On Jan 28, 12:43�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

On Jan 28, 1:48?am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:
Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:
...
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. ?Now, doesn't it?

What's wrong with what he wrote?

Gawd! ?I feel sick ...
Warmest regards,
JS

Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr.
Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? ?That he would consider
ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? ?If so, step right
up here to defend the man, I am waiting ...

I'm willing to give him and his group of moderators a chance.

Why aren't you?

My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!

Exactly how is he "crooked"?

And just to give a complete pictu

Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have
been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both
willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks.

All anyone has to do to confirm this is to look up his comments to
FCC, and mine. They're all in ECFS.

I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are
all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with
some and disagree with others.

The big question is this:

To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur
radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something
completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to
support such things, aren't we?

If someone is really interested in discussing amateur radio issues,
why would they not give the new, progressive and different
newsgroup a chance, without prejudging the result before it
begins?

Perhaps the problem some folks have is that they know they
won't be able to post unsubstantiated claims or ad hominem
attacks - and that just takes out all the fun for them.

Jim, N2EY
N2EY:

Don't let this be a shock to you, I thought of you specifically when I
constructed that text.

Why?

Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best
captains for this ship.

Show me how he is "slick" and "prejudiced".

Well, we have decades of their piloting to look
at, I am not happy with their steerage.

What's your alternative? btw, it's the FCC that makes the rules.

Moderation is hardly an open forum, it can easily be abused. *I, even if
I alone, believe Paul is NOT the man to provide leadership. *I do not
believe him to be either "fair" nor "just."

Why? *Because Paul does possess a VERY strong personality. *This is NOT
bad in and of itself. *But, if abused, it is. *I am claiming he has
demonstrated his abuse and that only members of this group, at large,
can rein him in.

Show me.

As I directly have stated, I fear Paul only seeks a "good ole' boys
club" composed of ego stroking extras, what part of that don't you
understand?

The part where you claim to know how the group will turn out
before it even starts.

*Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post them to
make my point un-undeniably clear?

Yes. If Paul is as "slick" and "prejudiced" as you claim,
that should be easy to show from his old postings.

Best way to show that is to provide direct links to the Google
archives.

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

Go right ahead.

I
fear Pauls' strong personality has had a "crowd control" effect upon
your tendencies also, and even you have fallen prey to the
"mass-hysteria-of-the-EXTRAS" ...

What does that mean, exactly? It sounds a little like a form
of ad hominem attack, in which being an Extra somehow
disqualifies someone from being objective.

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

JIm, N2EY

wrote:

...

N2EY:

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

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." Do you support ONLY banning
posts which are crude, vulgar and are only based on a personal attack?
Do you support allowing a "bit" of off-topic posts if they help support
and shore up the goodwill of amateurs, acting together? Do you support
stopping ANY strong personality or personalities from gaining control
and dominating a moderated group with control and dictator tactics? Do
you oppose allowing EXTRAS to be "lord" over the "peasants" of amateur
radio? Do you accept no code amateurs are just as deserving of the
right to use the public airwaves as any other?

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

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

wrote:
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?

And remember that "balanced" also means balanced ages,
balanced sexes, balanced races, balanced IQs, balanced
educations, ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote:

And remember that "balanced" also means balanced ages,
balanced sexes, balanced races, balanced IQs, balanced
educations, ...

I asked a question in news.groups.proposals as to exactly what the
correlation was between someone's ham radio license class and their ability
to effectively moderate a USENET newsgroup.

Nobody came up with a suitable response, thus, I have to conclude there *IS*
no relationship between the two.

I'll still wait for a suitable answer, logically presented, at which time I
reserve the right to change my opinion.

From every posting I've seen, it appears to me that those who object the
loudest to the proposed moderation team are those who seem to have a
deep-seated bias/hatred of extra-class hams and the ARRL in general.

73
kh6hz

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
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?

And remember that "balanced" also means balanced ages,
balanced sexes, balanced races, balanced IQs, balanced
educations, ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil:

Hmmm. That is weird, just had a vision of a group of people calling
themselves the EXTRA-KKK. Dressed in white robes. Showing up in the
middle of the night. Pulling down CB antennas with red neck chevey
trucks. Bustin' 'em up and rearranging them in the shape of a cross,
wrapping 'em in rags, dousing 'em in gas and torching 'em.

Darn, I hate visions like that ... guess I'd better lay off these
freshly ground coffee beans!

busting-a-gut
Warmest regards,
JS

wrote:

...

N2EY:

So, you are looking for information ...

Well, Paul W. Schleck is a politician, he can say one thing and do
another, simple really, you see it all the time. The moderation groups
intention is to stop all board discussion on amateur radio and only
support the wishes and steerage of a relatively few hams--especially
those of a certain group of extra class license holders. They mean to
keep the old class system, established on morse, in effect.

You do not need to listen to the lies to know the truth I have stated
above, you only need to watch their actions ...

one-hundred-and-seventy-four-postings? Geesh, I must be getting old,
when I was younger I would have quadrupled that number by now--just
demonstrates the necessity for recruiting new blood in here!

By "balance", I mean the group of moderators should represent the true
"picture" of all amateurs. The moderators composed of all extras is a
DEAD GIVEAWAY it does not--that seems a simple enough concept to grasp,
to me.

Now on crude, vulgar, posts on sexual preference, and completely "off
base" posts--we agree. At least that pleases me to no end. NEVER ALLOW
THEM!

Seems we agree on "friendly" posts which might miss the topic by a point
or two, pose no one an attack and simply do no harm. This pleases me,
our agreement they SHOULD be tolerated.

However, you darn well know there are many extras who DO attempt to be
"Lord" over the "peasant" tech-holding-no-coders. That is a damn lie.
Posts which have gone here before more than support that. I am sure
anyone reading this has memories of those posts.

Seems we can also agree, the public airwaves are just that, public.
Methods and means need to found and implemented to place these back into
the hands of Joe Blow Public--where they belong ...

Now, as to Paul, he has consistantly shown real "political talents", he
simply promises all things to everyone. In the end you get a moderation
group of Paul and his henchmen--that is SLICK!!! And, I am sure the
techs are thrilled. I don't even think the generals appreciate that
much ... You know as well as I, Paul imagines his little robo-guard on
duty, armed with ip addys, newsserver ips and names, just ready to
killfile posts from those NOT supporting their ideas. Close your eyes,
you can see it to--called "human conspiracy." That bunch would allow
Len in to point out their faulty thinking about as willingly as I would
live with a rattlesnake! There is much truth in Lens' posting,
sometimes they are just a bit cryptic and it has to be "dug" for.
However, those he points 'em at are so blinded by their egos, they think
it is all BS--it ain't ...

We will see about posting some of those old posts I referred to here,
when I need them, you will see them ...

However, N2EY, you have at least "textually" made concessions I did not
expect! At first I am tempted to think I "had you all wrong." Then I
remember the "Standard Tactics of the Extras", which is "Say One Thing,
Do Another."

However, I hold out hope ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

N2EY:

So, you are looking for information ...

Well, Paul W. Schleck is a politician, he can say one thing and do
another, simple really, you see it all the time. The moderation groups
intention is to stop all board discussion on amateur radio and only
support the wishes and steerage of a relatively few hams--especially
those of a certain group of extra class license holders. They mean to
keep the old class system, established on morse, in effect.

No, John, I'm afraid you have it wrong. That is not the intent at all.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd have something factual with which to
back up your conspiracy theories instead of just presenting wild
accusations.

You do not need to listen to the lies to know the truth I have stated
above, you only need to watch their actions ...

You haven't stated any truths, John. You've only presented some
crackpot view.

one-hundred-and-seventy-four-postings? Geesh, I must be getting old,
when I was younger I would have quadrupled that number by now--just
demonstrates the necessity for recruiting new blood in here!

By "balance", I mean the group of moderators should represent the true
"picture" of all amateurs.

Who says that should be the case? The posters will present a view of
amateur radio. Do you think the newsgroup to which you are posting does
that?

The moderators composed of all extras is a
DEAD GIVEAWAY it does not--that seems a simple enough concept to grasp,
to me.

For an anonymous fellow who likes to condescend, I don't see your
statement as logically sound. Your concept is simple to grasp if you
throw common sense and logic out the window.

Now on crude, vulgar, posts on sexual preference, and completely "off
base" posts--we agree. At least that pleases me to no end. NEVER ALLOW
THEM!

I'm glad to see that there are points on which we can agree.

Seems we agree on "friendly" posts which might miss the topic by a point
or two, pose no one an attack and simply do no harm. This pleases me,
our agreement they SHOULD be tolerated.

They could be tolerated with a note to the poster that his post is
really off-topic.

However, you darn well know there are many extras who DO attempt to be
"Lord" over the "peasant" tech-holding-no-coders. That is a damn lie.

Your statement? I think we've seen a similar number of lower class
ticket holders who feel that they know all there is to know. We even
have a one fellow with no license who tries to lord it over all radio
amateurs.

Posts which have gone here before more than support that. I am sure
anyone reading this has memories of those posts.

Seems we can also agree, the public airwaves are just that, public.

Usenet isn't the public airwaves, "John".

Methods and means need to found and implemented to place these back into
the hands of Joe Blow Public--where they belong ...

That isn't the way it works, "John". We have the FCC to regulate access
to the airwaves. You can't set up and operate an FM broadcast station
just because you want to. You can't get on the amateur bands just
because you want to.

Now, as to Paul, he has consistantly shown real "political talents", he
simply promises all things to everyone.

He's never promised me a thing.

In the end you get a moderation
group of Paul and his henchmen--that is SLICK!!!

Your use of the word "henchmen" is slick. Your unsubstantiated
accusations are slick.

And, I am sure the
techs are thrilled.

Are they?


I don't even think the generals appreciate that
much ...

Just for grins, which license class do you hold, "John"?

You know as well as I, Paul imagines his little robo-guard on
duty, armed with ip addys, newsserver ips and names, just ready to
killfile posts from those NOT supporting their ideas. Close your eyes,
you can see it to--called "human conspiracy." That bunch would allow
Len in to point out their faulty thinking about as willingly as I would
live with a rattlesnake!

That has to be the wildest conspiratorial nonsense I've seen in this
group for quite some time.

There is much truth in Lens' posting,
sometimes they are just a bit cryptic and it has to be "dug" for.

....and sometimes there is nothing at the bottom of the hole after all
that digging.

However, those he points 'em at are so blinded by their egos, they think
it is all BS--it ain't ...

You don't know any of us, "John". Len is a sidewalk superintendent to
amateur radio. He sits on the sidelines and shouts, "that's no way to
do that!"

We will see about posting some of those old posts I referred to here,
when I need them, you will see them ...

Great.

However, N2EY, you have at least "textually" made concessions I did not
expect! At first I am tempted to think I "had you all wrong."

You probably did have Jim all wrong. As I pointed out, you don't know
any of us.

Then I
remember the "Standard Tactics of the Extras", which is "Say One Thing,
Do Another."

I had some hope for you, "John". You've just slid back into the mire.

However, I hold out hope ...

What is it that you're hoping, "John?" Are you hoping that the
moderated newsgroup doesn't come into existence?

Regards,
JS

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
...

Dave:

That is EXACTLY it, I have nothing wrong, you are becoming redundant in
your denials ...

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
...

Dave:

That is EXACTLY it, I have nothing wrong, you are becoming redundant in
your denials ...

You have plenty wrong, "John". You haven't nothing to back up your
accusations. You're empty.

Dave K8MN