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.

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

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.

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.

Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best
captains for this ship. Well, we have decades of their piloting to look
at, I am not happy with their steerage.

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.

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

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

Regards,
JS

On Jan 28, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:48?am, John Smith I wrote:

John Smith I wrote:

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.

funny this is the first I have heard of that

Yet we are both
willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks.

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?

why?

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?

by having issues with likehood of the result based on testing that
thery

I have seen what sort of discussion paul will and will not permit in
his NG by his own hand

HE wil permit poster to deliberate misquote nad FORBID calling this
deed what it in reply

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.

Pauls clearly will premit and will NOT premit any response I have the
proof of that by his own hand in my email box

Jim, N2EY

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

wrote:

...
Suspect? you are being kind I think

...
don't hold your breath waiting for an answer
Regards,
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

He may have valid arguments for such, who knows until we hear them?

Regards,
JS

From: John Smith I on Sun, Jan 28 2007 9:43 am

wrote:


And just to give a complete pictu

[a distorted one, a la Dali]

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.

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.

That is NOT a "complete picture" by any means...:-(

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?

That's total bull**** pronounced from ignorance of over
a decade of BBS activity in the USA prior to the Internet
becoming public in 1991. Note: "USENET" is carried ON
the Internet...it is NOT some separate, distinct, nor
original format venue that grew out of the original ARPANET.

"Moderation" is NOT something "new" in computer-modem
communications. It was practiced by Sysops on BBSs over
a quarter century ago.

N2EY:

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

:-)

Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best
captains for this ship. Well, we have decades of their piloting to look
at, I am not happy with their steerage.

As is common in academia, rank-title-status plus tenure are
the key ingredients to "leadership." In comparison to extras
there is only commonality, no difference. :-)

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."

He writes that he is fair. But, we can't put that to the
test until around 2009 when the 11th (or so) RFD is
completed and the moderated newsgroup actually
exists...:-(

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.

"Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[except in Newington, CT...]

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

Miccolis Standard Operating Practice is to put on his
barrister's robe and wig and DEMAND all to POST IT!!!

QED. :-)

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

All amateur extras "KNOW what is best for (their) ham radio."

Intrinsic in their emotional psyches.

They keep saying that so it must be "true," ey? :-)

Big brother George Orwell would be proud of them...

LA

wrote:

...
All amateur extras "KNOW what is best for (their) ham radio."

Intrinsic in their emotional psyches.

They keep saying that so it must be "true," ey? :-)

Big brother George Orwell would be proud of them...

LA



Len:

Now there is the crux of the matter, no one likes change but babies, and
they often cry while being changed ...

Regards,
JS

wrote in news:1170005683.713299.220380
@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:


Exactly how is he "crooked"?


I have him in my filter files because he somehow found it acceptable to
reply to every off topic thread in all the Ham newsgroups with a command
to cease and desist replying to the OT posters.

In my book, that makes him as bad as anyone else.


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.


Exactly!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

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.

Its my conclusion, years ago, that many posters in this forum are not
interested in things like "facts" when those facts contridict their own
little perceptions of reality, hatred of amateur extras, hatred of the ARRL,
etc.


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.

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