Do you have something to say about shortwave? If not, post elsewhere.
Or better yet, not at all.

Steve

David wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:42:34 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

Additionally, what does the FAQ say in regards to your plethora of OT posts?

Covered under ...''many more.''

Sure it is, 'tard boy... sure it is.

Continue to tote.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

david, David. DAVID !

"David" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jul 2005 12:49:01 -0700, "John S." wrote:




Were you answering a question? Or did you become the group
moderator.

A few anal-retentive types were erroneously claiming that this group
was exclusively reserved for discussions of HF, which I have known
for
as long as this group's been around, to be false.

And off topic posts are strongly discouraged, too. The
FAQ obviously does a wonderful job of discouraging
that.

Is the goal to remove the political/religious discussion
or to make sure that the appropriate topic is discussed
in the right forum?? If it's the former, an RFD to make
r.r.s a moderated group would be the way to go. We
discussed this ad nauseum in 2000, so it wouldn't surprise
me in the least that it's being discussed again. The
solution then was to have several people create Yahoo
groups, and a lot of people who had good knowledge
to share but tired of the religious flame wars simply
migrated off r.r.s and to the Yahoo groups.

If the desire is to make sure the appropriate topic
(in this case satellite radio) gets discussed in the
right location (alt.radio.satellite), then a modification
of the Charter and FAQ is more appropriate.

Every usenet group is supposed to have an FAQ. I quoted from the
one
about rec.radio.shortwave.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/monitoring/introduction/

If you have issues, I suggest you take them up with this guy:

http://www.brandi.org/logs/

Of course, the FAQ is a living document, and can be amended
as needed. When the FAQ was last modified in 1995, satellite
radio in it's current form did not exist. Nor internet radio.
Websites like rffun (Universal's), eham and others did not exist
in their present form, and all that disseminated knowledge
is not reflected in the FAQ. It would save a lot of time and
energy repeating commonly known things if the FAQ were
simply updated.

Cellular phones would qualify under the rec.radio.shortwave
FAQ, but you never see them spoken about here. Same with
satellite television or regular television. CB or scanners you'll
see once in a blue moon, but they qualify also. As written,
the FAQ is so broad that anything you can monitor using
a radio is on topic. Probably even using a radio telescope
for monitoring would be on topic too, but how often does
that show up on the menu??

The one big item not mentioned in the FAQ is "what is
a radio?" Everyone knew what that meant back then in
1995, but it's not so cut-and-dried now, given that the
traditional AM and FM modes of communication now
also have satellite digital decoders to share space with as well.

I think it's time that the charter and FAQ were updated to
reflect the changes of the past 10 years, and whether or not
certain topics should be covered by r.r.s.

--Mike L.

John Smith wrote:
I missed where he was attempting to become "the group moderator."

Since he gave to attribution I was trying to guess why he had composed
such a long piece on the purpose of this group.


Which suggestions in his post were his?

No way to tell, but since he gave no source one could be left with the
impression he meant for us to believe he wrote them.

And, which were the original
suggestions?

Not sure what you mean.

David wrote:
On 28 Jul 2005 12:49:01 -0700, "John S." wrote:




Were you answering a question? Or did you become the group moderator.

A few anal-retentive types were erroneously claiming that this group
was exclusively reserved for discussions of HF, which I have known for
as long as this group's been around, to be false.

Every usenet group is supposed to have an FAQ. I quoted from the one
about rec.radio.shortwave.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/monitoring/introduction/

If you have issues, I suggest you take them up with this guy:

http://www.brandi.org/logs/

In the future it would be very helpful for those of us who cannot read
your mind if you quote the source when you copy rarely read things like
the FAQ's. I doubt that Brandi.org will be able to control the way you
post so contacting him would be fruitless.

"Michael Lawson" ) writes:

Of course, the FAQ is a living document, and can be amended
as needed. When the FAQ was last modified in 1995, satellite
radio in it's current form did not exist. Nor internet radio.
Websites like rffun (Universal's), eham and others did not exist
in their present form, and all that disseminated knowledge
is not reflected in the FAQ. It would save a lot of time and
energy repeating commonly known things if the FAQ were
simply updated.

The FAQ is a response to commonly asked questions. There is no
requirement for a newsgroup to have one, and there isn't anything
official about it. Someone gets tired of the repetitive questions,
and puts them together with answers. Either it stays, or someone
comes up with a better one.

More important is the charter and even the discussion leading up
to the creation of the newsgroup.

I went and dug up some of that back on Apr 24 2003 in a thread titled
"Recreation Radio Shortwave: Mission Statement - Charter" with links
to early newsgroup articles.

Sadly, the new google interface means that the links to those
old articles don't work. You can still retrieve the links by
clicking the "view original post" link, but then one has to cut
and paste them in. I can't be bothered doing all that again.

But from when I did do that earlier checking, it's clear that this
newsgroup is about more than shortwave. It's about receiving so
it includes long wave and AM broadcast band and FM broadcast band.
I can't quote at the moment, but my interpertation is that it was
meant to be about DX'ing, ie not talking about the local top forty
FM station, but room enough for discussing hearing that Mississippi
station for a few minutes in the summer when you are a long way away.

Again my interpretation based on that earlier reading is that it
wasn't mean for political discussion.

I should also point out that it wasn't intended to be another newsgroup
for amateur radio. There is a whole hierarchy for that,
rec.radio.amateur.* Obviously there are times when amateur radio can
come up here, like someone wanting to tune the ham bands and isn't sure
where they are. But it's not intended things that only pertain to
being licensed, and it sure isn't meant to be a spillover from
rec.radio.amateur.misc or rec.radio.amateur.policy and some fools
seem to think.


Michael

I agree that we don't want to begin an endless discussion about whether
rec.radio.shortwave should be moderated. We just shouldn't go there.

Updating the charter and FAQ seems like a promising direction, though.
Let's go for it.

Steve

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...

"Michael Lawson" ) writes:

Of course, the FAQ is a living document, and can be amended
as needed. When the FAQ was last modified in 1995, satellite
radio in it's current form did not exist. Nor internet radio.
Websites like rffun (Universal's), eham and others did not exist
in their present form, and all that disseminated knowledge
is not reflected in the FAQ. It would save a lot of time and
energy repeating commonly known things if the FAQ were
simply updated.

The FAQ is a response to commonly asked questions. There is no
requirement for a newsgroup to have one, and there isn't anything
official about it. Someone gets tired of the repetitive questions,
and puts them together with answers. Either it stays, or someone
comes up with a better one.

More important is the charter and even the discussion leading up
to the creation of the newsgroup.

I went and dug up some of that back on Apr 24 2003 in a thread
titled
"Recreation Radio Shortwave: Mission Statement - Charter" with links
to early newsgroup articles.

Sadly, the new google interface means that the links to those
old articles don't work. You can still retrieve the links by
clicking the "view original post" link, but then one has to cut
and paste them in. I can't be bothered doing all that again.

But from when I did do that earlier checking, it's clear that this
newsgroup is about more than shortwave. It's about receiving so
it includes long wave and AM broadcast band and FM broadcast band.
I can't quote at the moment, but my interpertation is that it was
meant to be about DX'ing, ie not talking about the local top forty
FM station, but room enough for discussing hearing that Mississippi
station for a few minutes in the summer when you are a long way
away.

Yes, and that was before the current interest in
satellite radio or internet radio was in place.
Clarification is need now on those two items.

Again my interpretation based on that earlier reading is that it
wasn't mean for political discussion.

Nope. That's why the more explicit newsgroups for
political discussion were created in the first place.
Of course, being usenet, off topic stuff abounds.

I should also point out that it wasn't intended to be another
newsgroup
for amateur radio. There is a whole hierarchy for that,
rec.radio.amateur.* Obviously there are times when amateur radio
can
come up here, like someone wanting to tune the ham bands and isn't
sure
where they are. But it's not intended things that only pertain to
being licensed, and it sure isn't meant to be a spillover from
rec.radio.amateur.misc or rec.radio.amateur.policy and some fools
seem to think.

Correct. IIRC, the amateur groups predate the shortwave
one by a bit.

--Mike L.

The odd satellite radio postings to this group are relatively
infrequent compared to the endless idiotic political ranting. Indeed,
with satellite radio, there is some degree of topic overlap in that a
number of the major international broadcasters can be heard on
satellite radio. I myself would not come to rec.radio.shortwave to
start a thread on a satellite radio related topic, but if someone else
does, I have no reason to get irritated over it. If someone is
interested in the given topic, then let 'em respond to it. If not,
delete, ignore, and get on with your life. We have to wade through a
lot of rubbish on this group as it is with the "Nuclear Nightmare"
and "Bring 'Em On" nonsense. And as such threads as these
demonstrate, there's a big appetite for off topic trash in this
group. Let's face it, amending some charter or any other such
measures is an utter waste of time. The fact of the matter is that
periodic satellite radio related postings would continue to emerge, as
would the deluge of other off-topic postings. The instigators would
continue to instigate; the ranting types would continue to rant.
It's what they enjoy doing: whether it's in giving their stern
disapproval to satellite radio or in displaying their mindless
political views. Enjoy the banter, folks. This is usenet.