Does it mean that there
must be a certain number from each license class, with the standards
lowered for some and raised for others to make sure that numerical
"balance" is achieved no matter what?

Do you support ONLY banning
posts which are crude, vulgar and are only based on a personal attack?

I support blocking posts which are crude, or vulgar, or which contain
personal attacks, or which contain clear uncorrected factual errors,
or which are so off-topic as to have no clear connection to amateur
radio. Off-topic blocking should be used sparingly, because IMHO in
most cases some sort of connection to amateur radio can be made.

Do you support allowing a "bit" of off-topic posts if they help support
and shore up the goodwill of amateurs, acting together? *

Yes!

Do you support
stopping ANY strong personality or personalities from gaining control
and dominating a moderated group with control and dictator tactics?

Depends on what you mean by "strong personality".

*Do
you oppose allowing EXTRAS to be "lord" over the "peasants" of amateur
radio?

I don't need to oppose what doesn't happen.

*Do you accept no code amateurs are just as deserving of the
right to use the public airwaves as any other?

I consider all amateurs who have passed the required tests and who
have clean records to be equally deserving to use the privileges
granted by their licenses.

Or, to put it another way: Any licensed radio amateur who plays by
the rules and good operating practice is a "real ham" in my book,
regardless of license class, vintage of tests passed, modes or bands
used, age, gender, etc.

I haven't yet seen an FCC-issued amateur radio license with the term
"no code" on it. All FCC-licensed amateurs are allowed to *use* Morse
Code. Some have passed test(s) on it, some haven't, that's all.

Now, if you say NO to any of the above, we have a problem of
disagreement. *If not we are in TOTAL agreement ...

Whatever.

But the big question is this: You have described Paul Schleck as
"slick" and "prejudiced" without any proof other than your
opinion.

You have claimed that "he has demonstrated his abuse and that only
members of this group, at large, can rein him in."

You have stated: "Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post
them to
make my point un-undeniably clear?"

and

"There might be a few posts from you I would like to include
also ..."

To which I again reply: "Show me".

If Paul is as you say, then it should be a simple matter to show me
the
evidence from his postings to Usenet. You made the claims, but now
you're not backing them up.

This isn't a "DEMAND". It's just a request. But if you want me to
accept your
claims about another person, you need to provide me with evidence, not
just
unsupported statements.

Why should I prejudge what Paul & Co. will do without even giving him
and his
bunch a chance? It's not like his moderated group would replace any
existing group.

What discussions about amateur radio do you want to have that you
think would
not be allowed in a moderated group?


Jim, N2EY