From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Note: "Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'

The B8MB plans to begin voting on this proposal after five days. Please
offer any final discussion or comments before the end of this waiting
period. Voting may take up to one week (7 days); a result will be posted
following the end of the voting period.

Translation: We're going to get what we want regardless
of commentary.


SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:

The proposal in its current form reflects the results of feedback from
posters to news.groups.proposals in response to the 1st and 2nd RFD's
and a Straw Poll. It is also, realistically, a reflection of what Big-8
board members - including Tim Skirvin, Steve Bonine, and Kathy Morgan -
indicated that they would support, and vote for.

Translation: We're going to get what we want regardless
of commentary.


Creation of an all-encompassing moderated amateur radio newsgroup is
consistent with the findings of a Straw Poll in news.groups.proposals,
where approximately 60% of respondents were in the categories of
"Support initial name, no stated preference for scope" or "Support
initial name and all-amateur-radio scope. Trying to characterize or
summarize the opinions of those who might have been leaning towards a
misc+policy scope proved difficult, and resulted in two respondents out
of 21 polled (Jim Riley and Kathy Morgan) following up to clarify their
own positions and correct their categorization in the Straw Poll. Jim
indicated that he should be moved to the Straw Poll category of "Support
initial name, no stated preference for scope," instead. Kathy indicated
that she would support a proposal where the newsgroup name matched the
scope. No one who was initially categorized in the Straw Poll as,
"Support initial name, no stated preference for scope," or, "Support
initial name and all-amateur-radio scope," followed up to
news.groups.proposals to object to their own categorization. Because of
all of this, the alternative of a misc+policy-only newsgroup was not
seen as one that could gain political traction, broad readership
support, or majority Big-8 board support.

Translation: A NAME is everything. Content is superfluous.


Less than 15% of respondents expressed objection to the creation of a
moderated newsgroup entirely. None of these respondents objected to
their categorization in the Straw Poll.

Objection is useless, all shall be subject to assimilation.


The rec.radio.amateur.equipment and rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
newsgroups are being added to the distribution of a pointer to this 3rd
RFD as a courtesy, and for their information.

Noblesse oblige?


They were not added
previously because the existence or form of a moderated discussion
newsgroup was not seen by the proponents or most of the RFD discussion
participants as something that would seriously affect them. Nor has
there been any significant discussion in the recent past for making
moderated alternatives for those topics, either specifically or
generally, on the newsgroups. Making them aware of this 3rd RFD, and
the opportunity to object during this Last Call for Comments, was seen
as a reasonable compromise between informing them as a courtesy versus
not subjecting them to unwelcome amounts of off-topic meta-discussion.

Resistance is useless, objectors shall be assimilated.


rec.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to at least the
existing rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroups.
The rec.radio.amateur.misc newsgroup is chartered to discuss amateur
("ham") radio practices, contents, events, rules, etc., including
anything related to amateur radio not specifically covered by another
rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroup. The rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup
is chartered to discuss ham radio rules, regulations, and policy. Over
the past several years, the traffic on both groups has become largely
flame wars, spam, and personal ad-hominem discussions of past, present,
and future violations and violators, having little or no bearing on
amateur radio. Polite requests by serious group posters to the
offenders to refrain from such behavior have not resulted in elimination
of such behavior and has in fact resulted in another series of flame
wars. As a result, many knowledgeable and concerned posters in both
groups have ceased being active therein.

Flame wars, spam, personal "ad-hominem discussions" were
all present on both RRAM and RRAP ten years ago. Where
was the Hue and Cry for moderation by some "Big8" then?
[nowhere]


Prior to the deterioration of rec.radio.amateur.misc and
rec.radio.amateur.policy, both groups had active discussion of their
chartered topics.

Perhaps there was prior to ten years ago, but a rewrite
of history using rose-colored pens doesn't make it so.
However, a constant repetition of "the way it was" will
cause others to believe it is so.


It is expected that offering a moderated group will
persuade those who formerly participated to resume their participation
in rational, focussed, and informed discussion.

Yes, and the USA invaded Iraq to get rid of Weapons of
Mass Destruction.

Proper moderation will
enable serious postings to the group to remain on topic while not
limiting who can voice opinions or what opinions can be voiced.

Resistance is futile, all will be assimilated.




General communications law or government policy of various government
agencies is also on-topic, as long as the discussion relates to amateur
radio. Examples would be emergency communications, local antenna
restrictions, and property deed restrictions applying to operation of
amateur radio stations.

Discussion of other types of radio, such as Citizens Band, Broadcast,
other Personal Radio Services, Commercial or Private Land Mobile, and
Marine or Aviation services are off-topic, except when *directly*
related to amateur radio.

"*Directly*" is not defined. The assumption seems to be that
all amateur radio technology is unique and separate from radio
tecnology that all other radio services use. That is a violation
of known physical laws.

Similarly, discussion of methods violating
applicable communications law and regulations concerning radio equipment
or operations are off-topic.

Translation: Human law supersedes known physical laws.



The following are prohibited:

* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.

...resistance is futile, all shall be assimilated.


* Crossposting is generally not allowed, with the general exception of
crossposts of bulletins, FAQ's, and other informational articles to
rec.radio.info, rec.answers, and news.answers. Infrequent
administrative crossposts may occasionally be allowed at the sole
discretion of the moderator.

FINALLY, a rule that makes sense.


Individual posters may be temporarily banned for consistently violating
the group charter.

...such as negative opinions, however slight, about ARRL.

...such as negative opinions, however slight, about the
past regulatory law concerning amateur radio, especially
if the group could never have had life experience in that
time period. N.B.: All "history" of amateur radio shall
be as defined by the sole authority, the ARRL.

...such as definition examples of "MARS IS amateur
radio" or "CW gets through when nothing else will."


Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly
rejected or banned, either for specific content or by a specific
moderator, may appeal the decision. They may do so by contacting the
Appeals Board, consisting of a rotating group of 2 or more moderators,
at the Administrative Contact address below. The Board will discuss and
vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is
successful. The Board will also reply within 14 days to unsuccessful
submitters of any appeal that is on-topic, reasoned, civilly stated, and
is not substantially an attempt to revisit the subject matter and
arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.

Appeals are useless, all shall be assimilated.


The moderators are seeking additional candidates for the moderation team
in order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of
bias. We would especially like to find moderators in other time zones,
countries/continents, etc.

Assimilation into the Collective not going well?

"Minimal posting delays?" With two-week turn-around times on
"discussions," message throughput might be faster through the
NTS via CW.

"Appearance" of bias?!?

Tsk, tsk, the Internet is the Internet, regardless of those
clinging to the ancient 'Usenet' ideal (that never was). Those
who live in little cozy cloisters of like opinions will praise
one another without end, deluded into believing their tiny
clubhouse is "the world" and they the spokespersons for it.

No amount of high-sounding rhetoric and emulation of law
language nor doctorate dissertaions on Roberts Rules of
Order will ever make an effective gathering place for new
ideas nor visions of the future. All it will do is re-enforce
delusions of grandeur about "expertise" and "judgement" that
becomes ludicrous when viewed by others.

On Feb 15, 3:15 pm, "
wrote:
From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Note: "Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'
i wish that instruction on voting would just be given then we vote and
see what the big is finaly going to do

On Feb 15, 12:48�pm, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:15 pm, "
wrote: From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup,rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

* *Note: *"Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'

i wish that instruction on voting would just be given then we vote and
see what the big is finaly going to do

I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

LA

wrote:

I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

On Feb 15, 4:05�pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. *Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

Tsk, tsk...you didn't look far enough...it is there also.


However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

Not being of the UK, I don't have a "behaviour."

But, "admonishment" from someone who had FAKE HAWAIIAN
RESIDENCY and a dozen FAKE "clubs" with trusteeship
calls for same, your "admonishment" is ten kinds of
HYPOCRISY. Tsk, tsk.

What you "doubt" is of no concern to me. You have been
ever so critical of my viewpoints for years. Why stop to
consider anything if your mindset is set in concrete? :-)

You might consider that the FCC announced (on 15 Dec 06)
that 06-178 would ELIMINATE code testing for ALL U.S.
amateur radio licenses. That is only about 7 days away.
My advocacy has always been to eliminate that code test.
Can you put two and two together and get the 100%-
correct 4?

Go QRT little man.

LA

On Feb 15, 7:05 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

wrote:

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

(as if it makes a difference what HH&C thinks...)

On Feb 15, 5:40?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

Aloha,
LA

The following was received on 15 Feb 07 in private e-mail
apparently as a response to my double-posted commentary
on the "Third RFD" posting by Paul Schleck:

news.groups.proposals was established to provide a congenial and
constructive place for discussion of new groups or changes to the
group list. Your submission has been rejected because it is not
consistent with this goal.

Of course...

I refuse to be assimilated into the Collective. :-)

"Congenial and constructive" discussion is apparently
making gratuitous nice-nice to the Big 8. shrug

Content that is not conducive to the development of a proposal is
disallowed, including personal attacks, derogatory nicknames,
repetitive arguments, and flames.

"Flames?" For mentioning a popular villain-figure
in the Star Trek fictional universe? Of course...

"Repetitive arguments?" Much of the "Third RFD" posting
was repetitive (almost to an extreme).

"Derogatory nicknames?" I think not. No one person was
NAMED in any way. However, it is clear I've "nicked"
some un-named person. Dreadfully sorry, old chop.

"Personal attacks?" How can there be such if NO person
was named?

You may wish to tone down your language and resubmit.

I do not.

Unless there has been a Revolution in the United States
of America in the last few hours, we citizens still
enjoy a measure of Freedom in expressing ourselves. That
is a Constitutional Right. I spent four years of my
life serving my country in the U.S. Army in order to help
defend that Constitution.

"Form letters" are common in the publishing industry.
I did not submit any manuscript for consideration of
purchase by the "Big 8." Ergo, with no money involved,
the "Big 8" has NO control over my actions, nor should
it expect to. All it can do is control and suppress
(partially) my commentary. It has successfully
suppressed my comments to "the Collective," but it has
failed to suppress my comments here. Tsk.

Best wishes for further Control and Suppression in the
future. Please be cognizant of the very real fact of
MANY avenues of free expression still open to all.

You can read
the charter of news.groups.proposals at http://www.big-8.org/~ngp/.

Done some while ago. Try not to assume that all are
ignorant of Ozymandias' Mighty Works.

I must congratulate this anonymous "moderator" on the
assumption that I CAN read. Yes, I can. Thank you.

Please direct your queries to .

Please direct YOUR queries to fellow members of the
Collective. Enjoy the hive mind experience.

Thank you,

- Moderator.

You are welcome, I'm sure, Your (or whomever).

genuflect

LA