Open Letter About Moderating This Newsgroup
Bill Cheek
To all:
Mr. Tim Payne wants to force moderated status on this newsgroup. He
talks as if it is a preordained conclusion. Supposedly there is to be
a vote on the matter. Once wonders if such a vote can be rigged and
faked? Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about creating
or changing the status of a newsgroup. But one wonders.........
One wonders WHY this moderated newsgroup issue is being rammed down
our throats. Mr. Gary "Rimfire" Hobart likes to think it is because
of me.
Mr. Payne seems to infer as much, too. Perhaps Messrs Payne and
Hobart feel that I am evil personified. Clearly a few others think
along those lines. Why? Maybe because I am not subject to their
intimidation. Some think that makes me "special". It does not. No
one is subject to intimidation who otherwise doesn't want to be. No
one has anything FORCED upon them unless they choose it.
One wonders WHY, then, this push to moderate the newsgroup. It will
have the effect of eliminating me and other knowledgeable people from
freely participating with and among you. That's why I threw my hat
into the ring for consideration as Moderator. I already AM a
moderator of another forum where it's no big deal to the people who
ARE there. The only people to whom it is a big deal are those few who
are not there any longer; people like Andy Moss, John Mackey, Hugh
Duff, etc, who were evicted for the SAME qualities you see in them
here. <shrug> It is prima facie, self-explanatory why those people
were evicted. You won't see their monkeyshines in any moderated
group.
Moderation of a Usenet newsgroup differs from how a FidoNet forum is
moderated. First of all, no one can get "kicked off" a newsgroup. It
doesn't work THAT way. It's actually more effective, thanks to a
process quite well known as CENSORSHIP in oppressed societies.
That's right.....all posts go to a "central authority" who reviews the
article (in his own good time) and then passes it on for public
posting, if he feels like it. Or, rejects the post if he wants.
Plain old censorship is the name of that game, good people. Is that
what you want?
Supposing that IS what you want, then how about the regression of the
technology? Oh YES! Extra time will be required for the Moderator to
read and PASS on the articles to be posted to the group. Where right
now it is possible to post one minute and get a reply in less than an
hour, a moderated forum will average 24-48 hours for a post to be
placed on the forum. GONE WILL BE THE EXPEDIENCY AND TIMELINESS OF
THE GROUP'S COMMUNICATIONS.
Before you decide, do a real cheap experiment for a minute. Use your
newsgroup reader to call up the server and download the list of
21,000+ newsgroups. Yes, it will take a few minutes, but the results
will be worth it. Once you have the list, use the newsreader's FIND
feature and search for the keyword, "moderated".
I just did. And found exactly 27 moderated newsgroups out of over
21,000. TWENTY-SEVEN? Whooooaaaaa, hoss! Something is wrong with
that picture. If moderated newsgroups are all that valuable, why just
27? And here are the moderated groups that I found:
alt.2600.moderated
alt.atheism.moderated
alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
alt.journalism.moderated
alt.magick.moderated
alt.meditation.moderated
alt.music.pat-metheny.moderated
alt.sex.stories.moderated
alt.skinheads.moderated
alt.support.non-smokers.moderated
comp.lang.c.moderated
comp.lang.c++.moderated
linux.test.moderated
misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
misc.health.injuries.rsi.moderated
misc.legal.moderated
misc.taxes.moderated
misc.test.moderated
moderated
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
rec.photo.moderated
sci.archaeology.moderated
sci.military.moderated
soc.culture.kuwait.moderated
soc.culture.russian.moderated
soc.history.moderated
Draw your own conclusions. Do your own search. The newsgroup list I
searched was several weeks old. The number of 27 could differ by a
couple either way, I suppose. But so what? What difference would it
make if the number of moderated groups were 10 or 50? My point is
succinctly pregnant: in order for a moderated newsgroup to be
valuable, it must either be an extremely far-out, weird, flaky subject
like the "skinheads" (to prevent kibitzing), or extremely serious and
focused like most of the rest as shown above.
FWIW, I don't see REC.RADIO.SCANNER falling in either extreme.
Vote for a moderated newsgroup, and get censorship for your time and
trouble. Vote against it, and retain your freedom to pick and choose
among that which you read and reply.
Your vote for a moderated newsgroup should be NO!, even if I am a
candidate for Moderator. Let Mr. Payne and Mr. Hobart go off and
start their own moderated forum, if they want one.....but not STEAL
this one from under your noses.
Bill Cheek
Scannist Extraordinaire
(Voicing his own damn opinions)
PS: Mr. Rimfire Hobart doesn't like my "Scannist Extraordinaire"
signature. Geezus H. Kriste, aren't we ALL "scannists
extraordinaire" ? Perhaps Rimfire is an exception........
Paul Cordingley
bch...@cts.com (Bill Cheek) wrote:
>Mr. Tim Payne wants to force moderated status on this newsgroup. He
>talks as if it is a preordained conclusion. Supposedly there is to be
>a vote on the matter. Once wonders if such a vote can be rigged and
>faked? Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about creating
>or changing the status of a newsgroup. But one wonders.........
>One wonders WHY this moderated newsgroup issue is being rammed down
>our throats. Mr. Gary "Rimfire" Hobart likes to think it is because
>of me.
Your description of Tim's efforts (and I have never met Tim, so I'm
not his shill) is written in rather emotive terms.
Tim is working within the rules of the road for usenet and is
observing the proper protocol and ettiquette. Any one can submit an
RFD; usenet has rules to ensure that the proposal is properly debated
and voted upon. The vote ensures that no one can 'force' a proposal on
a group.
Considering that the issue was raised here, and some support was
voiced, his effort was constructive and appropriate. Whether the
proposal is approved or not is for another day, but there is nothing
wrong with what Tim did or how he did it.
>Mr. Payne seems to infer as much, too. Perhaps Messrs Payne and
>Hobart feel that I am evil personified. Clearly a few others think
>along those lines. Why? Maybe because I am not subject to their
>intimidation. Some think that makes me "special". It does not. No
>one is subject to intimidation who otherwise doesn't want to be. No
>one has anything FORCED upon them unless they choose it.
Personally I don't consider you more or less 'evil' than the people
you bicker with, I just want it stopped. And I don't care whether you,
or they, have the satisfaction of getting the last word in. Someone
has to walk away and ignore whatever the other guy says next.
>One wonders WHY, then, this push to moderate the newsgroup. It will
>have the effect of eliminating me and other knowledgeable people from
>freely participating with and among you.
Ah, Shakespeare.....:"Death, where is thy sting?" Enough people who
remain to make the conference worthwhile....you're certainly in the
expert category, Bill, but no one is irreplaceable.
> That's why I threw my hat
>into the ring for consideration as Moderator. I already AM a
>moderator of another forum where it's no big deal to the people who
>ARE there. The only people to whom it is a big deal are those few who
>are not there any longer; people like Andy Moss, John Mackey, Hugh
>Duff, etc, who were evicted for the SAME qualities you see in them
>here. <shrug> It is prima facie, self-explanatory why those people
>were evicted. You won't see their monkeyshines in any moderated
>group.
A great many people here also participate or lurk in the scanradio
conference. Their votes will tell one way or the other.
>Moderation of a Usenet newsgroup differs from how a FidoNet forum is
>moderated. First of all, no one can get "kicked off" a newsgroup. It
>doesn't work THAT way. It's actually more effective, thanks to a
>process quite well known as CENSORSHIP in oppressed societies.
>That's right.....all posts go to a "central authority" who reviews the
>article (in his own good time) and then passes it on for public
>posting, if he feels like it. Or, rejects the post if he wants.
>Plain old censorship is the name of that game, good people. Is that
>what you want?
I share your concern about the repressive aspect of moderation.
However, there are a number of really good people in this newsgroup
and I personally would be willing to place the conference in their
hands. The moderator role is a person who works behind the scenes,
without the 13D Boot technique. Moderator positions can be reviewed
and revoted periodically. I like that approach better than an open
flame season and twit filters approach - but I'm just one voter.
>Supposing that IS what you want, then how about the regression of the
>technology? Oh YES! Extra time will be required for the Moderator to
>read and PASS on the articles to be posted to the group. Where right
>now it is possible to post one minute and get a reply in less than an
>hour, a moderated forum will average 24-48 hours for a post to be
>placed on the forum. GONE WILL BE THE EXPEDIENCY AND TIMELINESS OF
>THE GROUP'S COMMUNICATIONS.
I participate in a number of listservs. Delay is not a problem.
Propogation delays on usenet exceed moderation delays. Most of us are
hobbyists who have to squeeze our internet time into our real lives -
family, work, etc. So what we don't read today we'll catch tomorrow.
>Before you decide, do a real cheap experiment for a minute. Use your
>newsgroup reader to call up the server and download the list of
>21,000+ newsgroups.
>I just did. And found exactly 27 moderated newsgroups out of over
>21,000. TWENTY-SEVEN?
I did another count. I counted how many listservs I read, versus how
many unmoderated conferences I read.
My personal count was 50-50. And when I thought about the moderated
ones and asked myself, "Which conferences are harmed by the efforts of
the current moderator?", I could only think of one.
>Vote for a moderated newsgroup, and get censorship for your time and
>trouble. Vote against it, and retain your freedom to pick and choose
>among that which you read and reply.
>Your vote for a moderated newsgroup should be NO!, even if I am a
>candidate for Moderator. Let Mr. Payne and Mr. Hobart go off and
>start their own moderated forum, if they want one.....but not STEAL
>this one from under your noses.
I personally do not feel that anyone is trying to 'steal' this
newsgroup by pursuing the moderator idea. We can all vote on the
proposal, and if a moderated group fails we'll all end up reading
alt.radio.scanner anyways. Again, I question why you feel you have to
use personal invective to make your point.
This post probably belongs in the news. hierarcy, but I looked in
news. announce and news.groups and didn't find the RFD or any threads
about it. Anyways, I've exhausted my 2 cents' worth, so I'll drop it
now. Thanks to those of you who read this far.
Regards
Paul
Michael Atwood
Bill Cheek <bch...@cts.com> wrote in article
<32293a7d...@192.188.72.23>...
> To all:
>
> Mr. Tim Payne wants to force moderated status on this newsgroup. He
> talks as if it is a preordained conclusion. Supposedly there is to be
> a vote on the matter. Once wonders if such a vote can be rigged and
> faked? Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about creating
> or changing the status of a newsgroup. But one wonders.........
-------------------other content excluded for
readability----------------------
> Bill Cheek
> Scannist Extraordinaire
> (Voicing his own damn opinions)
>
> PS: Mr. Rimfire Hobart doesn't like my "Scannist Extraordinaire"
> signature. Geezus H. Kriste, aren't we ALL "scannists
> extraordinaire" ? Perhaps Rimfire is an exception........
>
>
>
I wish everyone would just quit their damn whining and get back to the free
exchange of information! We should be glad that we have people like Bill
Cheeks here to give out his information! People like him are the backbone
of these groups!
Now.......I came here to learn more about scanning, as it is a hobby I
love, so lets get it folks and leave the immature attitudes behind!
Mike
me...@cris.com
My two cents worth re: the moderation debate:
This is one of the few groups that has almost no Spam. The substance
to noise ratio is typically fairly high. The volume is not such that
much would be gained by someone deciding what I should and should not
be reading on this group.
It really is trivial to pass over the whining back and forth between
some individuals here. I'd prefer to choose when I want to skip it
and when I want to see if anything interesting is there.
The moderated groups that currently exists usually come in to being
for a couple of reasons. First, groups that are selected for
incredible amounts of advertising spamming. Some of these groups saw
the spam actually outnumbering the non-spam posts each day.
The second reason are groups that are targets for childish pranksters
or abusers whose life is so trivial that they want to go into
something like an alcohol abuse support group and see how "clever"
they can be.
I don't see this group having any of the problems that require a
moderated group. If someone wants to submit a RFD and then set up a
new moderated group, hey, it's a free world. I'll stay here and I
suspect many others will also. I suspect that most people who are
scanner enthusiasts are inclined to wanting someone else to decide
which messages are appropriate for them to read or not, and since
r.r.s. doesn't fit in the classic abuse or spam category for a
moderated group, that's about what a moderator would be doing.
As an aside, this Attack Cheek/Cheek responds posting is a bit
amusing. For those who don't like Bill, why not just ignore him if
you dislike him so? (I already know the responses....). For myself, I
remember corresponding with Bill back in the FIDO days back when no
one had internet access, and I remember Bill giving out a lot of
advice and mods, including those from his book, with nothing asked in
return. I've had Cheek answer some REALLY stupid questions of mine,
back when I was a scanner neophyte, with patience and with follow-ups.
Yea, he can be abrasive as hell, and I do think he rather enjoys a
good round of verbal bar-room brawling, but the guy is extremely
knowledgable and I've never seen him refuse to answer a technical
question.
fwiw
jeff lackey
me...@cris.com
On 1 Sep 1996 15:40:32 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (Paul Cordingley)
said something kinda like:
>Ah, Shakespeare.....:"Death, where is thy sting?" Enough people who
Just because I'm in a picky mode tonight ;) , the above quote is from
the Bible, rather than Willie.
Ed Williams
Bill,
I belive the original idea was to create another newsgroup, i.e...
rec.radio.scanners.moderated, however I was under the assumption that
this newsgroup would stay intact.
If that is not the case then I agree totally with what you are saying.
This is the internet, not fido-net. Censorship is what we need to be
fighting against instead of trying to promote moderation.
If I want want moderation I will go to Fido-net.
________________________________
Ed Williams <<e...@mindspring.com>>
GRW Engineers, Inc. Lexington, Ky.
http://www.mindspring.com/~ed1
Finger for commercial e-mail notices
Glenn Hansen
Johnnie starts his dance and lies.....
> >Let's tell it like it was John. I took a disagreement to E-mail and you
> >complained to my
> >ISP about my E-mail. Remember, you couldn't take it and you were calling
my
> >ISP pleading with them to stop my E-mail? As A favor to them I let it
drop
> >and
> >left you alone. Not only are you wrong but you are a liar.
>
> Actually I got tired of trying to reason with you as you are not a
> practicle thinker.
No, you have no experience dealing with the truth, as you are showing now.
You can't handle the truth John.
> AFTER receiving 23 messages from you in ONE DAY I
> gave up. You did the same thing to a few other people too. THAT is
> when I started complaining. Oh yea, your racial remarks were tiring
> also. I never did understand why the racial remarks.
Right John, Then you must have sent 22 replies in one day. What was my
racial remark John. Another one of your diversions to try and get the light
off of your lies?
> >The real John comes through when you bring up the soliciting for young
> >males.
> >That happened later on John. My ISP investigated the incident. They
would
> <<SNIP>>
> >Why do you throw it in? Memory problems or lies? As everybody knew the
> >solicitation was a forge.
>
> Just telling the truth, I never heard that it was a forge. You say
> your ISP investigated, what was the result of the investigation??
No you aren't John, you are dancing like a fool. You said "Your ISP told
me they were going to
restrict your access after you made so much trouble AND were soliciting
for young
gay boys on rec.radio.swap."
Quit lying and dancing. When your were sniveling and lying to my ISP the
forged posts
had not even been written. Now why would they bring up something that
hadn't happened?
Why do you lie John? Maybe I should make up a whole bunch of things
your ISP told me and then do the dumb John routine, " Uh, maybe I was
wrong but that's what they told me. uh huh, uh huh."
> >> Only a few days later you SUDDENLY stopped
> >> ALL postings & never returned.
I have been there numerous times John, another lie.
> Maybe your ISP never told you taht, but they did tell me that. Maybe
> they were lying, who knows.
You and I know you are doing the lying. You record still stands. Now you
are blaming your lies on my ISP. That is good John.
> >Is this another I forgot thing again? We discussed it before and you
> >denied ever doing anything
> >until other that were there backed it up. You were pissed at me and got
on
> >the
> >repeater calling for me. When I didn't answer you called me some obscene
> >names
>
> Funny, I know the repeater owner & share a frequency with him on 6
> meters. I see him every few months. FHZ has NEVER mentioned anything
> to me about inappropriate activity on his repeater.
Well it was verified by another user on here yesterday. I never mentioned
the repeater
operator getting involved John so his lack of knowledge of the incident
means nothing.
It's the truth John. You haven't denied it you just blow your typical smoke
screen and avoid responsibility for your actions.
> >Bottom line John, you are a sad guy that posts BS to try and stir
trouble
> >and gain some needed
>
> Sounds like you are looking in a mirror, son.
I am not your son, God help any of your spawn. I haven't spent the last
couple of months on here raising hell John, you have.
> >anybody contact you? I took our last disagreement to E-mail and you
cried
> >to my
> >ISP. You couldn't take it. It isn't open for dispute because if you were
>
> No actually you told me that if I stopped responding to you that you
> would stop sending you 4-6 daily e-mails to me but you didn't. You
> continued to sen 4-6 posting to me every day LONG after I stopped
> replying. After about 3 weeks I bitched to your ISP. You left out a
> few facts, son.
Lies again John. I only responded to your E-mail and posts. I didn't play
your E-mail-bomb tricks I responded to YOUR posts and E-mail. You
couldn't take it and started to cry. You are pathetic. You wouldn't know
facts
if they were thrown in your face.
> >OK John, are we on for the bet? $2000 says you are lying about what my
ISP
>
> As a rule for myself I NEVER bet or even buy lottery tickets. I sure
> wish I didn't live by that standard right now.
What a liar. You lied saying "Your ISP told me they were going to
restrict your access after you made so much trouble AND were soliciting
for young
gay boys on rec.radio.swap." You can't back it up and even your facts
are chronologically wrong. Are all in your family liars or did you just
develop the characteristic
on your own?
Glenn
Bill Cheek
crs...@inforamp.net (Paul Cordingley) wrote:
>Your description of Tim's efforts (and I have never met Tim, so I'm
>not his shill) is written in rather emotive terms.
Well.....not only does it appear THIS group is his target, but he
actively, blatantly *discouraged* discussion. Geez, his motive and
his actions have been.....ummmmm......"emotive".
>Tim is working within the rules of the road for usenet and is
>observing the proper protocol and ettiquette. Any one can submit an
>RFD; usenet has rules to ensure that the proposal is properly debated
>and voted upon. The vote ensures that no one can 'force' a proposal on
>a group.
So when's the vote? Who are the nominees? There is nothing being
communicated about it, to speak of. And it looks like Payne picks and
chooses the nominees.
>Considering that the issue was raised here, and some support was
>voiced, his effort was constructive and appropriate. Whether the
>proposal is approved or not is for another day, but there is nothing
>wrong with what Tim did or how he did it.
Maybe not technically. But do you like lawyers? If not, it's
probably because they know the rules so well they can use them to
their advantage and to others' disadvantage. Payne appears to be
working along the same lines.
>Personally I don't consider you more or less 'evil' than the people
>you bicker with, I just want it stopped.
Don't you have enough control over your own computer without having to
bother with trying to control others?
Who are YOU to "want" anything of that nature? The power is already
in your hands. Why do you want more? You can STOP it with your own
fingers anytime you want to.
> And I don't care whether you,
>or they, have the satisfaction of getting the last word in. Someone
>has to walk away and ignore whatever the other guy says next.
And you want to do the commanding of which one, more or less?
>>One wonders WHY, then, this push to moderate the newsgroup. It will
>>have the effect of eliminating me and other knowledgeable people from
>>freely participating with and among you.
>Ah, Shakespeare.....:"Death, where is thy sting?"
Ummmmmm....sorry, but try Jessica Mitford: "O death, where is thy
sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Where indeed?..........."
> Enough people who remain to make the conference worthwhile....
> you're certainly in the expert category, Bill, but no one
> is irreplaceable.
Of course not. That is the way of Life, itself. My point was less
personal and more technical. I will not waste my time composing
material that "might" or "might not" be "allowed" by a moderator who
wants to read into what I say. Other people whose time is valuable
could tend to think along the same lines.
The inescapable conclusion is that those who push for a moderated
group want to have their own sacrosanct podium.....their own gavel and
sword......their own worshipful, obedient congregation. The good
Reverend James Jones was the epitome of this syndrome, but it exists
to lesser degrees everywhere.....even here.....especially here.
>A great many people here also participate or lurk in the scanradio
>conference. Their votes will tell one way or the other.
-= IF =- they get to vote, yeah..........
>I share your concern about the repressive aspect of moderation.
>However, there are a number of really good people in this newsgroup
>and I personally would be willing to place the conference in their
>hands. The moderator role is a person who works behind the scenes,
>without the 13D Boot technique. Moderator positions can be reviewed
>and revoted periodically. I like that approach better than an open
>flame season and twit filters approach - but I'm just one voter.
You don't like controlling your own computer and leaving others the
hell alone to control theirs?
>> GONE WILL BE THE EXPEDIENCY AND TIMELINESS OF
>>THE GROUP'S COMMUNICATIONS.
>I participate in a number of listservs. Delay is not a problem.
>Propogation delays on usenet exceed moderation delays. Most of us are
>hobbyists who have to squeeze our internet time into our real lives -
>family, work, etc. So what we don't read today we'll catch tomorrow.
But that's YOU speaking for YOURSELF. And you are speaking of a
listserver, not a moderated group where the posts pile up until the
moderator chooses to release them.
>>Before you decide, do a real cheap experiment for a minute. Use your
>>newsgroup reader to call up the server and download the list of
>>21,000+ newsgroups.
>>I just did. And found exactly 27 moderated newsgroups out of over
>>21,000. TWENTY-SEVEN?
>I did another count. I counted how many listservs I read, versus how
>many unmoderated conferences I read.
>My personal count was 50-50.
We're not talking about listservers and mail lists.
>And when I thought about the moderated
>ones and asked myself, "Which conferences are harmed by the efforts of
>the current moderator?", I could only think of one.
Hardly a scientific approach. I noticed how you satcheted around the
ratio of 21,000 unmoderated newsgroups to 27 moderated ones.
Obviously, moderation has a lot against it.
>I personally do not feel that anyone is trying to 'steal' this
>newsgroup by pursuing the moderator idea.
Maybe not. But then why don't the ring leaders of those who want the
moderator conrol just trapse off and start their own? It would be so
easy that way!
>We can all vote on the
>proposal, and if a moderated group fails we'll all end up reading
>alt.radio.scanner anyways. Again, I question why you feel you have to
>use personal invective to make your point.
Explained above. The concept was launched on personal invective. It
was an emotional, highly charged atmosphere into which the idea was
born, propagated, and ....... shoved down our throats. All in the
name of righteousness and maybe even a deity or two. Reminds me of
the Crusades of the medieval times. Made a nice excuse to rape, rob,
pillage, loot, and burn.
>This post probably belongs in the news. hierarcy, but I looked in
>news. announce and news.groups and didn't find the RFD or any threads
>about it. Anyways, I've exhausted my 2 cents' worth, so I'll drop it
>now. Thanks to those of you who read this far.
So is the move to "steal" this newsgroup legitimate or not?
<shrug>
Bill Cheek
e...@mindspring.com (Ed Williams) wrote:
>bch...@cts.com (Bill Cheek) wrote:
>>Mr. Tim Payne wants to force moderated status on this newsgroup.
>I belive the original idea was to create another newsgroup, i.e...
>rec.radio.scanners.moderated, however I was under the assumption that
>this newsgroup would stay intact.
If that is so, then GREAT! That would be an example of the American
Way......the exercising of freedom. As it is, I didn't see Payne
calling for any discussion or being very specific, so questions loomed
accordingly. Natural questions......
>If that is not the case then I agree totally with what you are saying.
That's the basis on which my reservations are premised. No one could
argue or object to the starting of a separate group. At least, I
don't see how......
>This is the internet, not fido-net. Censorship is what we need to be
>fighting against instead of trying to promote moderation.
>If I want want moderation I will go to Fido-net.
Exactly. Though I have to add that Fido moderation is a lot looser
than Usenet moderation. Fido's is just that: moderation. Usenet's is
CENSORSHIP. A few people are making a mountain out of a molehill with
respect to the Fido SCANRADIO forum. Without being "exact", I'll
submit that there have been maybe 3-4 admonitions and one eviction in
that forum in the last 60-90 days. It really isn't as bad as Duff and
Mackey would like to have people believe.
But......it is moderation, and that means a definite constraint. But
that is the way of Fido. All forums HAVE to be moderated with rules,
else the forum is not permitted to exist.
The Usenet is certainly a viable alternative, and I see pluses on each
side. With rare exception, though, I don't see any pluses for a
moderated Usenet group. One exception is for people who WANT it and
who don't deprive others when they first set up such a group. Another
exception would be for very special purpose groups, perhaps involving
medicine, health, religion, sex, and politics...with the purpose of
eliminating spamming and kibitzing. That sort of thing.
My immediate concern is for if Payne wants to take THIS group. He
really hasn't set up a discussion, and in fact, has actively
discouraged it. To me, that has stink all over it.
IMHO.
Bill Cheek
Scannist Extraordinaire
Bill Cheek
me...@cris.com wrote:
> If someone wants to submit a RFD and then set up a
>new moderated group, hey, it's a free world. I'll stay here and I
>suspect many others will also.
That's the problem. And the focus.
Those who want to take this group moderated want to take the
"congregation", too. They may be afraid to throw a moderated group
party and then have no one show up. THAT would be awfully embarrssing.
> For those who don't like Bill, why not just ignore him if
>you dislike him so?
They're on a "mission".........ummmm, they're "inspired". :-/
>Yea, he can be abrasive as hell, and I do think he rather enjoys a
>good round of verbal bar-room brawling,
I've not been known to run from the other kind, either. But I don't
reckon there's a soul around who can say I started one of either kind.
Not and be honest about it, anyway.
IMHO, of course.
Bill
Bill Cheek
me...@cris.com wrote:
>On 1 Sep 1996 15:40:32 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (Paul Cordingley)
>said something kinda like:
>>Ah, Shakespeare.....:"Death, where is thy sting?" Enough people who
>Just because I'm in a picky mode tonight ;) , the above quote is from
>the Bible, rather than Willie.
Ulp........<groan>......got a book in me hands: Jessica Mitford.
:-/
Bill
Bob Bruner
I vote no on moderation, in anything...
John-KA0SSF
Bill Cheek wrote:
> >If I want want moderation I will go to Fido-net.
>
> Exactly. Though I have to add that Fido moderation is a lot looser
> than Usenet moderation. Fido's is just that: moderation. Usenet's is
> CENSORSHIP. A few people are making a mountain out of a molehill with
BULLSHIT.
You kicjed John Kaose off of your echo when you told everyone here on
this
newsgroup that you would only give him a warning.
Yea Bill, you probably don't have much moderation to do any more
because you kicked everyone off the echo who didn't think like you
& kiss your ass. Unfortunately you have that right on Fidonet, but
ONLY because you DID NOT do as most everyone requested & have a
moderation election, you have maintained your dictatorship rather
than go with the desire of the people.
> Bill Cheek
> Scannist Extraordinaire
Do you have extra large doorways in your house to accomodate your
big head??
John-KA0SSF
me...@cris.com wrote:
> you dislike him so? (I already know the responses....). For myself, I
> remember corresponding with Bill back in the FIDO days back when no
> one had internet access, and I remember Bill giving out a lot of
> advice and mods, including those from his book, with nothing asked in
Actually I must agree, I have a big problem with the say that
Bill conducts himself. BUT, he is knowledgable about scanners &
has some good technical insights.
Bill Cheek
John-KA0SSF <Now...@anywhere.net> wrote:
>Bill Cheek wrote:
>> A few people are making a mountain out of a molehill with
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
>You kicjed John Kaose off of your echo when you told everyone here on
>this newsgroup that you would only give him a warning.
How many times do I have to explain to you? This is the
third or fourth time now......Mr. Kaose got his warning. He
failed to heed it. So he got his sailing orders, too. Just
like you did.
:-))
You are one dense brown-eyed, eye-batting, squat-to-pee
dude. Geezus are you ever dense.....
>Yea Bill, you probably don't have much moderation to do any more
>because you kicked everyone off the echo who didn't think like you
Nope. Just you and Hugh Duff and a few others who couldn't
abide the rules. Just doing my job, Johnny. :-))
And man, oh man, did you ever sail so gracefully through the
air with the greatest of ease, like the man on the flying
trapeze. That was quite a swan dive you took, ol' pal, ol'
buddy, ol' Dense One. heh heh heh heh.
And it STILL sticks in your craw. <giggle>
>& kiss your ass.
Oh yuck! I don't let anyone but you and the Duff do that to
me, and then only because you are sooooo pursuasive.
You do got some pucker-power, John Mackey. Shucks, let's
tell it like it is.....YOU can suck a tennis ball through a
garden hose and the chrome off a trailer hitch. Heh heh
heh. Hell, Ive even heard how you can suck a basketball
inside out from the valve.
> nfortunately you have that right on Fidonet, but
> ONLY because you DID NOT do as most everyone requested &
> have a moderation election, you have maintained your
> dictatorship rather than go with the desire of the people.
Oh, John Mackey, there you go lying like a damn rug again.
Only a few malcontents and peckerwoods like you and the
Duffster requested an election. But that was plumb dumb,
even for you and the Duff. Even stupid people know there is
no basis for elections of moderators on FidoNet. That isn't
how its done, dung-fer-brains! Don't you know that YET?
>Do you have extra large doorways in your house to accomodate your
>big head??
Well, the head of my ....... aw, never mind. But yes, to
your question. I have extra large doorways. Damn things
were expensive, too.
By the by, you ever get them bed-wetting rugrats of yours to
use the potty?
Gus
bch...@cts.com (Bill Cheek) wrote:
>e...@mindspring.com (Ed Williams) wrote:
>>bch...@cts.com (Bill Cheek) wrote:
>>>Mr. Tim Payne wants to force moderated status on this newsgroup.
>>I belive the original idea was to create another newsgroup, i.e...
>>rec.radio.scanners.moderated, however I was under the assumption that
>>this newsgroup would stay intact.
>If that is so, then GREAT! That would be an example of the American
>Way......the exercising of freedom. As it is, I didn't see Payne
>calling for any discussion or being very specific, so questions loomed
>accordingly. Natural questions......
The original post
I am currently writing the proposal for the moderated group
rec.radio.scanner.moderated . I am looking for someone to moderate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this
group. Please E-MAIL me if you would like to be moderator, or know
someone
that would be a good choice. I will compile the names and let the
group vote
for their choice in a few days.
Thanks for helping this group become even better!!
Tim Payne
Systems Engineer - Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN
E-mail: pay...@millcomm.com
>My immediate concern is for if Payne wants to take THIS group. He
>really hasn't set up a discussion, and in fact, has actively
>discouraged it. To me, that has stink all over it.
I have not seen where he has said that he wanted to take over this
group and am unsure if he could. I you want to discuss it do so. but
do not flame. flaming gets nothing done. except wanting people to
have a moderated group.
Bill Cheek
lg...@hub.ofthe.net (Gus) wrote:
>The original post
>I am currently writing the proposal for the moderated group
>rec.radio.scanner.moderated .
>>My immediate concern is for if Payne wants to take THIS group. He
>>really hasn't set up a discussion, and in fact, has actively
>>discouraged it. To me, that has stink all over it.
>I have not seen where he has said that he wanted to take over this
>group and am unsure if he could. I you want to discuss it do so. but
>do not flame. flaming gets nothing done. except wanting people to
>have a moderated group.
I didn't flame. If I spoke direct and blunt, that's the way
I am. It beats mincing words and not being understood to
the other extreme.
Part was my own ignorance at the onset. I took it to mean
he was going to take THIS group to moderated status. I am
not an expert on the ways and means of the Internet (yet).
I took it to mean that because of his attitude and the face
value of what little he did have to say. I went on to throw
my hat into the ring, and he snubbed me. His brand of flame
was low key, but ever there, ever present. It hung like a
cloud. You don't call that a flame? Ok, but then don't
call my bluntness and getting to the point a flame.
Facts of the matter are that Payne COULD have started a
discussion and information thread and given such a serious
matter more than "a few days". He could have led the
discussion; promoted questions and answers; and made a solid
foundation for his case. Instead, he openly discouraged
discussion and the group's becoming INFORMED about the
matter. I didn't like the smell of that deal from the
git-go, and exercised not only my right, but also my duty to
say so.
Hence, my directness and bluntness in evoking anwers to
questions that were genuine on my part, and probably in a
lot of others who were intimidated into not asking.
Bill Cheek
(Voicing my own dumb opinions)
James P. Meyer
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Bill Cheek wrote:
> Hence, my directness and bluntness in evoking anwers to
> questions that were genuine on my part, and probably in a
> lot of others who were intimidated into not asking.
>
> Bill Cheek
> (Voicing my own dumb opinions)
You have no need to feel intimidated, Bill. The usenet news
groups are open to everybody. There are quite a few "faq"s out there in
cyberland that will give you step-by-step directions for creating your
very own news group with every bit of the legitimacy of *any* other news
group.
There's no reason to be concerned with anything that happens here
on this group. You can start your very own news group about five minutes
after you read the faq. You can set it up as open or moderated. The
group won't be automatically carried by every ISP in the beginning (no
ISP carries *all* the groups even now), but almost every ISP will add the
group if only one or two of their users will ask for the group.
You could give users a choice of news groups. Competition is a
good thing, in America at least.
Jim
Bill Cheek
"James P. Meyer" <jim...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Bill Cheek wrote:
>
>> Hence, my directness and bluntness in evoking anwers to
>> questions that were genuine on my part, and probably in a
>> lot of others who were intimidated into not asking.
>>
>> Bill Cheek
>> (Voicing my own dumb opinions)
> You have no need to feel intimidated, Bill.
Nooo, I'm not. I'm immune to intimidation, but a lot of
people aren't. There was no real invitation to discuss the
proposal to create a moderated forum, and it appeared there
was an overt disinclination to discuss. This could have
been an intimidation factor to which I alluded.
> You could give users a choice of news groups. Competition is a
>good thing, in America at least.
Always. Next to compound interest, it's inspirational.
Speaking of which, what's the story on alt.syntax.tactical?
It's listed on my server, but no headers come down when I
query it.
Bill
James P. Meyer
I see a lot of groups like that. Groups are so easy to start that
many get started without a large group of folks to keep them going so they
just wither on the vine, so to speak. Groups also tend to exist for a
long time after everybody stops using them. Have you tried posting there?
Perhaps everybody is reading and nobody is posting.
Jim
Bill Cheek
<snicker> That must certainly be true for a lot of newsgroups, but
NOT for alt.syntax.tactical. This is one baaaaaaaad-assed newsgroup.
More than likely, my ISP/server won't import the postings. As I
understand it, these guys have the power to shut down the US
Government, and even switchy-swatchy it with Russia's, if they wanted
to bad enough.
I was thinking about getting on there and boning up a little. :-)
Bill
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Bill Cheek wrote:
> <snicker> That must certainly be true for a lot of newsgroups, but
> NOT for alt.syntax.tactical. This is one baaaaaaaad-assed newsgroup.
> More than likely, my ISP/server won't import the postings. As I
> understand it, these guys have the power to shut down the US
> Government, and even switchy-swatchy it with Russia's, if they wanted
> to bad enough.
>
> I was thinking about getting on there and boning up a little. :-)
I surfed over to the WWW and used the Alta Vista search engine to
pull down usenet references to the group. Your message here was #4 or 5
in the list, BTW.
The first entry was a FAQ on the group. From what I can see,
these guys are a lame bunch of spammers who couldn't wipe their own
behinds if somebody held their hands for them.
Are you *sure* you want to try to learn things from them? From
what I can see, if you burned out your brain on drugs, you'd still have
to get a lobotomy in order to get down to their IQ level.
Jim
Bob MacClellan
TAKE THIS CRAP TO E-MAIL, MOST OF US WANT TO SEE ARTICLES BOUT SCANNING
Michael Alexander
In article <323640...@bobmac.seanet.com>, bob...@bobmac.seanet.com wrote:
[discussion related to group moderation]
> >>>>>>>>>WHAT IS THIS B.S. THIS IS A GROUP ABOUT SCANNING, WTF ARE ALL
YOU BABIES SPAMMING FOR???
> TAKE THIS CRAP TO E-MAIL, MOST OF US WANT TO SEE ARTICLES BOUT SCANNING
Hmmm, suspect this one was written by a tyro who just got his Internet
license. Notice the ALL CAPS, a sure sign of a rank amateur. Then there is
the obvious misuse of the term "spam," which certainly does not apply in
this case since this post was was only posted posted here. Last, there is
the admonishment to take this to e-mail, which is certainly inappropriate
since the discussion about moderating a scanner forum in certainly on
topic.
The only observation that Bobmac has made that is worth a shit is that most
people do want to see articles "bout" scanning. So, I'll tell you what
Bobmac, why don't you post something worthwhile or shut the hell up?
--
Michael Alexander
ma...@kersur.net
BAYCITVIDGRP
GROUP! A NEW WINNER EMERGES. NOTED THAT THE "CHEEKS GUY" HAS
BEEN REMISS FOR A FEW DAYS...NOW IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE A NEW EMPEROR
OF THE DEARTH IN THIS POSTER NAMED ALEXANDER.....Notice how he is
very careful not to use the POOP word....he calls it by "shit" ...
I guess this qualifies for scanner-talk according to the new order
of things....
OK...Alexander, Michael....how are you going to keep interest
in this group as did the Cheeks Guy? Do you continually tell people
to SHUT THE HELL UP? Something the "cheeks guy" did not do...he
welcomed all and no one to engage with....
Or is there going to be more voices heard to try to fill in the
silence left by the Cheeks Guy who evidently is still asleep and
has not awoke to this new challenge to "take over".....
OOOPS!
At least with "the cheeks guy" you had a choice....either rebut
him or put him in a kill file. Nasty business telling people to
obey somone who assumes that all will now have to listen because
"you say so"....
I too proposed that anyone with a gripe against the Cheeks Guy
take it to e-mail....personal bantering on personal time. The
response was: well, you have been reading it for some time now.
Everyone wants to be seen as attacking "the Cheeks Guy" for all
to know and then forget....
Now ... have you anything to say about scanning which is of a
Priority One Need To Know? More than "...just shut up".....
bill conduit
the "etc" guy
In <malex-ya02308000...@news.kersur.net> ma...@kersur.net
Glenn Hansen
Michael Alexander <ma...@kersur.net> wrote
--------------------- flame bait deleted ---------------------------------
> The only observation that Bobmac has made that is worth a shit is that
most
> people do want to see articles "bout" scanning. So, I'll tell you what
> Bobmac, why don't you post something worthwhile or shut the hell up?
So you and Bobmac are joined by the hip or I should say brain? You have
really impressed me the
last week or so with your "or shut the hell up" posts. How many times now
have
you posted that drivel of yours? I think you have beat the record of the
idiot that responded to everyone that he was adding them to their kill
file.
Good work Mr. Moderator-Wannabe. I am impressed. When does your next
show start or will we be plagued by reruns forever?
Glenn
Malex007
Hansen and the other guy who thinks he's plugged in (Conduit to what?)
have nothing to offer so they look for posts they can bitch and whine
about . Hey guys, if you don't want to read my drivel, why don't you use
the delete key (all you do is take the finger out of your nose and poke
the keyboard--you'll eventually find it)? Better yet, why don't you show
me the error of my ways and post something worthwhile? Naw, I guess not.
Never have. Never will.
BAYCITVIDGRP
In <51bjsc$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> male...@aol.com (Malex007)
writes:
To the plug-guy:alexander
I reviewed my post about your lack of.....and stand by it still.
Plus the Hansen-guy who also said similar as to your "child-like"
protrusion into this group...very undeveloped.
People who read your drivel see what you are missing and then just
bypass the banality which your present age gives you. Your points
are dull. Your "i dare you's" very much a sign of porridge-itis.
That being that your mother feeds you still.
Again, you just don't get it. You just see the mirror-image you
help create for company.
When you see ... maybe you will be forced to understand.
what I said in that last post stands still. Along with others
who agree.
bill conduit
Glenn Hansen
Malex007 <male...@aol.com>regurgitates..........
> Hansen and the other guy who thinks he's plugged in (Conduit to what?)
> have nothing to offer so they look for posts they can bitch and whine
> about .
Get real Mikey. In the last couple of months my only "bitch and wine" has
been
in reply to you brother John Mackey's lies with my name attached and one
reply to
your constant childish posts.
> Hey guys, if you don't want to read my drivel,
At least you call it what it is............
> why don't you use
> the delete key (all you do is take the finger out of your nose and poke
> the keyboard--you'll eventually find it)?
Do you always assume people have your talents?
> Better yet, why don't you show me the error of my ways
I did Mikey. To recap, You have really impressed me the
last week or so with your "or shut the hell up" posts. How many times now
have you posted that drivel of yours? I think you have beat the record of
the
idiot that responded to everyone that he was adding them to their kill
file.
>and post something worthwhile? Naw, I guess not.
> Never have. Never will.
I have Mikey. Guess you were spending too much time telling people to
"shut the hell up", playing price police and campaigning for moderator
to have noticed. Maybe you have spent too much time flaming others
to really see what is going on? Your record stands on its own Mikey,
spew me some more of your childish crap. You are nothing but a tiny
boy with an over inflated ego showing the Usenet what a hypocrite you
really are. You are doing exactly what you flamed others for doing.
Glenn
Alec Lemas
In article <51bjsc$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, male...@aol.com (Malex007) wrote:
>Hansen and the other guy who thinks he's plugged in (Conduit to what?)
>have nothing to offer so they look for posts they can bitch and whine
You should add FE to malex007 as you are always on the rag.
lemas
************************************************
Alec Lemas | "Never get outta these |
Blues Alive" |
---------- John Lee Hooker
First choice Email: le...@mail.drsystems.com
Or,try this one: ale...@radix.net
************************************************
Flatted5th
Glenn Hansen wrote
>So you and Bobmac are joined by the hip or I should say
>brain? You have
>really impressed me the
>last week or so with your "or shut the hell up" posts. How >many times
now
>have
>you posted that drivel of yours? I think you have beat the >record of
the
>idiot that responded to everyone
NOW AINT THIS A BITCH GLEN HANSEN TELLING SOMEONE ABOUT POSTING CRAP
ALL THE TIME. YOU DO NOTHING BUT POST SHIT HANSON AND THATS ALL YOU EVER
DONE. I LOOKED AT YOUR RECORD. YOUR AN ASSHOLE WHO TRYS TO TALK LIKE BILL
CHEEK AND GET INTO STUFF WHERE YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS. GET OUT OF HERE.
George L. Vetterle
In <51co5g$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> flatt...@aol.com (Flatted5th)
writes:
Mighty bold talk for someone who hides behind an AOL screen name. The
name itself suggests that maybe you're not too SHARP.
--
George L. Vetterle
geo...@ix.netcom.com
"A man has to know his limitations."-Dirty Harry Callahan, MAGNUM
FORCE, Malpaso (1973)
Glen Quarnstrom
my...@ix.netcom.com(BAYCITVIDGRP) wrote:
<drivel deleted>
> At least with "the cheeks guy" you had a choice....either rebut
> him or put him in a kill file. Nasty business telling people to
> obey somone who assumes that all will now have to listen because
> "you say so"....
Har! That's an excellent description of how "the Cheeks guy" does it
on FIDO, where he's managed to appoint himself dictator of a scanner
echo.
'Round here, of course, he has no such power, so you can feel free to
ignore him or flame him or praise him or whatever breaks your squelch.
The one thing you DON'T have to do is kiss his ass.
> I too proposed that anyone with a gripe against the Cheeks Guy
> take it to e-mail....personal bantering on personal time. The
> response was: well, you have been reading it for some time now.
> Everyone wants to be seen as attacking "the Cheeks Guy" for all
> to know and then forget....
I'm sure Bill can defend himself just fine without your help. If he
says something stupid in this group, it may get pointed out. And vice
versa. That's how things work in an anarchy. Love it or leave it, I
say, 'cause you got NO chance of changing it.
> Now ... have you anything to say about scanning which is of a
> Priority One Need To Know? More than "...just shut up".....
Just shut up, asshole? <ObSmiley>
>In <malex-ya02308000...@news.kersur.net> ma...@kersur.net
>(Michael Alexander) writes:
>>
>>In article <323640...@bobmac.seanet.com>, bob...@bobmac.seanet.com
>wrote:
>>[discussion related to group moderation]
>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>WHAT IS THIS B.S. THIS IS A GROUP ABOUT SCANNING, WTF ARE
>ALL
>>YOU BABIES SPAMMING FOR???
>>> TAKE THIS CRAP TO E-MAIL, MOST OF US WANT TO SEE ARTICLES BOUT
>SCANNING
>>
>>Hmmm, suspect this one was written by a tyro who just got his Internet
>>license. Notice the ALL CAPS, a sure sign of a rank amateur. Then
>there is
>>the obvious misuse of the term "spam," which certainly does not apply
>in
>>this case since this post was was only posted posted here. Last, there
>is
>>the admonishment to take this to e-mail, which is certainly
>inappropriate
>>since the discussion about moderating a scanner forum in certainly on
>>topic.
>>
>>The only observation that Bobmac has made that is worth a shit is that
>most
>>people do want to see articles "bout" scanning. So, I'll tell you what
>>Bobmac, why don't you post something worthwhile or shut the hell up?
>>
>>--
>>Michael Alexander
>>ma...@kersur.net
BAYCITVIDGRP
In <51fk4m$c...@host-3.cyberhighway.net> gl...@cyberhighway.net (Glen
Quarnstrom) writes:
>
>
>I'm sure Bill can defend himself just fine without your help. If he
>says something stupid in this group, it may get pointed out. And vice
>versa. That's how things work in an anarchy. Love it or leave it, I
>say, 'cause you got NO chance of changing it.
>
>> Now ... have you anything to say about scanning which is of a
>> Priority One Need To Know? More than "...just shut up".....
>
>Just shut up, asshole? <ObSmiley>
>
process of getting the Cheeks guy banned from this group...
people demanding his ISP denude him and cast him out into
the land of neither here nor here.
If your statement about "recognized as an anarchy" exists with
the use groups, then why the collective sending to his ISP
demands that he be silenced?
Where is the logic here? Or is it a place just for you and
your thinking and when the Cheeks' Guy gets in your way of
explaining it, he's a bad ass and must be silenced via the
coward's way out: have his ISP do it based on deception and
having many personal axes to grind because he likes to use
the POOP word whereas others prefer the use of "SHIT"....
Strange how people who enlighten get told to turn their
brightness off because it is hard to see. And then using
him as a "source of much information" after the deed has
been done with the ISP. Brave people here.
bill conduit
>
>
>
>
John,Mackey,KA0SSF
Glenn Hansen wrote:
> in reply to you brother John Mackey's lies with my name attached and one
Glenn, you are HARDLY one to complain about lying or other such activities
given the way you have conducted yourself over the last several months.
> to really see what is going on? Your record stands on its own Mikey,
> spew me some more of your childish crap. You are nothing but a tiny
> boy with
Given your history this appears to be what you prefer.
Michael Alexander
> In article <51bjsc$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, male...@aol.com
(Malex007) wrote:
> >Hansen and the other guy who thinks he's plugged in (Conduit to what?)
> >have nothing to offer so they look for posts they can bitch and whine
>
> You should add FE to malex007 as you are always on the rag.
>
> lemas
>
Can you say "illiterate?"
--
Michael Alexander
ma...@kersur.net
Michael Alexander
In article <01bba189$9cae9820$c205...@ghansen.accesone.com>, "Glenn
Hansen" <grha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I have Mikey. Guess you were spending too much time telling people to
> "shut the hell up", playing price police and campaigning for moderator
> to have noticed. Maybe you have spent too much time flaming others
> to really see what is going on? Your record stands on its own Mikey,
> spew me some more of your childish crap. You are nothing but a tiny
> boy with an over inflated ego showing the Usenet what a hypocrite you
> really are. You are doing exactly what you flamed others for doing.
Wah, wah, wah... You still crying about the many times over the past
couple of years that I've told you to shut up? Go back to doing what you
always do Glenn. Say nothing meaningful, whine about posts in which your
feelings are hurt and kiss butt. You're real good at the latter.
--
Michael Alexander
ma...@kersur.net
Michael Alexander
In article <51bu1m$r...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
my...@ix.netcom.com(BAYCITVIDGRP) wrote:
> To the plug-guy:alexander
>
> I reviewed my post about your lack of.....and stand by it still.
> Plus the Hansen-guy who also said similar as to your "child-like"
> protrusion into this group...very undeveloped.
>
> People who read your drivel see what you are missing and then just
> bypass the banality which your present age gives you. Your points
> are dull. Your "i dare you's" very much a sign of porridge-itis.
> That being that your mother feeds you still.
>
> Again, you just don't get it. You just see the mirror-image you
> help create for company.
>
> When you see ... maybe you will be forced to understand.
>
> what I said in that last post stands still. Along with others
> who agree.
>
> bill conduit
>
As always, this lunkhead posts gibberish and thinks he is saying something
profound. English: It's an easy language to learn but difficult to master,
eh?
--
Michael Alexander
ma...@kersur.net