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