info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
227 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
Oct 1, 2015, 1:31:16 PM10/1/15
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Newsgroup line:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
uk.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to the existing
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup. Over the past several years, the traffic on
uk.radio.amateur 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
behaviour have not resulted in elimination of such behaviour and has in
fact resulted in another series of flame wars. As a result, many
knowledgeable and concerned posters in uk.radio.amateur have ceased
being active therein.
It is expected that offering a moderated group will persuade those who
formerly participated to resume their participation in rational,
focused, and informed discussion. 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.
CHARTER:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated
uk.radio.amateur.moderated is for the discussion of amateur ("ham")
radio, also known as the Amateur Radio Service, in the United Kingdom.
Possible topics include past, present, and future operating practices;
events; contests; past, present, and potential-future rules; power
limitations; authorised frequencies; allowed modes and band plans (or
other gentlemen's agreements) that govern how we are to operate; what
constitutes the acceptable operation of amateur stations.
This newsgroup is only intended to supplement, not supercede, any other
amateur radio newsgroups.
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. Similarly, discussion of methods violating
applicable communications law and regulations concerning radio equipment
or operations are off-topic.
END CHARTER
MODERATION POLICY: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
The following are prohibited:
* Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
* Chain letters.
* Posts in HTML.
* EMP spam.
* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary article meta-data.
* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
* Copyright violations. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on
this topic are welcome but are required to use only short extracts.
* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
* Advertising specific items and/or services for sale that are not
directly related to amateur radio, or are related to the submitter's
regular business as a wholesaler or dealer.
* Links to "objectionable" web content, including pornographic sites,
sites encouraging illegal activities, or sites deemed unacceptable
by the moderation team. The moderation team will cursorily check
the contents of specific links to confirm on-topic content, but
acceptance for posting does not imply endorsement or approval of
the entire present or future contents of that web site.
* Discussion of moderation decisions. See below for information on
appealing moderator action.
Moderators are not obliged to accept any post.
Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the
smooth running of the group.
The moderators shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy
document detailing how moderation is currently performed.
Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue
without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on
all posts within a few hours of submission.
There shall be a team of moderators between 2 and 10 in number. The
current moderators will elect a chief moderator to carry out the
moderation administrative housekeeping actions. Moderators may appoint
their own successors and may remove any active or inactive moderator at
their discretion.
The moderation policy and tools used will enforce the following
guidelines:
* Crossposting is generally not allowed. Occasional administrative
articles crossposted to rec.radio.info and/or the *.answers
newsgroups (e.g., uk.answers, rec.answers, news.answers) may be
permitted with prior coordination with the moderation team.
* Postings must be in plain text. In particular no HTML or mixed text
and HTML posts will be allowed.
* No binary postings of any sort will be accepted. Exceptions will be
made for cryptographic signatures and such.
* Messages must not have a 'Followup-To' header that points out of
uk.radio.amateur.moderated (other than to "poster").
* Messages must not continue a thread that has been "closed" by the
moderators.
* The moderators do not intend to rigidly enforce a "dirty words"
list. Context and tone, as well as UK cultural assumptions, will be
taken into account. The civil tone and language content of the
newsgroup should aim for a dignified adult forum, one that can
frankly address controversial topics, but one that is not childish
or abusive, nor uses profanity for ad-hominem attacks or shock
value.
* Occasional announcements of casual sales of amateur radio equipment
that is owned for personal use will be permitted, provided that the
subject lines are prefixed appropriately, e.g. [FS], [WTB], and [FA]
for for-sale, want to buy, for auction, respectively. This
permissive moderation policy towards for-sale items will be
maintained provided that such submissions do not overwhelm
uk.radio.amateur.moderated with advertisements, to the detriment of
regular discussion articles.
* The moderators intend to approve article submissions that contain
discussion, news, and announcements about amateur radio, not
necessarily have uk.radio.amateur.moderated be a newsgroup-based
simulation or representation of what might actually be communicated
by amateur radio. This is a subtle point, but essentially what is
intended is that so-called "rag-chewing" (open-ended discussion)
should be topically related to amateur radio, not just what could be
legally discussed over amateur radio, to avoid overwhelming the
newsgroup with what could be considered off-topic material.
* Priority will be given to new, original, non-repetitive, and
newsworthy material written primarily for a Usenet audience. Quotes
and references to outside material may be provided to help support
discussion, assertions, and understanding, but should be used
sparingly.
Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly rejected, either
for specific content or by a specific moderator, may appeal the
decision. They may do so by contacting the moderators at the
Administrative Contact address below. The moderators will discuss and
vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is
successful. The moderators 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.
Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup. The uk.radio.amateur.moderated
moderators would prefer that those wishing to appeal moderation
decisions for uk.radio.amateur.moderated utilise that newsgroup's
appeals process first, and only post to uk.net.news.moderation if that
appeal is unsuccessful. Such publicly posted appeals should also
contain the contents of the rejected (or approved) article in dispute
and the full text of any replies from the moderators. Such appeals
should also attempt to argue for or against a moderation decision based
on the contents of the uk.radio.amateur.moderated charter and moderation
policies. The moderators may choose not to publicly reply to complaints
about moderation decisions posted to uk.net.news.moderation that are not
based on the charter or moderation policies, are uncivil, that
misrepresent facts, or are substantially an attempt to revisit the
subject matter and arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.
MODERATOR INFO: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Moderator: Brian Howie, GM4DIJ <br...@b-howie.demon.co.uk>
Moderator: Roger Hayter, GW8BFO <ro...@hayter.org>
Moderator: David Smith, MM0HVU <d...@lords.com>
Moderator: Thomas Gray, HB9FUH <srt...@me.com>
Moderator: Ian Clifton <ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk>
Moderation System Admininstrator: Matthew Vernon <matt...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
The moderators are seeking additional candidates for the moderation team
in order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of
bias.
Article Submissions: TBD
Administrative Contact: uram-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
LINKS:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated Posting Guidelines
http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/guidelines.html
uk.legal.moderated - Charter and Guidelines
http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP)
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until October 12th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.radio.amateur
Proponent:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" <psch...@novia.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBVg1t02OfGXkh8vHZAQIvXwP8DOeoiNZbbSFIYbhIL3HfNX5ARz/D8Fp5
dG7lUUuOG8Liskojz7evcEOrq3Wa/9OZCXb68cstDg7bOnYEUl8k5Jl2rZaZGwyI
bCEgfy20yyCTP6602LgOdRR6sMgN3zbwE1MOlNxLyN3+c+UyEsbK9V5YThF8Epk4
+Lf7zr9Ep6A=
=KIyb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Newsgroup line:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
uk.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to the existing
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup. Over the past several years, the traffic on
uk.radio.amateur 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
behaviour have not resulted in elimination of such behaviour and has in
fact resulted in another series of flame wars. As a result, many
knowledgeable and concerned posters in uk.radio.amateur have ceased
being active therein.
It is expected that offering a moderated group will persuade those who
formerly participated to resume their participation in rational,
focused, and informed discussion. 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.
CHARTER:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated
uk.radio.amateur.moderated is for the discussion of amateur ("ham")
radio, also known as the Amateur Radio Service, in the United Kingdom.
Possible topics include past, present, and future operating practices;
events; contests; past, present, and potential-future rules; power
limitations; authorised frequencies; allowed modes and band plans (or
other gentlemen's agreements) that govern how we are to operate; what
constitutes the acceptable operation of amateur stations.
This newsgroup is only intended to supplement, not supercede, any other
amateur radio newsgroups.
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. Similarly, discussion of methods violating
applicable communications law and regulations concerning radio equipment
or operations are off-topic.
END CHARTER
MODERATION POLICY: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
The following are prohibited:
* Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
* Chain letters.
* Posts in HTML.
* EMP spam.
* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary article meta-data.
* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
* Copyright violations. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on
this topic are welcome but are required to use only short extracts.
* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
* Advertising specific items and/or services for sale that are not
directly related to amateur radio, or are related to the submitter's
regular business as a wholesaler or dealer.
* Links to "objectionable" web content, including pornographic sites,
sites encouraging illegal activities, or sites deemed unacceptable
by the moderation team. The moderation team will cursorily check
the contents of specific links to confirm on-topic content, but
acceptance for posting does not imply endorsement or approval of
the entire present or future contents of that web site.
* Discussion of moderation decisions. See below for information on
appealing moderator action.
Moderators are not obliged to accept any post.
Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the
smooth running of the group.
The moderators shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy
document detailing how moderation is currently performed.
Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue
without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on
all posts within a few hours of submission.
There shall be a team of moderators between 2 and 10 in number. The
current moderators will elect a chief moderator to carry out the
moderation administrative housekeeping actions. Moderators may appoint
their own successors and may remove any active or inactive moderator at
their discretion.
The moderation policy and tools used will enforce the following
guidelines:
* Crossposting is generally not allowed. Occasional administrative
articles crossposted to rec.radio.info and/or the *.answers
newsgroups (e.g., uk.answers, rec.answers, news.answers) may be
permitted with prior coordination with the moderation team.
* Postings must be in plain text. In particular no HTML or mixed text
and HTML posts will be allowed.
* No binary postings of any sort will be accepted. Exceptions will be
made for cryptographic signatures and such.
* Messages must not have a 'Followup-To' header that points out of
uk.radio.amateur.moderated (other than to "poster").
* Messages must not continue a thread that has been "closed" by the
moderators.
* The moderators do not intend to rigidly enforce a "dirty words"
list. Context and tone, as well as UK cultural assumptions, will be
taken into account. The civil tone and language content of the
newsgroup should aim for a dignified adult forum, one that can
frankly address controversial topics, but one that is not childish
or abusive, nor uses profanity for ad-hominem attacks or shock
value.
* Occasional announcements of casual sales of amateur radio equipment
that is owned for personal use will be permitted, provided that the
subject lines are prefixed appropriately, e.g. [FS], [WTB], and [FA]
for for-sale, want to buy, for auction, respectively. This
permissive moderation policy towards for-sale items will be
maintained provided that such submissions do not overwhelm
uk.radio.amateur.moderated with advertisements, to the detriment of
regular discussion articles.
* The moderators intend to approve article submissions that contain
discussion, news, and announcements about amateur radio, not
necessarily have uk.radio.amateur.moderated be a newsgroup-based
simulation or representation of what might actually be communicated
by amateur radio. This is a subtle point, but essentially what is
intended is that so-called "rag-chewing" (open-ended discussion)
should be topically related to amateur radio, not just what could be
legally discussed over amateur radio, to avoid overwhelming the
newsgroup with what could be considered off-topic material.
* Priority will be given to new, original, non-repetitive, and
newsworthy material written primarily for a Usenet audience. Quotes
and references to outside material may be provided to help support
discussion, assertions, and understanding, but should be used
sparingly.
Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly rejected, either
for specific content or by a specific moderator, may appeal the
decision. They may do so by contacting the moderators at the
Administrative Contact address below. The moderators will discuss and
vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is
successful. The moderators 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.
Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup. The uk.radio.amateur.moderated
moderators would prefer that those wishing to appeal moderation
decisions for uk.radio.amateur.moderated utilise that newsgroup's
appeals process first, and only post to uk.net.news.moderation if that
appeal is unsuccessful. Such publicly posted appeals should also
contain the contents of the rejected (or approved) article in dispute
and the full text of any replies from the moderators. Such appeals
should also attempt to argue for or against a moderation decision based
on the contents of the uk.radio.amateur.moderated charter and moderation
policies. The moderators may choose not to publicly reply to complaints
about moderation decisions posted to uk.net.news.moderation that are not
based on the charter or moderation policies, are uncivil, that
misrepresent facts, or are substantially an attempt to revisit the
subject matter and arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.
MODERATOR INFO: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Moderator: Brian Howie, GM4DIJ <br...@b-howie.demon.co.uk>
Moderator: Roger Hayter, GW8BFO <ro...@hayter.org>
Moderator: David Smith, MM0HVU <d...@lords.com>
Moderator: Thomas Gray, HB9FUH <srt...@me.com>
Moderator: Ian Clifton <ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk>
Moderation System Admininstrator: Matthew Vernon <matt...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
The moderators are seeking additional candidates for the moderation team
in order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of
bias.
Article Submissions: TBD
Administrative Contact: uram-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
LINKS:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated Posting Guidelines
http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/guidelines.html
uk.legal.moderated - Charter and Guidelines
http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP)
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until October 12th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.radio.amateur
Proponent:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" <psch...@novia.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBVg1t02OfGXkh8vHZAQIvXwP8DOeoiNZbbSFIYbhIL3HfNX5ARz/D8Fp5
dG7lUUuOG8Liskojz7evcEOrq3Wa/9OZCXb68cstDg7bOnYEUl8k5Jl2rZaZGwyI
bCEgfy20yyCTP6602LgOdRR6sMgN3zbwE1MOlNxLyN3+c+UyEsbK9V5YThF8Epk4
+Lf7zr9Ep6A=
=KIyb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andy Burns
Oct 1, 2015, 1:41:08 PM10/1/15
to
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
groan.
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
groan.
c...@post.netunix.com
Oct 1, 2015, 1:58:09 PM10/1/15
to
In uk.net.news.config Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
<opens popcorn>
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
AGAIN......
NO - for the same reasons as usual.
Steve
Oct 1, 2015, 1:59:05 PM10/1/15
to
Here we go again.... Alas :-(
Steve
Oct 1, 2015, 2:05:21 PM10/1/15
to
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:14 +0100, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
No thanks Paul. Come back when you have reformed your own moribund
moderated group and then, maybe, you'll have a case!
No thanks Paul. Come back when you have reformed your own moribund
moderated group and then, maybe, you'll have a case!
Steve Hall G8DGC
Oct 1, 2015, 2:18:13 PM10/1/15
to
Steve <st...@haha.nospam.invalid> wrote in news:IvePx.28897
$4k3....@fx27.am4:
> Here we go again.... Alas :-(
>
Hi
$4k3....@fx27.am4:
> Here we go again.... Alas :-(
>
Brian Howie
Oct 1, 2015, 2:31:16 PM10/1/15
to
In message <mujs7g$tfu$1...@news.albasani.net>, c...@post.netunix.com writes
Come on guys , we've got to do something about ukra. I care enough about
it to give this another go.
Ironically the RFD is in my kill file :)
Brian
--
Brian Howie
it to give this another go.
Ironically the RFD is in my kill file :)
Brian
--
Brian Howie
Ian Clifton
Oct 1, 2015, 2:31:40 PM10/1/15
to
long drawn out a discussion as took place last time around!
--
Ian ◎
Ian Clifton
Oct 1, 2015, 2:34:44 PM10/1/15
to
going to be one of the moderators.
--
Ian ◎
Kerr Mudd-John
Oct 1, 2015, 2:44:43 PM10/1/15
to
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Roger Hayter
Oct 1, 2015, 3:04:52 PM10/1/15
to
is quite important for the generality of the uk.* electorate to get some
picture of how much use it would get.
--
Roger Hayter
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 1, 2015, 3:32:38 PM10/1/15
to
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
I support this proposal, will vote in favour of the creation of the group,
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
and will make regular use of it once it is created.
Cheers!
--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Andy Burns
Oct 1, 2015, 3:36:49 PM10/1/15
to
Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
The issue isn't lack of a moderated group, it's presence of dickheads.
> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
If a moderated group existed, whichever clique(s) of dickheads were
repelled would just moan and whine and crosspost stuff from the cesspit
to unrelated groups more than they do now.
Paul Cummins
Oct 1, 2015, 3:49:48 PM10/1/15
to
In article <ABePx.28898$4k3....@fx27.am4>, st...@haha.nospam.invalid
It looks like the US Amateur fuckwits don't get it...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
(Steve) wrote:
>
> No thanks Paul. Come back when you have reformed your own moribund
> moderated group and then, maybe, you'll have a case!
uk.local.berkshire, anyone?
>
> No thanks Paul. Come back when you have reformed your own moribund
> moderated group and then, maybe, you'll have a case!
It looks like the US Amateur fuckwits don't get it...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Kerr Mudd-John
Oct 1, 2015, 3:51:32 PM10/1/15
to
that a moderated group could salvage some dignity for the UK NGs.
Kerr Mudd-John
Oct 1, 2015, 3:55:08 PM10/1/15
to
(sorry if this comes over a bit pithy, I'm in receipt of a crate of 5.2%
tmavy lezak)
Andy Burns
Oct 1, 2015, 4:06:17 PM10/1/15
to
Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> Hmm, are you saying the dickheads outweigh the needs of the few?
If creating the moderated group would make life better for well behaved
> Hmm, are you saying the dickheads outweigh the needs of the few?
radio people (which it probably would) without leaving the dickheads
stomping around "outside" making life worse for everyone else, then I'd
support it.
I recently KF'ed two such dickheads (and one other person who couldn't
resist getting drawn into their arguments) for their behaviour in
ukl.moderated and unn.moderation.
David Wade
Oct 1, 2015, 4:07:06 PM10/1/15
to
which are moderated and on which technical people whose skills and
knowledge I respect can be found. Despite having RSGB in the name any
Amateur can join.
Dave
G4UGM
David Wade
Oct 1, 2015, 4:09:32 PM10/1/15
to
On 01/10/2015 20:55, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:36:50 +0100, Andy Burns
> <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>
>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>
>> The issue isn't lack of a moderated group, it's presence of dickheads.
>>
>> If a moderated group existed, whichever clique(s) of dickheads were
>> repelled would just moan and whine and crosspost stuff from the
>> cesspit to unrelated groups more than they do now.
>>
> Hmm, are you saying the dickheads outweigh the needs of the few?
>
No but the volume of garbage they post does. Actually "garbage" is
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:36:50 +0100, Andy Burns
> <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>
>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>
>> The issue isn't lack of a moderated group, it's presence of dickheads.
>>
>> If a moderated group existed, whichever clique(s) of dickheads were
>> repelled would just moan and whine and crosspost stuff from the
>> cesspit to unrelated groups more than they do now.
>>
> Hmm, are you saying the dickheads outweigh the needs of the few?
>
giving it an undeserved sense of quality it does not deserve..
> (sorry if this comes over a bit pithy, I'm in receipt of a crate of 5.2%
> tmavy lezak)
>
G4UGM
Off for some Real Ale at the pub
Anton Deque
Oct 1, 2015, 4:15:24 PM10/1/15
to
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:14 +0100, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
The last time this came up I was against it because I didn't believe that
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Roger Hayter was a good choice for the moderation team.
But then he wrote in uk.net.news.management:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:38:46 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Just for the record (as I have definitely given up any plan for personal
> involvement in running a moderated uk amateur radio group)
But...
> MODERATOR INFO: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Roger Hayter, GW8BFO <ro...@hayter.org>
I'm a definite (more definite than he was) NO.
Steve
Oct 1, 2015, 4:20:29 PM10/1/15
to
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 21:07:10 +0100, David Wade wrote:
> I agree. I think its a lost cause. I now use the "RSGBxxx" yahoo groups,
> which are moderated and on which technical people whose skills and
> knowledge I respect can be found. Despite having RSGB in the name any
> Amateur can join.
Some are open to all, one *RSGB Tech" is closed to anyone that one of the
> I agree. I think its a lost cause. I now use the "RSGBxxx" yahoo groups,
> which are moderated and on which technical people whose skills and
> knowledge I respect can be found. Despite having RSGB in the name any
> Amateur can join.
moderators, Brian Reay M3OSN/G8OSN has had a previous disagreement with,
member or non member.
So your statement does not fully represent the actual situation and does
instead reflect one of the problems with moderators and moderation.
Steve
Oct 1, 2015, 4:25:16 PM10/1/15
to
intentional but Pan seems to be misbehaving.
Steve
Oct 1, 2015, 4:30:09 PM10/1/15
to
Ian Clifton
Oct 1, 2015, 5:06:57 PM10/1/15
to
different traditions. As a WebStump moderated group, the
uk.radio.amateur.moderated moderation queue would be open to examination
by anyone. Should a sufficiently large number of people become convinced
that the group wasn’t being moderated properly, they could RFD for the
removal of the group, against the wishes of the moderation panel if
necessary.
--
Ian ◎
Anton Deque
Oct 1, 2015, 5:10:47 PM10/1/15
to
It's a mechanism that worked well with the moderated cycling group.
Brian Reay
Oct 1, 2015, 5:28:00 PM10/1/15
to
handedly.
If he is involved, then I will be voting NO.
Roger Hayter
Oct 1, 2015, 5:53:17 PM10/1/15
to
alternative group of moderators could be found.
--
Roger Hayter
Roger Hayter
Oct 1, 2015, 5:53:19 PM10/1/15
to
possible that the point I was making was too facetious/subtle/unclear,
but I don't recollect saying exactly that.
--
Roger Hayter
Roger Hayter
Oct 1, 2015, 5:53:19 PM10/1/15
to
not appear to think that its deficiencies justified its removal. There
was a time when things *might* have gone differently had a credible
alternative moderation team been proposed.
--
Roger Hayter
c...@post.netunix.com
Oct 1, 2015, 7:02:34 PM10/1/15
to
Wm...
Oct 1, 2015, 7:18:33 PM10/1/15
to
Thu, 1 Oct 2015 21:27:22
<20151001212...@chronos.eternal-september.org>
uk.net.news.config Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk>
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:14 +0100
>but I would read it. I believe the time has come to cater for the
>silent majority with a more relaxed atmosphere and this is likely to
>be the only way to get it at this point. Some good people are behind it,
>the time is right, the RFD is as good as it is ever going to get.
>
>And, on that bombshell, I must now leave the discussion. Thank you very
>much for reading and goodnight.
Of the posts I've read today this is the one that most closely matches
how I feel.
--
Wm...
<20151001212...@chronos.eternal-september.org>
uk.net.news.config Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk>
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:14 +0100
>"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
>
>> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>I support this proposal. I'm not likely to post to the group very often
>
>> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>but I would read it. I believe the time has come to cater for the
>silent majority with a more relaxed atmosphere and this is likely to
>be the only way to get it at this point. Some good people are behind it,
>the time is right, the RFD is as good as it is ever going to get.
>
>And, on that bombshell, I must now leave the discussion. Thank you very
>much for reading and goodnight.
Of the posts I've read today this is the one that most closely matches
how I feel.
--
Wm...
Pedt
Oct 1, 2015, 8:33:42 PM10/1/15
to
In article <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9
@weathertop.principate.org.uk>, psch...@novia.net says...
> The following are prohibited:
[..]
> * Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
The ", as defined by the moderation team" is surely not needed, it
currently implies that personal attacks the moderators approve of
will be allowed.
> Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
> ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
> uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup.
Are you sure you want a majority of uk.net.news.moderation posters to be
able to reverse a moderation decision?
--
Pedt
@weathertop.principate.org.uk>, psch...@novia.net says...
> The following are prohibited:
[..]
> * Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
The ", as defined by the moderation team" is surely not needed, it
currently implies that personal attacks the moderators approve of
will be allowed.
> Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
> ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
> uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup.
Are you sure you want a majority of uk.net.news.moderation posters to be
able to reverse a moderation decision?
--
Pedt
Paul Cummins
Oct 1, 2015, 9:09:39 PM10/1/15
to
In article <d75ljg...@mid.individual.net>, ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk
self-levitate.
(Ian Clifton) wrote:
> Should a sufficiently large number of people become convinced
> that the group wasn_t being moderated properly, they could RFD for
> Should a sufficiently large number of people become convinced
> the removal of the group, against the wishes of the moderation panel if
> necessary.
And additionally, given sufficient thrust, a Gloucester Old-Spot can
> necessary.
self-levitate.
Paul Cummins
Oct 1, 2015, 9:09:39 PM10/1/15
to
In article <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, dave....@gmail.com (David
me, permanently, from joining "their" groups, and the RSGB will not
investigate why.
Wade) wrote:
> Despite having RSGB in the name any
> Amateur can join.
Regrettably False. One of the moderators of the RSGB groups has blocked
> Despite having RSGB in the name any
> Amateur can join.
me, permanently, from joining "their" groups, and the RSGB will not
investigate why.
Wm...
Oct 1, 2015, 9:12:38 PM10/1/15
to
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:32:34 <MPG.3078517de...@news.aioe.org>
uk.net.news.config Pedt <pe...@manygiggl.es>
>In article <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9
>@weathertop.principate.org.uk>, psch...@novia.net says...
moderated"
--
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Pedt <pe...@manygiggl.es>
>In article <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9
>@weathertop.principate.org.uk>, psch...@novia.net says...
>> Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
>> ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
>> uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup.
>
>Are you sure you want a majority of uk.net.news.moderation posters to be
>able to reverse a moderation decision?
That isn't how I read it. I think the intention is "same as other uk
>> ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
>> uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup.
>
>Are you sure you want a majority of uk.net.news.moderation posters to be
>able to reverse a moderation decision?
moderated"
--
Wm...
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 1, 2015, 11:05:04 PM10/1/15
to
the moderators. Don't judge ukra by rram.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Brian Howie
Oct 2, 2015, 3:17:58 AM10/2/15
to
In message <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Wade
<dave....@gmail.com> writes
I subscribe to a few yahoo forums ,and they're not bad provided you
don't use the web interface with its adverts etc. However remember Yahoo
is an advertising business and they could easily vanish overnight.
Never trust anyone on the Internet who has a business plan.
Http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2015/05/how-does-yahoo-make-money/
Brian
--
Brian Howie
<dave....@gmail.com> writes
don't use the web interface with its adverts etc. However remember Yahoo
is an advertising business and they could easily vanish overnight.
Never trust anyone on the Internet who has a business plan.
Http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2015/05/how-does-yahoo-make-money/
Brian
--
Brian Howie
Brian Reay
Oct 2, 2015, 3:47:45 AM10/2/15
to
would the disappear.
If anything, the availability of free services (that is free at time of
use, funded by advertising) have flourished while Usenet has declined.
Personally, I can't understand all the fuss over advertising, just ignore
it. Do people no watch ITV, listen to commercial radio, go to the cinema,
read newspapers, use the underground, ..... because of the advertising?
Oh, I far prefer the Yahoo web interface. It is far more flexible than
using the mail-list approach.
Brian Reay
Oct 2, 2015, 4:03:43 AM10/2/15
to
Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 7:02 PM, c...@post.netunix.com wrote:
>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:58:08 +0100, <c...@post.netunix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In uk.net.news.config Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>>>>>
>>>>> <opens popcorn>
>>>>> AGAIN......
>>>>> NO - for the same reasons as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>>
>>> But can you confirm that you would use it, at least occasionally? It
>>> is quite important for the generality of the uk.* electorate to get some
>>> picture of how much use it would get.
>>
>> There is no real demand, rec.radio.amateur.moderated has very little traffic.#
>>
>
> There are other reasons why rram has very little traffic - mainly due to
> the moderators. Don't judge ukra by rram.
>
I suspect CRN may be correct. Due to the abuse by a well defined group in
> On 10/1/2015 7:02 PM, c...@post.netunix.com wrote:
>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:58:08 +0100, <c...@post.netunix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In uk.net.news.config Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>>>>>
>>>>> <opens popcorn>
>>>>> AGAIN......
>>>>> NO - for the same reasons as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>>
>>> But can you confirm that you would use it, at least occasionally? It
>>> is quite important for the generality of the uk.* electorate to get some
>>> picture of how much use it would get.
>>
>> There is no real demand, rec.radio.amateur.moderated has very little traffic.#
>>
>
> There are other reasons why rram has very little traffic - mainly due to
> the moderators. Don't judge ukra by rram.
>
uk.r.a who have no real interest in amateur radio, those with a real
interest in radio have largely joined groups like RSGBTech. I doubt they
would return to Usenet, especially to a group moderated by one of the
trouble makers.
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Oct 2, 2015, 4:15:52 AM10/2/15
to
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" <psch...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1e...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
Why are you digging this up again? Have you nothing better to do?
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1e...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
< LARGE QUANTITY OF CRAP SNIPPED >
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
Why are you digging this up again? Have you nothing better to do?
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
Brian Reay
Oct 2, 2015, 5:23:12 AM10/2/15
to
Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, dave....@gmail.com (David
> Wade) wrote:
>
>> Despite having RSGB in the name any
>> Amateur can join.
>
> Regrettably False. One of the moderators of the RSGB groups has blocked
> me, permanently, from joining "their" groups, and the RSGB will not
> investigate why.
>
That sounds like a wise decision. The moderator and the RSGB are to be
> In article <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, dave....@gmail.com (David
> Wade) wrote:
>
>> Despite having RSGB in the name any
>> Amateur can join.
>
> Regrettably False. One of the moderators of the RSGB groups has blocked
> me, permanently, from joining "their" groups, and the RSGB will not
> investigate why.
>
congratulated.
What a pity Ofcom allow you a licence.
Brian Reay
Oct 2, 2015, 5:47:20 AM10/2/15
to
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:14 +0100, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
>>
>> No thanks Paul. Come back when you have reformed your own moribund
>>
>> moderated group and then, maybe, you'll have a case!
>
> Although he’s put in a tremendous amount of work on this, Paul isn’t
> going to be one of the moderators.
But 'Percy' is, albeit having lost his sock puppet.
There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting one of
the 'problems' moderate it.
It will be uk.r.a mk2 in no time.
Molly Romanov
Oct 2, 2015, 5:49:58 AM10/2/15
to
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>I support this proposal. I'm not likely to post to the group very often
>but I would read it. I believe the time has come to cater for the
>silent majority with a more relaxed atmosphere and this is likely to
>be the only way to get it at this point. Some good people are behind it,
>the time is right, the RFD is as good as it is ever going to get.
What a new group proposal always needs is people in the discussion
>I support this proposal. I'm not likely to post to the group very often
>but I would read it. I believe the time has come to cater for the
>silent majority with a more relaxed atmosphere and this is likely to
>be the only way to get it at this point. Some good people are behind it,
>the time is right, the RFD is as good as it is ever going to get.
saying that they would post to it. The silent majority who mostly read
cannot create a useful and interesting group; those who actively post
to it may well do. In the last proposal I do not recall many non-troll
posters saying they would post regularly to a moderated group; I wonder
whether we will see many in this one?
--
Molly
Brian Reay
Oct 2, 2015, 6:10:57 AM10/2/15
to
What certainly isn't needed is a bunch of 'we know best' types deciding if
a group is needed or is viable. They are as bad as those who oppose the
group because the claim to oppose moderated groups. Such people simply want
to impose their views on others, rather than allowing them to decide if
they want to support and/or join a moderated group.
I suspect many of the serious posters use groups like RSGBTech and won't
use a new group, especially until the quality of moderation is established.
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 2, 2015, 7:13:07 AM10/2/15
to
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 2, 2015, 10:28:16 AM10/2/15
to
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 2, 2015, 10:31:57 AM10/2/15
to
who prefer usenet to closed groups. After all, usenet can be read by
all, and people can post by default - instead of having to beg for
permission to post.
But your comment of "moderation by troublemakers" shows a bias in itself.
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:09:35 AM10/2/15
to
"Brian Howie" <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cF9c$vJlvX...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
> Come on guys , we've got to do something about ukra. I care enough about
> it to give this another go.
Simply shunning Sordid Steve and Bile-Belly Brian wouldachieve the desired
end.
news:cF9c$vJlvX...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
> Come on guys , we've got to do something about ukra. I care enough about
> it to give this another go.
Simply shunning Sordid Steve and Bile-Belly Brian wouldachieve the desired
end.
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:11:24 AM10/2/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:muldl1$j5$1...@dont-email.me...
the gratuitous abuse that is your habit, as exemplified above.
news:muldl1$j5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> I suspect CRN may be correct. Due to the abuse by a well defined group in
> uk.r.a who have no real interest in amateur radio, those with a real
> interest in radio have largely joined groups like RSGBTech. I doubt they
> would return to Usenet, especially to a group moderated by one of the
> trouble makers.
Brian, Old Chum, the purpose of the RFD is to attempt to move away from
> I suspect CRN may be correct. Due to the abuse by a well defined group in
> uk.r.a who have no real interest in amateur radio, those with a real
> interest in radio have largely joined groups like RSGBTech. I doubt they
> would return to Usenet, especially to a group moderated by one of the
> trouble makers.
the gratuitous abuse that is your habit, as exemplified above.
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:13:48 AM10/2/15
to
"David Wade" <dave....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net...
Brian Reay as immoderator practises a vendetta against anyone who openly
disagrees with him in ura
news:muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Despite having RSGB in the name any Amateur can join.
Untrue.
Brian Reay as immoderator practises a vendetta against anyone who openly
disagrees with him in ura
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:15:20 AM10/2/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:mulia7$g86$1...@dont-email.me...
> That sounds like a wise decision. The moderator and the RSGB are to be
> congratulated.
> What a pity Ofcom allow you a licence.
Once again, Brian, Old Chum, you seem to have missed the point of the RFD,
> congratulated.
> What a pity Ofcom allow you a licence.
which
is to prevent the gratuitous personal abuse which is your modus operandi, as
evidenced above.
Shame on you.
Why do you behave like that?
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:17:15 AM10/2/15
to
"Steve" <st...@haha.nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:IvePx.28897$4k3....@fx27.am4...
> Here we go again.... Alas :-(
Indeed, a simple shunning of Sordid Steve and Bile-Belly Brian will achieve
the desired end.
news:IvePx.28897$4k3....@fx27.am4...
> Here we go again.... Alas :-(
Indeed, a simple shunning of Sordid Steve and Bile-Belly Brian will achieve
the desired end.
gareth
Oct 2, 2015, 11:27:35 AM10/2/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:mull3o$qfc$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> What certainly isn't needed is a bunch of 'we know best' types deciding if
> a group is needed or is viable. They are as bad as those who oppose the
> group because the claim to oppose moderated groups. Such people simply
> want
> to impose their views on others, rather than allowing them to decide if
> they want to support and/or join a moderated group.
Do you thereby admit that your blackballing vendetta for membership
> What certainly isn't needed is a bunch of 'we know best' types deciding if
> a group is needed or is viable. They are as bad as those who oppose the
> group because the claim to oppose moderated groups. Such people simply
> want
> to impose their views on others, rather than allowing them to decide if
> they want to support and/or join a moderated group.
of RSCBTech is a mortal sin?
If not, why not?
A double standard?
Spike
Oct 2, 2015, 11:44:59 AM10/2/15
to
On 02/10/2015 10:45, Brian Reay wrote:
> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting one of
> the 'problems' moderate it.
This highlights two problems with the proposal as it stands.
> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting one of
> the 'problems' moderate it.
First is the proposed toothless final appeal to an undefined set of
posters in unnm using some unstated methodology to determine some
unspecified sanction as being unworkable as a method of disciplining
moderators. But it was perhaps designed that way.
Secondly, the non-transparent and non-democratic replacement of
moderators is another problem area. While one has some names in this
current potential voting round which one might support or otherwise,
that option ceases after a successful vote and moderator succession
becomes the purview of oligarchs, rather like some minor version of a
Soviet. Perhaps it was designed that way too.
--
Spike
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 2, 2015, 4:09:29 PM10/2/15
to
En el artículo <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9@weat
hertop.principate.org.uk>, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net>
escribió:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
Paul, I'm genuinely grateful for your efforts (and thank you for your
emails), but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. In fact, you're
flogging what remains long after the skeleton has crumbled into dust.
uk.ram is never going to come into being while certain spiteful
malicious characters, no names mentioned except one that rhymes with
"Heavens", continue to regard usenet as their personal playground and
arena for settling old scores.
The original uk.ra is not only dying a slow death, it's dead, dead,
dead. There's absolutely no point in replacing it with a moderated
group.
PS: Well, o'course uk.ram was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that
group down, the news would have nuzzled up to that ethernet,
connected to its interface, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
MT: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this newsgroup wouldn't "voom" if you put four
million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
PS: No no! It's pining!
MT: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This group is no more! It has
ceased to be! It's expired all the news and gone to meet its
programmer! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If
you hadn't nailed it to the Internet it'd be pushing up the daisies!
Its electronic impulses are now 'istory! It's off the twig!
It's kicked the bit bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run
down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-NEWS GROUP!!
[apologies to Python and John Phillips]
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")
hertop.principate.org.uk>, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net>
escribió:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
Paul, I'm genuinely grateful for your efforts (and thank you for your
emails), but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. In fact, you're
flogging what remains long after the skeleton has crumbled into dust.
uk.ram is never going to come into being while certain spiteful
malicious characters, no names mentioned except one that rhymes with
"Heavens", continue to regard usenet as their personal playground and
arena for settling old scores.
The original uk.ra is not only dying a slow death, it's dead, dead,
dead. There's absolutely no point in replacing it with a moderated
group.
PS: Well, o'course uk.ram was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that
group down, the news would have nuzzled up to that ethernet,
connected to its interface, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
MT: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this newsgroup wouldn't "voom" if you put four
million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
PS: No no! It's pining!
MT: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This group is no more! It has
ceased to be! It's expired all the news and gone to meet its
programmer! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If
you hadn't nailed it to the Internet it'd be pushing up the daisies!
Its electronic impulses are now 'istory! It's off the twig!
It's kicked the bit bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run
down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-NEWS GROUP!!
[apologies to Python and John Phillips]
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")
Brian Reay
Oct 3, 2015, 5:16:01 AM10/3/15
to
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9@weat
> hertop.principate.org.uk>, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net>
> escribió:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> Paul, I'm genuinely grateful for your efforts (and thank you for your
> emails), but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. In fact, you're
> flogging what remains long after the skeleton has crumbled into dust.
>
> uk.ram is never going to come into being while certain spiteful
> malicious characters, no names mentioned except one that rhymes with
> "Heavens", continue to regard usenet as their personal playground and
> arena for settling old scores.
>
> The original uk.ra is not only dying a slow death, it's dead, dead,
> dead. There's absolutely no point in replacing it with a moderated
> group.
>
Oh I think you are giving the waste of space Evans far too much credence.
> En el artículo <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20151001173014$1ee9@weat
> hertop.principate.org.uk>, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net>
> escribió:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> Paul, I'm genuinely grateful for your efforts (and thank you for your
> emails), but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. In fact, you're
> flogging what remains long after the skeleton has crumbled into dust.
>
> uk.ram is never going to come into being while certain spiteful
> malicious characters, no names mentioned except one that rhymes with
> "Heavens", continue to regard usenet as their personal playground and
> arena for settling old scores.
>
> The original uk.ra is not only dying a slow death, it's dead, dead,
> dead. There's absolutely no point in replacing it with a moderated
> group.
>
He is just one of the usual rejects who have systematically ruined uk.r.a
and also sabotaged the early attempts to form uk.ram.
Sadly, the there seems to be quite a group of underachievers who, I expect
due to wanting some kind of 'revenge', take delight in trying to spoil
things for others.
Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
gareth
Oct 3, 2015, 5:22:53 AM10/3/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:muo68n$933$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Oh I think you are giving the waste of space Evans far too much credence.
> He is just one of the usual rejects who have systematically ruined uk.r.a
> and also sabotaged the early attempts to form uk.ram.
> Sadly, the there seems to be quite a group of underachievers who, I expect
> due to wanting some kind of 'revenge', take delight in trying to spoil
> things for others.
> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
Brian, Old Chum, you continue to fail to understand the reason behind the
> Oh I think you are giving the waste of space Evans far too much credence.
> He is just one of the usual rejects who have systematically ruined uk.r.a
> and also sabotaged the early attempts to form uk.ram.
> Sadly, the there seems to be quite a group of underachievers who, I expect
> due to wanting some kind of 'revenge', take delight in trying to spoil
> things for others.
> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
RFD, for
you repeatedly originate personal abusive posts that have nothing to do with
amateur radio and everything
to do with your own character traits, mouthing off your mantra about
underachievers for which there
is absolutely no supporting evidence.
Why do you behave like that?
gareth
Oct 3, 2015, 6:09:48 AM10/3/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:muo6lj$ab1$1...@dont-email.me...
Actually, I tell a lie, for in the context of the amateur radio NG, there is
one glaring
example of underachievement, and that is the person who whinged for 30+
years that
he wanted access to the HF bands but was incapable of passing the 12 WPM
Morse test
that otherwise-unqualified self-taught 14-year-olds were taking in their
stride and finally ending up
with a licence targetted at 5-year-olds.
news:muo6lj$ab1$1...@dont-email.me...
one glaring
example of underachievement, and that is the person who whinged for 30+
years that
he wanted access to the HF bands but was incapable of passing the 12 WPM
Morse test
that otherwise-unqualified self-taught 14-year-olds were taking in their
stride and finally ending up
with a licence targetted at 5-year-olds.
Paul Cummins
Oct 3, 2015, 8:43:43 AM10/3/15
to
In article <muo68n$933$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
Reay often makes claims like this. The last "nasty shock" someone got was
>
> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
his, as the police knocked on his door. Again.
Phil Kyle
Oct 3, 2015, 10:24:43 AM10/3/15
to
On 01/10/15 22:27, Brian Reay wrote:
> Plus he is on record admitting he doesn't have to consider posts even
> handedly.
I wondered why he'd suddenly started the anti-Colesy posturing.
> Plus he is on record admitting he doesn't have to consider posts even
> handedly.
I wondered why he'd suddenly started the anti-Colesy posturing.
Fred Roberts
Oct 3, 2015, 12:36:20 PM10/3/15
to
On 01/10/2015 18:30, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
[snip]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
Take a hint FFS. I oppose this proposal.
--
Extend twats law - make 'em wear a cheat sheet 24/7
gareth
Oct 3, 2015, 1:06:07 PM10/3/15
to
"Fred Roberts" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:6uTPx.43557$Qp4....@fx10.am4...
years,
and that is a complete shunning of the problem, a joint effort by reay and
cole
news:6uTPx.43557$Qp4....@fx10.am4...
> On 01/10/2015 18:30, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> [snip]
>
> Take a hint FFS. I oppose this proposal.
All that is needed in ura, is what has been needed for the past couple of
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> [snip]
>
> Take a hint FFS. I oppose this proposal.
years,
and that is a complete shunning of the problem, a joint effort by reay and
cole
Robert Smits
Oct 3, 2015, 1:12:37 PM10/3/15
to
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)
>
>
>
I support the creation of the group, and think it will provide a place to
discuss amateur radio in the uk and beyond without gratuitous insults that
merely drive people away.
I would use it if it were available.
gareth
Oct 3, 2015, 1:46:18 PM10/3/15
to
> I support the creation of the group, and think it will provide a place to
> discuss amateur radio in the uk and beyond without gratuitous insults that
> merely drive people away.
>
> I would use it if it were available.
OTOH, come to uk.radio.amateur and join the cadre of we who speak
> discuss amateur radio in the uk and beyond without gratuitous insults that
> merely drive people away.
>
> I would use it if it were available.
up for gentlemanly technical discourse on a daily basis, and so not dilute
Usenet with two NGs providing the same content?
(Witness the large number of group deletions from the UK hierarchy in
recent weeks)
Brian Howie
Oct 3, 2015, 2:11:40 PM10/3/15
to
In message <mulcn8$tj9$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> writes
>Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Wade
>> <dave....@gmail.com> writes
>>> On 01/10/2015 20:36, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If a moderated group existed, whichever clique(s) of dickheads were
>>>> repelled would just moan and whine and crosspost stuff from the cesspit
>>>> to unrelated groups more than they do now.
>>>>
>>> I agree. I think its a lost cause. I now use the "RSGBxxx" yahoo
>>> groups, which are moderated and on which technical people whose skills
>>> and knowledge I respect can be found. Despite having RSGB in the name
>>> any Amateur can join.
>>
>> I subscribe to a few yahoo forums ,and they're not bad provided you
>> don't use the web interface with its adverts etc. However remember Yahoo
>> is an advertising business and they could easily vanish overnight.
>>
>> Never trust anyone on the Internet who has a business plan.
>>
>> Http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2015/05/how-does-yahoo-make-money/
>>
>> Brian
>
>Conversely, 'they' almost certainly want to keep on making money so why
>would the disappear.
They're a business, if they are no longer profitable they disappear-
free market economy. Then what ?
>
>If anything, the availability of free services (that is free at time of
>use, funded by advertising) have flourished while Usenet has declined.
>
Usenet traffic is holding up surprisingly well in spite of the
prediction of its demise for over 10 years. I've no evidence to back it
up but going by the group deletions on UK Usenet, it's the niche
transitory groups that have had the chop.
>Personally, I can't understand all the fuss over advertising, just ignore
>it. Do people no watch ITV, listen to commercial radio, go to the cinema,
>read newspapers, use the underground, ..... because of the advertising?
>
I find adverts too much of a distraction. I've not been to the cinema
for years ; I prefer the theatre. I take The Scotsman which carries
fewer adverts than some of them.
>Oh, I far prefer the Yahoo web interface. It is far more flexible than
>using the mail-list approach.
A matter of taste. For the mailing lists, it's all there for me to read
and reply too , without logging in and waiting for the adverts to
download.
I take it something on Usenet must be keeping you coming back for more.
Brian
--
Brian Howie
>Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <muk3p9$g56$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Wade
>> <dave....@gmail.com> writes
>>> On 01/10/2015 20:36, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>>>
>>>> The issue isn't lack of a moderated group, it's presence of dickheads.
>>>>
>>>>> I think it should be there; ukra has failed to clean up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a moderated group existed, whichever clique(s) of dickheads were
>>>> repelled would just moan and whine and crosspost stuff from the cesspit
>>>> to unrelated groups more than they do now.
>>>>
>>> I agree. I think its a lost cause. I now use the "RSGBxxx" yahoo
>>> groups, which are moderated and on which technical people whose skills
>>> and knowledge I respect can be found. Despite having RSGB in the name
>>> any Amateur can join.
>>
>> I subscribe to a few yahoo forums ,and they're not bad provided you
>> don't use the web interface with its adverts etc. However remember Yahoo
>> is an advertising business and they could easily vanish overnight.
>>
>> Never trust anyone on the Internet who has a business plan.
>>
>> Http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2015/05/how-does-yahoo-make-money/
>>
>> Brian
>
>Conversely, 'they' almost certainly want to keep on making money so why
>would the disappear.
They're a business, if they are no longer profitable they disappear-
free market economy. Then what ?
>
>If anything, the availability of free services (that is free at time of
>use, funded by advertising) have flourished while Usenet has declined.
>
Usenet traffic is holding up surprisingly well in spite of the
prediction of its demise for over 10 years. I've no evidence to back it
up but going by the group deletions on UK Usenet, it's the niche
transitory groups that have had the chop.
>Personally, I can't understand all the fuss over advertising, just ignore
>it. Do people no watch ITV, listen to commercial radio, go to the cinema,
>read newspapers, use the underground, ..... because of the advertising?
>
I find adverts too much of a distraction. I've not been to the cinema
for years ; I prefer the theatre. I take The Scotsman which carries
fewer adverts than some of them.
>Oh, I far prefer the Yahoo web interface. It is far more flexible than
>using the mail-list approach.
A matter of taste. For the mailing lists, it's all there for me to read
and reply too , without logging in and waiting for the adverts to
download.
I take it something on Usenet must be keeping you coming back for more.
Brian
--
Brian Howie
Brian Howie
Oct 3, 2015, 2:19:59 PM10/3/15
to
In message <d77n3p...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
Can you suggest an alternative ? We are open to suggestions.
>Secondly, the non-transparent and non-democratic replacement of
>moderators is another problem area. While one has some names in this
>current potential voting round which one might support or otherwise,
>that option ceases after a successful vote and moderator succession
>becomes the purview of oligarchs, rather like some minor version of a
>Soviet. Perhaps it was designed that way too.
>
If the moderators were elected, would that keep you happy ?
Would you vote for and participate in ukram if the above points were
altered more to your liking or would you anyway if they weren't ?
Brian
--
Brian Howie
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>On 02/10/2015 10:45, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting one of
>> the 'problems' moderate it.
>
>This highlights two problems with the proposal as it stands.
>
>First is the proposed toothless final appeal to an undefined set of
>posters in unnm using some unstated methodology to determine some
>unspecified sanction as being unworkable as a method of disciplining
>moderators. But it was perhaps designed that way.
This is the way Uk usnet works
>
>> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting one of
>> the 'problems' moderate it.
>
>This highlights two problems with the proposal as it stands.
>
>First is the proposed toothless final appeal to an undefined set of
>posters in unnm using some unstated methodology to determine some
>unspecified sanction as being unworkable as a method of disciplining
>moderators. But it was perhaps designed that way.
Can you suggest an alternative ? We are open to suggestions.
>Secondly, the non-transparent and non-democratic replacement of
>moderators is another problem area. While one has some names in this
>current potential voting round which one might support or otherwise,
>that option ceases after a successful vote and moderator succession
>becomes the purview of oligarchs, rather like some minor version of a
>Soviet. Perhaps it was designed that way too.
>
Would you vote for and participate in ukram if the above points were
altered more to your liking or would you anyway if they weren't ?
Brian
--
Brian Howie
Bernie
Oct 3, 2015, 3:33:20 PM10/3/15
to
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:46:15 +0100, gareth wrote:
> and so not dilute
> Usenet with two NGs providing the same content?
It won't be *exactly* the same content, Gareth. For instance, I suspect
> and so not dilute
> Usenet with two NGs providing the same content?
that your FAQ will remain as an unmoderated exclusive.
> (Witness the large number of group deletions from the UK hierarchy in
> recent weeks)
recent weeks are you thinking of?
Paul Cummins
Oct 3, 2015, 8:08:41 PM10/3/15
to
In article <mup45g$lm3$1...@dont-email.me>, no....@thank.you.invalid
1 - and that was a Current Events group that had spent its time.
(gareth) wrote:
> (Witness the large number of group deletions from the UK hierarchy
> in recent weeks)
Lets see - removals from the UK hierarchy so far this year...
> (Witness the large number of group deletions from the UK hierarchy
> in recent weeks)
1 - and that was a Current Events group that had spent its time.
Molly Mockford
Oct 4, 2015, 2:18:12 AM10/4/15
to
At 03:55:00 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote
in <c1511bh1cs6iutb75...@4ax.com>:
>
>Well, there is a proven consensus that it is wanted, as the last vote
>showed, so I support the proposal unreservedly, and for exactly the
>same reason I supported it last time.
Are you saying that you would post to it? Or are you just saying that
you would vote for it because you think it has enough supporters, in the
same way that some people might vote against it because they think it
does not have enough supporters?
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
in <c1511bh1cs6iutb75...@4ax.com>:
>
>Well, there is a proven consensus that it is wanted, as the last vote
>showed, so I support the proposal unreservedly, and for exactly the
>same reason I supported it last time.
Are you saying that you would post to it? Or are you just saying that
you would vote for it because you think it has enough supporters, in the
same way that some people might vote against it because they think it
does not have enough supporters?
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Spike
Oct 4, 2015, 3:56:06 AM10/4/15
to
On 03/10/2015 19:18, Brian Howie wrote:
> In message <d77n3p...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>> On 02/10/2015 10:45, Brian Reay wrote:
>>> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting
>>> one of the 'problems' moderate it.
>> This highlights two problems with the proposal as it stands.
>> First is the proposed toothless final appeal to an undefined set of
>> posters in unnm using some unstated methodology to determine some
>> unspecified sanction as being unworkable as a method of disciplining
>> moderators. But it was perhaps designed that way.
> This is the way Uk usnet works
> Can you suggest an alternative ? We are open to suggestions.
A template already exists, although the proposer is already wringing his
> In message <d77n3p...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>> On 02/10/2015 10:45, Brian Reay wrote:
>>> There is no point in trying to set up a sensible group and letting
>>> one of the 'problems' moderate it.
>> This highlights two problems with the proposal as it stands.
>> First is the proposed toothless final appeal to an undefined set of
>> posters in unnm using some unstated methodology to determine some
>> unspecified sanction as being unworkable as a method of disciplining
>> moderators. But it was perhaps designed that way.
> This is the way Uk usnet works
> Can you suggest an alternative ? We are open to suggestions.
hands and wailing about the amount of work involved. It would mean a
second RFD, and I rather believe he'd like to steamroller this through
in one go no matter how inadequate it is.
>> Secondly, the non-transparent and non-democratic replacement of
>> moderators is another problem area. While one has some names in this
>> current potential voting round which one might support or otherwise,
>> that option ceases after a successful vote and moderator succession
>> becomes the purview of oligarchs, rather like some minor version of a
>> Soviet. Perhaps it was designed that way too.
> If the moderators were elected, would that keep you happy ?
> Would you vote for and participate in ukram if the above points were
> altered more to your liking or would you anyway if they weren't ?
non-transparent, non-accountable, self-selecting moderator succession
policy. Voting for this proposal as it stands is merely voting for a pig
in a poke.
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 4:02:09 AM10/4/15
to
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 4:37:49 AM10/4/15
to
gareth <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> I support the creation of the group, and think it will provide a place to
>> discuss amateur radio in the uk and beyond without gratuitous insults that
>> merely drive people away.
>>
>> I would use it if it were available.
>
> OTOH, come to uk.radio.amateur and join the cadre of we who speak
> up for gentlemanly technical discourse on a daily basis, and so not dilute
> Usenet with two NGs providing the same content?
>
>
Someone seeking gentlemanly technical discourse visiting uk.r.a will be met
>> I support the creation of the group, and think it will provide a place to
>> discuss amateur radio in the uk and beyond without gratuitous insults that
>> merely drive people away.
>>
>> I would use it if it were available.
>
> OTOH, come to uk.radio.amateur and join the cadre of we who speak
> up for gentlemanly technical discourse on a daily basis, and so not dilute
> Usenet with two NGs providing the same content?
>
>
by insults etc. from Evans and co., if not a malicious Email sent to their
employer.
That is why people started, quite understandably, to look for alternative
groups where the likes of Evans would either be excluded or moderated.
Some have moved to, for example, RSGBTech which offers a civilised forum to
discuss technical matters. There is a sister forum for general amateur
radio matters. Some have joined specialist groups, for example the 5MHz
group which, while Evans briefly showed his face and was put in his place,
provides forum for 60m specific topics
Of course, not everyone likes Yahoo groups - for whatever reason- and
favour a conventional newsgroup. Hence the birth of the uk.ram idea.
Whether it will succeed is a gamble, the call for people to 'pledge' they
would use it is no more than a ploy in my view- for any group the ordinary
users simply won't be followers of this group. Plus look what happened when
Steve, quite legitimately and reasonably, sought support for the previous
attempt. As sure as eggs are eggs, if there is an influx of supportors,
those seeking to kill the idea will scream 'foul'.
Not supporting the group to 'protect' the hierarchy is like note breathing
to save your lungs.
Not supporting the group because it is moderated is just pure hypocrisy,
after all by voting 'no' you are seeking to be a moderator.
The only real reason should be a concern over how is to be run and if you
think those running it will do a decent job. Specifically in the case of
uk.ram for example, will they ensure it doesn't become a uk.r.a mk2 but
with biased a biased moderator giving the likes of Evans free reign. That
would be damaging for Usenet and amateur radio.
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 4:41:26 AM10/4/15
to
Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <muo68n$933$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>>
>> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
>
> Reay often makes claims like this. The last "nasty shock" someone got was
> his, as the police knocked on his door. Again.
>
Really? When was that then?
> In article <muo68n$933$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>>
>> Still, at least one of them is about to get a nasty shock ;-)
>
> Reay often makes claims like this. The last "nasty shock" someone got was
> his, as the police knocked on his door. Again.
>
In fact, when was the first time?
I must have been out both times. It couldn't have been important as they
didn't come back.
Hint: you are lying again Cummins.
Roger Hayter
Oct 4, 2015, 5:15:54 AM10/4/15
to
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
snip other points
unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
the moderators wished this to happen. I don't think that is likely,
and, as far as I can see, no-one has claimed that it is.
--
Roger Hayter
snip other points
>
> The only real reason should be a concern over how is to be run and if you
> think those running it will do a decent job. Specifically in the case of
> uk.ram for example, will they ensure it doesn't become a uk.r.a mk2 but
> with biased a biased moderator giving the likes of Evans free reign. That
> would be damaging for Usenet and amateur radio.
I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
> The only real reason should be a concern over how is to be run and if you
> think those running it will do a decent job. Specifically in the case of
> uk.ram for example, will they ensure it doesn't become a uk.r.a mk2 but
> with biased a biased moderator giving the likes of Evans free reign. That
> would be damaging for Usenet and amateur radio.
unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
the moderators wished this to happen. I don't think that is likely,
and, as far as I can see, no-one has claimed that it is.
--
Roger Hayter
Phil Kyle
Oct 4, 2015, 5:24:37 AM10/4/15
to
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 4, 2015, 6:27:32 AM10/4/15
to
En el artículo <1mbrixc.17n0c2y8yuldsN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
>unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
>the moderators wished this to happen.
Are you saying it's necessary for all mods to agree before a post can be
approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
approve or reject a post.
I've had a change of heart since my last post saying I don't believe it
is worth the effort creating uk.ram. Given that we've thrashed out all
the issues in the various RFDs over the last two (three?) attempts, I
see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
YES to the creation of uk.ram and only failed due to UK Voting's
(somewhat arcane) majority of 12 rule.
One query - I think uk.legal.moderated has an auto-whitelist policy,
where after a number of posts by the same author have been approved by
the mods, they then go onto an auto-approval whitelist. Would this same
system operate for uk.ram? The reason I ask is that it is a classic
tactic for trolls like Evans to make what superficially appear to be
"reasonable" posts to draw people into discussion before then beginning
their usual demented trolling.
I guess if a poster to uk.ram managed to get on the auto-whitelist,
their first whitelisted troll post would result in immediate revocation
of their whitelisting.
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
>unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
>the moderators wished this to happen.
approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
approve or reject a post.
I've had a change of heart since my last post saying I don't believe it
is worth the effort creating uk.ram. Given that we've thrashed out all
the issues in the various RFDs over the last two (three?) attempts, I
see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
YES to the creation of uk.ram and only failed due to UK Voting's
(somewhat arcane) majority of 12 rule.
One query - I think uk.legal.moderated has an auto-whitelist policy,
where after a number of posts by the same author have been approved by
the mods, they then go onto an auto-approval whitelist. Would this same
system operate for uk.ram? The reason I ask is that it is a classic
tactic for trolls like Evans to make what superficially appear to be
"reasonable" posts to draw people into discussion before then beginning
their usual demented trolling.
I guess if a poster to uk.ram managed to get on the auto-whitelist,
their first whitelisted troll post would result in immediate revocation
of their whitelisting.
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 4, 2015, 6:37:34 AM10/4/15
to
En el artículo <2htuMEgO...@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
<mi...@jasper.org.uk> escribió:
>I
>see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
^^^^^^
*shouldn't*, dammit.
>or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
>YES to the creation of uk.r
<mi...@jasper.org.uk> escribió:
>I
>see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
*shouldn't*, dammit.
>or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
>YES to the creation of uk.r
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 7:27:36 AM10/4/15
to
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <1mbrixc.17n0c2y8yuldsN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>> I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
>> unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
>> the moderators wished this to happen.
>
> Are you saying it's necessary for all mods to agree before a post can be
> approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
> approve or reject a post.
Roger is, as usual, being less than open. As you say Mike, it only requires
> En el artículo <1mbrixc.17n0c2y8yuldsN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>> I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
>> unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
>> the moderators wished this to happen.
>
> Are you saying it's necessary for all mods to agree before a post can be
> approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
> approve or reject a post.
one dodgy moderator.
>
> I've had a change of heart since my last post saying I don't believe it
> is worth the effort creating uk.ram. Given that we've thrashed out all
> the issues in the various RFDs over the last two (three?) attempts, I
> see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
> or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
> YES to the creation of uk.ram and only failed due to UK Voting's
> (somewhat arcane) majority of 12 rule.
>
> One query - I think uk.legal.moderated has an auto-whitelist policy,
> where after a number of posts by the same author have been approved by
> the mods, they then go onto an auto-approval whitelist. Would this same
> system operate for uk.ram? The reason I ask is that it is a classic
> tactic for trolls like Evans to make what superficially appear to be
> "reasonable" posts to draw people into discussion before then beginning
> their usual demented trolling.
blind eye to but, falsely, accuses others of doing.
>
> I guess if a poster to uk.ram managed to get on the auto-whitelist,
> their first whitelisted troll post would result in immediate revocation
> of their whitelisting.
>
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 7:28:45 AM10/4/15
to
unlike Evans and co, including Roger, who tend to react with a petty
vendetta when challenged, others react more maturely.
Steve is probably just letting Roger's petty nonsense wash over him.
Roger Hayter
Oct 4, 2015, 7:46:14 AM10/4/15
to
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <1mbrixc.17n0c2y8yuldsN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
> >I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
> >unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
> >the moderators wished this to happen.
>
> Are you saying it's necessary for all mods to agree before a post can be
> approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
> approve or reject a post.
I am saying if one moderator consistently accepted posts the majority of
> En el artículo <1mbrixc.17n0c2y8yuldsN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
> >I think it is quite clear from the proposed moderation policy that this
> >unfortunate result could only occur if *all*, or at least a majority, of
> >the moderators wished this to happen.
>
> Are you saying it's necessary for all mods to agree before a post can be
> approved? As far as I'm aware, that isn't how it works. Any mod can
> approve or reject a post.
the moderators thought inappropriate he would rapidly be asked to
consider his position.
>
> I've had a change of heart since my last post saying I don't believe it
> is worth the effort creating uk.ram. Given that we've thrashed out all
> the issues in the various RFDs over the last two (three?) attempts, I
> see no reason why we should, after a short discussion put this to a CFV,
> or even a fast-tracked CFV. The last vote resulted in a majority voting
> YES to the creation of uk.ram and only failed due to UK Voting's
> (somewhat arcane) majority of 12 rule.
>
> One query - I think uk.legal.moderated has an auto-whitelist policy,
> where after a number of posts by the same author have been approved by
> the mods, they then go onto an auto-approval whitelist. Would this same
> system operate for uk.ram? The reason I ask is that it is a classic
> tactic for trolls like Evans to make what superficially appear to be
> "reasonable" posts to draw people into discussion before then beginning
> their usual demented trolling.
>
> I guess if a poster to uk.ram managed to get on the auto-whitelist,
> their first whitelisted troll post would result in immediate revocation
> of their whitelisting.
whitelisting is automatic. It always used to be manual, as there have
been conversation here about failures to white list people. They are
quick to un-whitelist people who offend.
Moderation is not an exact or absolute processes. The occasional
offensive post will get through (and the converse will happen). But
people who try to play the system as you describe will then be likely to
have their posts more carefully screened. We are unlikely, however, to
go in for unexplained delays.[1]
unn.moderation can be used to remark on inappropriate acceptances as
well as rejections if people wish. And I expect the moderators will
feel it appropriate to respond to reasonable queries along these lines.
[1] a reference to what happened in another place, for those who don't
remember.
--
Roger Hayter
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 4, 2015, 8:03:45 AM10/4/15
to
Roger. I actually quite like him, whether the feeling is mutual or not
doesn't concern me. Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Roger Hayter
Oct 4, 2015, 9:15:59 AM10/4/15
to
--
Roger Hayter
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 4, 2015, 10:18:55 AM10/4/15
to
En el artículo <mur4f7$g17$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Thomas Cole
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> escribió:
>Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
>voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
Same here. Roger's posts are noticeable for how even-handed they
usually are. He doesn't take sides in any of the internecine wars.
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> escribió:
>Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
>voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
usually are. He doesn't take sides in any of the internecine wars.
Phil Kyle
Oct 4, 2015, 10:20:33 AM10/4/15
to
On 04/10/15 13:01, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
is probably just letting Roger's petty nonsense wash over him.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I have absolutely no beef whatsoever with
> Roger. I actually quite like him, whether the feeling is mutual or not
> doesn't concern me. Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
> voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
>
In the wake of the last ukram vote Roger was keen to pin some blame on
is probably just letting Roger's petty nonsense wash over him.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I have absolutely no beef whatsoever with
> Roger. I actually quite like him, whether the feeling is mutual or not
> doesn't concern me. Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
> voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
>
the actions of/association with some "supporters"; in recent weeks (when
he would have known this RFD was coming) it seems (to me) that his
attitude towards you has changed from largely neutral to -
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:53:48 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
> This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
> contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?
And this even seemed to take you aback -
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:35:39 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>> gareth <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> What discussions and comments do YOU want to see to improve this NG
>>> and its concomitant place as the public face of amateur radio in the
>>> 21st Century?
>>
>> You, Reay and Cole to stop posting to it.
>
> Oi! What have you got against me?
It reminds me of a Radiohead song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrL9uMqeP8M
And reinforces my dislike/distrust of Roger.
YMMV
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 4, 2015, 10:38:56 AM10/4/15
to
En el artículo <1mbrmr4.17o8zfzittzkuN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>I am saying if one moderator consistently accepted posts the majority of
>the moderators thought inappropriate he would rapidly be asked to
>consider his position.
Understood. Thank you.
>Moderation is not an exact or absolute processes.
Of course. You will have to expect, though, that some of the usual
suspects in uk.ra will whine and bitch endlessly about what they
perceive to be the slightest deviation from the mod policy. The good
thing is though, that such whining won't take place in the moderated
group.
I haven't checked yet, but other moderated groups' charters forbid
discussion of the moderation policy in that group. I hope the uk.ram
RFD has the same stricture.
> The occasional
>offensive post will get through (and the converse will happen). But
>people who try to play the system as you describe will then be likely to
>have their posts more carefully screened.
That's good to know. Thanks again.
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>I am saying if one moderator consistently accepted posts the majority of
>the moderators thought inappropriate he would rapidly be asked to
>consider his position.
>Moderation is not an exact or absolute processes.
suspects in uk.ra will whine and bitch endlessly about what they
perceive to be the slightest deviation from the mod policy. The good
thing is though, that such whining won't take place in the moderated
group.
I haven't checked yet, but other moderated groups' charters forbid
discussion of the moderation policy in that group. I hope the uk.ram
RFD has the same stricture.
> The occasional
>offensive post will get through (and the converse will happen). But
>people who try to play the system as you describe will then be likely to
>have their posts more carefully screened.
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 10:42:43 AM10/4/15
to
On 04/10/15 15:18, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo <mur4f7$g17$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> escribió:
>
>> Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
>> voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
>
> Same here. Roger's posts are noticeable for how even-handed they
> usually are. He doesn't take sides in any of the internecine wars.
>
I can't agree, he has openly posted that he doesn't see the need to be
> En el artículo <mur4f7$g17$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> escribió:
>
>> Either way, I won't feel a moment's hesitation in
>> voting for the creation of this group with Roger on the moderation team.
>
> Same here. Roger's posts are noticeable for how even-handed they
> usually are. He doesn't take sides in any of the internecine wars.
>
even handed. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge the abuse posted by his
chums and sees abuse from others when there is none. He is a not
moderator material, right down to his claim to have seem confidential
records.
Brian Reay
Oct 4, 2015, 10:45:07 AM10/4/15
to
On 04/10/15 15:25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo <1mbrmr4.17o8zfzittzkuN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>> I am saying if one moderator consistently accepted posts the majority of
>> the moderators thought inappropriate he would rapidly be asked to
>> consider his position.
>
> Understood. Thank you.
>
>> Moderation is not an exact or absolute processes.
>
> Of course. You will have to expect, though, that some of the usual
> suspects in uk.ra will whine and bitch endlessly about what they
> perceive to be the slightest deviation from the mod policy.
Well, that will make them happy- after all that is their reason for living.
> En el artículo <1mbrmr4.17o8zfzittzkuN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>> I am saying if one moderator consistently accepted posts the majority of
>> the moderators thought inappropriate he would rapidly be asked to
>> consider his position.
>
> Understood. Thank you.
>
>> Moderation is not an exact or absolute processes.
>
> Of course. You will have to expect, though, that some of the usual
> suspects in uk.ra will whine and bitch endlessly about what they
> perceive to be the slightest deviation from the mod policy.
Surely that alone should ensure they support the idea.
Then again, if they have a chum on the mod team...
Ian Jackson
Oct 4, 2015, 12:16:57 PM10/4/15
to
In article <1mbrmr4.17o8zfzittzkuN%ro...@hayter.org>,
no, whitelisting is not automatic. It's a thing a moderator can do
manually, or by ticking a box on one of the approval screens.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>The ulm moderators can tell us if they wish, but I don't think
>whitelisting is automatic. It always used to be manual, as there have
>been conversation here about failures to white list people. They are
>quick to un-whitelist people who offend.
If the moderators intend to use the webstump modbot on chiark, then
>The ulm moderators can tell us if they wish, but I don't think
>whitelisting is automatic. It always used to be manual, as there have
>been conversation here about failures to white list people. They are
>quick to un-whitelist people who offend.
no, whitelisting is not automatic. It's a thing a moderator can do
manually, or by ticking a box on one of the approval screens.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 1:21:26 PM10/4/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:muqma7$eu$1...@dont-email.me...
infantile non-technical posts
of the past couple of years being sufficient justification for such a
stance.
Only the dregs of society support him in any way.
news:muqma7$eu$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Roger has always been 'anti-Colesy'.
>
_ALL_ decent mature people, without exception, are anti-Colesy; his
> Roger has always been 'anti-Colesy'.
>
infantile non-technical posts
of the past couple of years being sufficient justification for such a
stance.
Only the dregs of society support him in any way.
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 1:23:16 PM10/4/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:mur2dj$8vs$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> It has been obvious for some time and I suspect Steve has noticed.
> However,
> unlike Evans and co, including Roger, who tend to react with a petty
> vendetta when challenged, others react more maturely.
>
> Steve is probably just letting Roger's petty nonsense wash over him.
Once again, Brian, Old Chum, it is you who originates personal and false
> It has been obvious for some time and I suspect Steve has noticed.
> However,
> unlike Evans and co, including Roger, who tend to react with a petty
> vendetta when challenged, others react more maturely.
>
> Steve is probably just letting Roger's petty nonsense wash over him.
unpleasantness in
direct opposition to the ethos of the proposal in the OP of this thread.
Why do you behave lilke that?
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 1:24:49 PM10/4/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:murdp9$i2m$1...@dont-email.me...
> ... and sees abuse from others when there is none.
A bit of Freudian Projection in excelsis there, methinks.
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 1:29:37 PM10/4/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:muqod3$74r$1...@dont-email.me...
Once again, Brian, Old Chum, you originate unpleasant and false remarks in
contradiction
of the ethos of the RFD.
Why do you behave like that?
I merely point out that I have championed gentlemanly and technical
discourse for many years
in ura, and that it is you who makes insults about others being a dog turd
on the beach, suffering from
Asperger's Syndrom, being employed as lavatory cleaners, the list goes on an
on, and you continue
with your abusive persona in what is quoted below.
I ask again, why do you behave like that?
Shame on you!
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 1:31:29 PM10/4/15
to
"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2htuMEgO...@jasper.org.uk...
It continues to be you, and you alone, who exhibits a nasty asocial psyche
by originating
abusive posts.
news:2htuMEgO...@jasper.org.uk...
It continues to be you, and you alone, who exhibits a nasty asocial psyche
by originating
abusive posts.
c...@post.netunix.com
Oct 4, 2015, 2:51:47 PM10/4/15
to
In uk.net.news.config Paul W. Schleck, K3FU <psch...@novia.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Why do you want an extra group ?
Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic
over 2 groups.
There are precedents for such a conversion, uk.religion.christian
and uk.religion.jewish were both converted to moderated groups to
avoid disruptive trolls.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Why do you want an extra group ?
Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic
over 2 groups.
There are precedents for such a conversion, uk.religion.christian
and uk.religion.jewish were both converted to moderated groups to
avoid disruptive trolls.
c...@post.netunix.com
Oct 4, 2015, 2:54:39 PM10/4/15
to
Your silly sqabbles are not welcome here, please take it to email or
to alt.flame where it belongs.
gareth
Oct 4, 2015, 2:57:55 PM10/4/15
to
<c...@post.netunix.com> wrote in message
news:murslf$eo1$2...@news.albasani.net...
Your complaint is with the unilateral vendetta being conducted by Brian
Reay, and not with
my defensive assertion of the right of reply.
news:murslf$eo1$2...@news.albasani.net...
Reay, and not with
my defensive assertion of the right of reply.
Mum
Oct 4, 2015, 2:59:31 PM10/4/15
to
On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:54:39 +0000, crn wrote:
> STOP IT - both of you.
> Your silly sqabbles are not welcome here, please take it to email or to
> alt.flame where it belongs.
Go fuck yourself, dear.
> STOP IT - both of you.
> Your silly sqabbles are not welcome here, please take it to email or to
> alt.flame where it belongs.
Mike Tomlinson
Oct 4, 2015, 3:56:34 PM10/4/15
to
En el artículo <mursg2$eo1$1...@news.albasani.net>, c...@post.netunix.com
escribió:
>Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
>dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic
>over 2 groups.
I would support that if it were proposed. I had no idea it was
possible. Past discussion regarding the creation of uk.ram has assumed
it would run alongside uk.ra.
In fact, I think conversion would be preferable. As Usenet contracts,
we should be looking to reduce the number of groups, not creating more.
escribió:
>Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
>dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic
>over 2 groups.
possible. Past discussion regarding the creation of uk.ram has assumed
it would run alongside uk.ra.
In fact, I think conversion would be preferable. As Usenet contracts,
we should be looking to reduce the number of groups, not creating more.
Bernie
Oct 4, 2015, 4:14:35 PM10/4/15
to
On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:50:44 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo <mursg2$eo1$1...@news.albasani.net>, c...@post.netunix.com
> escribió:
>
>>Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
>>dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic over 2
>>groups.
>
> I would support that if it were proposed. I had no idea it was
> possible. Past discussion regarding the creation of uk.ram has assumed
> it would run alongside uk.ra.
>
> In fact, I think conversion would be preferable. As Usenet contracts,
> we should be looking to reduce the number of groups, not creating more.
Chris is famous for his good ideas. I can't see any problems with this
> En el artículo <mursg2$eo1$1...@news.albasani.net>, c...@post.netunix.com
> escribió:
>
>>Why not convert the existing group to moderated, this would avoid the
>>dilution effect of spreading a relatively small amount of traffic over 2
>>groups.
>
> I would support that if it were proposed. I had no idea it was
> possible. Past discussion regarding the creation of uk.ram has assumed
> it would run alongside uk.ra.
>
> In fact, I think conversion would be preferable. As Usenet contracts,
> we should be looking to reduce the number of groups, not creating more.
one. Mmmm, mmm - No, sir!
Roger Hayter
Oct 4, 2015, 4:35:08 PM10/4/15
to
users of the existing group who do not want to lose it, or for it to
become moderated. Whatever we think of the content of the group, it is
quite heavily used and very little of the existing content would be
acceptable in the moderated group.
--
Roger Hayter
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages