Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RFD: delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 8:19:25 AM4/26/17
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:
delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.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
The group uk.radio.amateur.moderated was formed in an environment of
dispute and harassment. Despite the fine purposes of the group, to
provide a place where Amateur Radio can be discussed without the
ever-present abuse in the non-moderated sister group, it has not had the
patronage that the proponents ensured it would.
This group has seen only 3200 or so posts in total since its inception,
and many of the threads have degenerated into banal off-topic discussion.
A number of vocal posters have constantly complained of bias by the
moderators, whether justified or not. Statistics for use of the group
show that there are regularly multi-day gaps between posts, only 14
regular posters, and a prediction of not even 1000 posts to be made to
the group in the next 18 months.
A minority contingent of the users of this group have recently sought to
support the removal of the original uk.radio.amateur newsgroup, despite
the charter for ukram stating that it is to supplement, not supersede any
other group. It is perhaps ironic that those who shouted so loudly for
the removal of ukra are those who stated that ukram would not be its
replacement, and are also those from whom much of the abuse and bile in
the unmoderated group originates, hence justifying by their own conduct
their claim for a moderated group being necessary.
As has been demonstrated by the strong support across uk.* for the
retention of the current unmoderated group, and the solid level of
activity therein despite the existence of the moderated alternative,
there is no valid reason to retain UKRAM.
The proponent wishes to point out that this proposal is not, in any way,
intended as a criticism of the moderation team or their running of this
newsgroup. Originally proposed on a "built it and they will come" basis,
it was built, and "they" did not come, indeed of those who voted for the
group, less than 15% have actually used it.
This group has demonstrably lost its purpose, and should be removed for
the good of the hierarchy.
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
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 May 7th) 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.moderated
Proponent:
Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBWQCQQmOfGXkh8vHZAQLiUgP/ZEuYIXBQWjOHafPgsvTyfg051p4UgVpr
BNdWtU9hQXrLyAJNPRdtYtcX0oa5gmK2gIe0zlJlPFTtv+11t59IM0IJNelIU4Zh
DbtEYIVP15d5g8FIuBtLNjWA+ox5idSs3TXmW/tW90LOE5iZr/EHd1GqTT9yFBC6
MeapM+lQquY=
=TO1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.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
The group uk.radio.amateur.moderated was formed in an environment of
dispute and harassment. Despite the fine purposes of the group, to
provide a place where Amateur Radio can be discussed without the
ever-present abuse in the non-moderated sister group, it has not had the
patronage that the proponents ensured it would.
This group has seen only 3200 or so posts in total since its inception,
and many of the threads have degenerated into banal off-topic discussion.
A number of vocal posters have constantly complained of bias by the
moderators, whether justified or not. Statistics for use of the group
show that there are regularly multi-day gaps between posts, only 14
regular posters, and a prediction of not even 1000 posts to be made to
the group in the next 18 months.
A minority contingent of the users of this group have recently sought to
support the removal of the original uk.radio.amateur newsgroup, despite
the charter for ukram stating that it is to supplement, not supersede any
other group. It is perhaps ironic that those who shouted so loudly for
the removal of ukra are those who stated that ukram would not be its
replacement, and are also those from whom much of the abuse and bile in
the unmoderated group originates, hence justifying by their own conduct
their claim for a moderated group being necessary.
As has been demonstrated by the strong support across uk.* for the
retention of the current unmoderated group, and the solid level of
activity therein despite the existence of the moderated alternative,
there is no valid reason to retain UKRAM.
The proponent wishes to point out that this proposal is not, in any way,
intended as a criticism of the moderation team or their running of this
newsgroup. Originally proposed on a "built it and they will come" basis,
it was built, and "they" did not come, indeed of those who voted for the
group, less than 15% have actually used it.
This group has demonstrably lost its purpose, and should be removed for
the good of the hierarchy.
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
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 May 7th) 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.moderated
Proponent:
Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBWQCQQmOfGXkh8vHZAQLiUgP/ZEuYIXBQWjOHafPgsvTyfg051p4UgVpr
BNdWtU9hQXrLyAJNPRdtYtcX0oa5gmK2gIe0zlJlPFTtv+11t59IM0IJNelIU4Zh
DbtEYIVP15d5g8FIuBtLNjWA+ox5idSs3TXmW/tW90LOE5iZr/EHd1GqTT9yFBC6
MeapM+lQquY=
=TO1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 26, 2017, 8:35:20 AM4/26/17
to
Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
LOL. YFI.
> -----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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Brian Howie
Apr 26, 2017, 9:02:20 AM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0100, Paul Cummins
<paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
<paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
3200 post in 18 months is a reasonable figure for USENET these days.
A smalll amount of off-topic postings have been allowed , but that is
far better than the degeneration in abuse as is current in ukra.
14 regular posers is a reasonable user base.
Only one individual has complained of moderator bias.
FTW all the uram moderators voted for retention of ukra .
I will be voting against the proposal.
Brian speaking as myself.
Jerry Stuckle
Apr 26, 2017, 9:12:27 AM4/26/17
to
On 4/26/2017 8:18 AM, Paul Cummins wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
You insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself, don't you, Paul?
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
Just because you can't spew your crap in the newsgroup you want to get
rid of it.
No wonder you'll never get yourself elected to the committee. You
continue to prove what a mistake it would be.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 26, 2017, 9:14:18 AM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 14:02, Brian Howie wrote:
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
I disagree, because the original RFD for its creation was itself
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
vexatious, and was a symptom of the proposer's infantile need
to be the centre of attention by uttering things preposterous.
The second RFD was vexatious because it was part of the
unwelcome Schleckian pollution of several NGs, and was a fit
of pique by Schleck.
That same proposer had for months been urging for a deletion
of URA, again being vexatious, in order to attract attention to himself.
The whole basis of UKRAM, therefore, is, and always has been, vexatious
and for that reason alone should be rmgrouped.
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Apr 26, 2017, 9:15:28 AM4/26/17
to
"Paul Cummins" <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
Rob Morley
Apr 26, 2017, 9:35:34 AM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:15:18 +0100
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
> "Paul Cummins" <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
> > -----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:
> >
> > delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >
> >
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
> "Paul Cummins" <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk...
> > -----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:
> >
> > delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >
> >
> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
Part of me wants this to go to a vote, just out of curiosity.
More sensible though for Paul to withdraw the RFD once it's
served its purpose of prompting a few expressions of outrage.
Spike
Apr 26, 2017, 9:42:39 AM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 14:02, Brian Howie wrote:
> 3200 post in 18 months is a reasonable figure for USENET these days.
The current rate of posting is 1000 in 460 days, and ever that is
increasing.
> A smalll amount of off-topic postings have been allowed , but that is
> far better than the degeneration in abuse as is current in ukra.
> 14 regular posers is a reasonable user base.
If the 14 regular posters took their custom to (RSG)BTech, another
moderated forum and one claimed to be a 'national resource' and backed
by the RSGB, it would have the merit of concentrating all those in
favour of such groups in one place rather than two, and boost the
falling posting figures for that group. As it stands, UKRAM serves no
real purpose, fills no niche, is not attracting 'custom', and this is
shown by its year-long ever-increasing decline, the facts of which are
undeniable.
--
Spike
Richard Kettlewell
Apr 26, 2017, 10:03:51 AM4/26/17
to
Brian Howie <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
waste their time holding a vote on it, if the proponent turns out to be
sufficiently vindictive to push it that far.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
Quite. As volunteers, UKV would be completely justified in declining to
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
waste their time holding a vote on it, if the proponent turns out to be
sufficiently vindictive to push it that far.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
lordgnome
Apr 26, 2017, 10:21:07 AM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 14:02, Brian Howie wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0100, Paul Cummins
> <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
>
I totally agree. There are numerous newsgroups where little appears for
> <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
>
years. The only reason for this (and the ukra one) is vindictiveness
from those on either side, with too much time on their hands.
Les.
James Stewart
Apr 26, 2017, 10:30:22 AM4/26/17
to
>
> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
James Stewart
Apr 26, 2017, 10:31:21 AM4/26/17
to
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20170426143532.0cc19b6f@Mars...
Sn!pe
Apr 26, 2017, 10:31:55 AM4/26/17
to
While I do not post in uram, I read it (unfiltered) daily
and find it interesting. I wish that my out-of-date level of
expertise allowed me to make a useful contribution to it;
meanwhile, I abstain from posting mere noise and am content
with only reading.
-- Sn!pe aka g8dgc
--
^Ï^. My pet rock Gordon just is.
Matthew Vernon
Apr 26, 2017, 10:57:25 AM4/26/17
to
Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 11:10:13 AM4/26/17
to
poor moderation it is never going to flourish. Far better just to
ignore Cummins' attempts at getting attention.
The big question is, what will fill the huge gap it will leave in our
retired postman's life? Perhaps he will take up stamp collecting.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!
https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Mike Bristow
Apr 26, 2017, 11:18:01 AM4/26/17
to
In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
Agreed.
> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Clive George
Apr 26, 2017, 11:30:24 AM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 13:18, Paul Cummins 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Well done Paul, continue your efforts at bringing noise to the
> -----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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
management groups.
Although it's not just you, and the same message applies to the
apparently invisible proponent of the previous RFD, I've a probably
massively vain hope that you might listen.
If your aim is to carry on the UKRA argument here, then you're going the
right way about it. That argument is not what the management groups are
here for, but if you want to carry on abusing them in the way you and
the others involved are doing, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
If your aim is to do anything else, you're not going to succeed.
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 26, 2017, 11:44:20 AM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 15:30, James Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
>
> but which one is the tit and which one is tat ........
>
>
M30+OSN for the former, CB0TEY the latter.
>>
>> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
>
> but which one is the tit and which one is tat ........
>
>
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 26, 2017, 12:10:07 PM4/26/17
to
Brian Howie <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0100, Paul Cummins
> <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
>
> 3200 post in 18 months is a reasonable figure for USENET these days.
It's better than reasonable, it's a goddamn miracle! Seriously, for a
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0100, Paul Cummins
> <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
> This is a vexacious RFD that serves no purpose.
>
> 3200 post in 18 months is a reasonable figure for USENET these days.
moderated group, on a niche subject, on *Usenet* in 2016, it's fantastic.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 26, 2017, 12:10:07 PM4/26/17
to
Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
> If this ever gets to a vote then I am very unlikely to vote yes unless
> certain parties up the ante.
Dickhead. HTH, OM.
>
> If this ever gets to a vote then I am very unlikely to vote yes unless
> certain parties up the ante.
Dickhead. HTH, OM.
Fred Roberts
Apr 26, 2017, 12:21:09 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 13:18, Paul Cummins wrote:
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was created
solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright forgery.
--
The maths teacher broke down in tears at the North West Wiltshire
Magistrates’ Court
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Apr 26, 2017, 1:17:39 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:56:54 +0100, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org>
wrote:
>Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
Is that a no from
1. you-the-singular-person
2. the 'internet committee'
3. the 'internet president'
4. the 'internet God' ?
wrote:
>Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
1. you-the-singular-person
2. the 'internet committee'
3. the 'internet president'
4. the 'internet God' ?
Mike Fleming
Apr 26, 2017, 1:42:47 PM4/26/17
to
In article <slrnog1eg...@cheddar.urgle.com>, Mike Bristow
--
Mike Fleming
<mi...@urgle.com> writes:
> In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >
> > It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>
> Agreed.
Exactly. Same reason as I voted against the other deletion.
> In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >
> > It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>
> Agreed.
--
Mike Fleming
Molly Mockford
Apr 26, 2017, 2:00:19 PM4/26/17
to
At 17:16:37 on Wed, 26 Apr 2017, mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com wrote in
<5900d562....@news.albasani.net>:
It is 1. It always is when Committee members post to the newsgroups,
unless they specifically say that they are posting on behalf of the
Committee (or, in Control's case, as Control).
(And what happened to my own designation - 5. Empress of Usenet?)
--
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.
<5900d562....@news.albasani.net>:
unless they specifically say that they are posting on behalf of the
Committee (or, in Control's case, as Control).
(And what happened to my own designation - 5. Empress of Usenet?)
--
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.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 2:09:53 PM4/26/17
to
In article <ZaCdnYUMacONIJ3E...@brightview.co.uk>,
is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
an equal situation.
In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
it should remain.
For the record, this RFD has been in the queue since 2 February, and the
place for discussion is not ukra, so I won't be discussing it there.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
> If your aim is to do anything else, you're not going to succeed.
My aim is exactly as stated in the RFD - this group is purposeless, and
> If your aim is to do anything else, you're not going to succeed.
is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
an equal situation.
In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
it should remain.
For the record, this RFD has been in the queue since 2 February, and the
place for discussion is not ukra, so I won't be discussing it there.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 2:20:39 PM4/26/17
to
In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
so were uk.people.support.bullying, and uk.local.yorkshire
so were uk.people.support.bullying, and uk.local.yorkshire
Clive George
Apr 26, 2017, 2:28:28 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 19:10, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <ZaCdnYUMacONIJ3E...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
>> If your aim is to do anything else, you're not going to succeed.
>
> My aim is exactly as stated in the RFD - this group is purposeless, and
> is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
> all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
> that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
>
> Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
> unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
> an equal situation.
>
> In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
> group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
> it should remain.
>
> For the record, this RFD has been in the queue since 2 February, and the
> place for discussion is not ukra, so I won't be discussing it there.
As I said, you won't succeed in doing anything but continuing the very
> In article <ZaCdnYUMacONIJ3E...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
>> If your aim is to do anything else, you're not going to succeed.
>
> My aim is exactly as stated in the RFD - this group is purposeless, and
> is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
> all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
> that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
>
> Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
> unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
> an equal situation.
>
> In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
> group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
> it should remain.
>
> For the record, this RFD has been in the queue since 2 February, and the
> place for discussion is not ukra, so I won't be discussing it there.
public and noisy feud you and other UKRA-related people have been having
for many years, to the detriment of places such as this.
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 26, 2017, 2:30:16 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 19:10, Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>
> My aim is exactly as stated in the RFD - this group is purposeless, and
> is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
> all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
> that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
>
> Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
> unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
> an equal situation.
>
> In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
> group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
> it should remain.
+1
> is not necessary. "Build it and they will come" - so where are they? for
> all his posturing, STC has produced no new users, not even the brother
> that apparently voted for the group, and has never been heard of since.
>
> Its continued existence will be held up by others of "proof" that ukra is
> unnecessary and should be removed. Unlike uk.legal and ulm, this is not
> an equal situation.
>
> In any case, it will grant an opportunity for the 85% who voted for the
> group creation but haven;t appeared in the group to actually explain why
> it should remain.
Spike
Apr 26, 2017, 2:31:55 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 17:21, Fred Roberts wrote:
> On 26/04/2017 13:18, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was created
> solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright forgery.
One got the impression at the time, which remains extant, that UKRAM was
> On 26/04/2017 13:18, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was created
> solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright forgery.
finally voted in by any means necessary, including blind eyes being
turned, to get the RFD proponent out of the management groups so that
the peace, for which we have seen yet another set of pleas, return to
those groups.
We did warn at the time that appeasement never works, and it continues
to remain the case. Those that wouldn't listen then can now continue to
enjoy the fallout from the bastard child of a group that was thus
created. They laid with a dog, and caught fleas. They cannot now whinge
to those that told them this was going to be the case.
--
Spike
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 26, 2017, 2:35:30 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 19:28, Clive George wrote:
>
> As I said, you won't succeed in doing anything but continuing the very
> public and noisy feud you and other UKRA-related people have been having
> for many years, to the detriment of places such as this.
Au contraire, for there has never been any feud, only the
>
> As I said, you won't succeed in doing anything but continuing the very
> public and noisy feud you and other UKRA-related people have been having
> for many years, to the detriment of places such as this.
one-sided unilateral gratuitous abusive posts from reay
and the concomitant indignant responses from others
asserting the right of reply.
(reay's behaviour in other NGs being a good illustration
of his nuisance)
Now that reay and his ilk are being openly shunned in URA,
something that has been overdue for many years, the situation
should improve.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 2:47:41 PM4/26/17
to
In article <odqd2l$npi$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> *From:* Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
> *Date:* Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:10:11 +0100
example of the sort of abuse I am speaking of, from a person who both
supported ukram's conception and birth, and sought to strangle ukra.
It's also a mild example of the sort of thing which I will not discuss in
this group. This RFD is about a group, not a personality or lack thereof.
> *From:* Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
> *Date:* Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:10:11 +0100
>
> On 26/04/2017 14:35, Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:15:18 +0100
> > "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
> >
> >> "Paul Cummins" <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a97@weathertop.
> On 26/04/2017 14:35, Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:15:18 +0100
> > "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
> >
> >> "Paul Cummins" <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> principate.org.uk...
> >>> -----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:
> >>>
> >>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
> >
> > Part of me wants this to go to a vote, just out of curiosity.
> > More sensible though for Paul to withdraw the RFD once it's
> > served its purpose of prompting a few expressions of outrage.
> >
>
> Which is all he wants. If the uk.ram is removed, no great loss- due
> to poor moderation it is never going to flourish. Far better just
> to ignore Cummins' attempts at getting attention.
>
> The big question is, what will fill the huge gap it will leave in
> our retired postman's life? Perhaps he will take up stamp
> collecting.
Although I do not killfile in the management groups, this is a mild
> >>> -----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:
> >>>
> >>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Nice one Paul. Tit for tat, eh?
> >
> > Part of me wants this to go to a vote, just out of curiosity.
> > More sensible though for Paul to withdraw the RFD once it's
> > served its purpose of prompting a few expressions of outrage.
> >
>
> Which is all he wants. If the uk.ram is removed, no great loss- due
> to poor moderation it is never going to flourish. Far better just
> to ignore Cummins' attempts at getting attention.
>
> The big question is, what will fill the huge gap it will leave in
> our retired postman's life? Perhaps he will take up stamp
> collecting.
example of the sort of abuse I am speaking of, from a person who both
supported ukram's conception and birth, and sought to strangle ukra.
It's also a mild example of the sort of thing which I will not discuss in
this group. This RFD is about a group, not a personality or lack thereof.
Roger Hayter
Apr 26, 2017, 2:51:32 PM4/26/17
to
Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
>
I don't think this is any sillier than the proposal to delete ukra, but
> -----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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
>
that is a pretty low bar. It's still silly to suggest deleting an
active group. If i ever comes to a vote I hope more of those who think
deleting an active group is inappropriate bother to vote than last time,
as I thought 37:15 was a worryingly close thing.
--
Roger Hayter
Bernie
Apr 26, 2017, 2:56:15 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:35:27 +0100
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Roger Hayter
Apr 26, 2017, 3:02:14 PM4/26/17
to
of that.
--
Roger Hayter
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 3:04:54 PM4/26/17
to
In article <ku51gch1bq8u8vb4l...@4ax.com>,
Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Brian Howie) wrote:
>
> FTW all the uram moderators voted for retention of ukra .
Agreed - this is not a hit at the mods.
Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Brian Howie) wrote:
>
> FTW all the uram moderators voted for retention of ukra .
Agreed - this is not a hit at the mods.
Brian
Apr 26, 2017, 3:17:43 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:20 +0100 (BST), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
>mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon) wrote:
>
>> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>
>so were uk.people.support.bullying, and uk.local.yorkshire
uk.local.yorkshire has been rmgrouped?
(Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
>mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon) wrote:
>
>> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>
>so were uk.people.support.bullying, and uk.local.yorkshire
It's on the active list at http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html
u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
Remove .2001 to reply by email. I apologise for the inconvenience.
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 3:25:31 PM4/26/17
to
the market crashes.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 3:33:11 PM4/26/17
to
In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
moderators and the users of ukra.
Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The group
> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
moderators and the users of ukra.
Bernie
Apr 26, 2017, 3:36:16 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:33 +0100 (BST)
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
> > u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The
> group was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and
> its continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one
> of its moderators and the users of ukra.
>
Oooh! Attempted irritation, that is serious.
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
> > u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The
> group was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and
> its continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one
> of its moderators and the users of ukra.
>
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 3:40:28 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 20:33, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The group
> was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
> continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
> moderators and the users of ukra.
>
Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real proof not
> In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The group
> was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
> continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
> moderators and the users of ukra.
>
something forged by you, there is no evidence of their being a special
case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 3:57:19 PM4/26/17
to
In article <odqstc$gvo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
>
> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
Unless you are prepared to engage reasonably in the RFD process, I will
not respond to you in this discussion, nor give any weight to your views
in any Summary of Discussion. The same applies to those who associate
themselves with your abuse of others here or elsewhere.
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 4:05:11 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 20:57, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <odqstc$gvo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>>
>> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
>> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
>> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
>
> I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
>
> Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
>
> Unless you are prepared to engage reasonably in the RFD process, I will
> not respond to you in this discussion, nor give any weight to your views
> in any Summary of Discussion. The same applies to those who associate
> themselves with your abuse of others here or elsewhere.
>
That is enough evidence your claims are bogus.
> In article <odqstc$gvo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>>
>> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
>> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
>> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
>
> I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
>
> Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
>
> Unless you are prepared to engage reasonably in the RFD process, I will
> not respond to you in this discussion, nor give any weight to your views
> in any Summary of Discussion. The same applies to those who associate
> themselves with your abuse of others here or elsewhere.
>
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 4:09:30 PM4/26/17
to
caught fleas.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 4:27:11 PM4/26/17
to
In article <odqubn$l2h$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> *From:* Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
> *Date:* Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:05:09 +0100
> *From:* Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
>
> On 26/04/2017 20:57, Paul Cummins wrote:
> > In article <odqstc$gvo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
> >> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
> >> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
> >
> > I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
> >
> > Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
> >
> > Unless you are prepared to engage reasonably in the RFD process,
> > I will
> > not respond to you in this discussion, nor give any weight to
> > your views
> > in any Summary of Discussion. The same applies to those who
> > associate
> > themselves with your abuse of others here or elsewhere.
> >
>
> That is enough evidence your claims are bogus.
I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
> On 26/04/2017 20:57, Paul Cummins wrote:
> > In article <odqstc$gvo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Unless you can provide proof of those claims, and that is real
> >> proof not something forged by you, there is no evidence of their
> >> being a special case- unless we count your bogus claims that is.
> >
> > I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
> >
> > Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
> >
> > Unless you are prepared to engage reasonably in the RFD process,
> > I will
> > not respond to you in this discussion, nor give any weight to
> > your views
> > in any Summary of Discussion. The same applies to those who
> > associate
> > themselves with your abuse of others here or elsewhere.
> >
>
> That is enough evidence your claims are bogus.
I refer you to the reply I gave some moment ago
Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
Clive George
Apr 26, 2017, 4:54:04 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 20:33, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <vds1gct1j7b87qqa2...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The group
> was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
> continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
> moderators and the users of ukra.
Are you suggesting that UKV has been taken in by the creation of a sock
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> u.p.s.b was, IIRC, recognised at the time as a special case.
>
> And for reasons that are clear, this is equally a special case. The group
> was created by 85% socks, none of which have ever used it, and its
> continued existence is used as an excuse to try to bully both one of its
> moderators and the users of ukra.
army? Experience shows them to be better than that.
I've just checked the results for the UKRAM creation. Of the 53 "yes"
votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus. (I suspect the rest
just don't post in places I read) If you're going to go ahead with this
charade, can you please do us the honour of keeping to the truth?
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 4:57:33 PM4/26/17
to
In article <jZmdnYNfI5V2lZzE...@brightview.co.uk>,
it - where are they all?
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
> Of the 53 "yes"
> votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
> shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
So since they voted that the group should be created and they would use
> Of the 53 "yes"
> votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
> shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
it - where are they all?
Andrew Marshall
Apr 26, 2017, 5:03:11 PM4/26/17
to
In message <20170426160...@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> writes
>live. The moderated group works for people who want moderation, the
>unmoderated group works for those who want to do it themselves and other
>groups exist for those who aren't interested in either.
I quite agree. If it comes to a vote, I will vote against the RFD to
delete uram.
--
Regards,
Andrew Marshall, G8BUR, M0MAA.
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> writes
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:35:32 +0100
>Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> More sensible though for Paul to withdraw the RFD once it's
>> served its purpose of prompting a few expressions of outrage.
>Personally, I wish neither RFD had never been created. Live and let
>Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> More sensible though for Paul to withdraw the RFD once it's
>> served its purpose of prompting a few expressions of outrage.
>live. The moderated group works for people who want moderation, the
>unmoderated group works for those who want to do it themselves and other
>groups exist for those who aren't interested in either.
I quite agree. If it comes to a vote, I will vote against the RFD to
delete uram.
--
Regards,
Andrew Marshall, G8BUR, M0MAA.
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 5:05:39 PM4/26/17
to
In article <odqujq$mpv$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Why not, you have lain with the usual rejects, including Spike, and
> caught fleas.
I refer you to the reply I gave some moments ago
> Why not, you have lain with the usual rejects, including Spike, and
> caught fleas.
Message-ID: <memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 5:10:51 PM4/26/17
to
RFD/V to remove ukra.
As for his claim those who voted for it should use it, by that logic no
one who voted against it should us it. He voted against it but used it.
Roger Hayter
Apr 26, 2017, 5:32:56 PM4/26/17
to
Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jZmdnYNfI5V2lZzE...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
> > Of the 53 "yes"
> > votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
> > shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would use
> it - where are they all?
Apart from the fact that doing so is not the same as being a sock puppet
> In article <jZmdnYNfI5V2lZzE...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
> > Of the 53 "yes"
> > votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
> > shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would use
> it - where are they all?
- what you just accused 85% of them of - that is simply untrue. Neither
the written nor the unwritten rules of group creation suggest that one
must intend to post to a group oneself to vote for its creation. There
are other perfectly proper reasons for voting in favour.
--
Roger Hayter
Paul Cummins
Apr 26, 2017, 5:36:21 PM4/26/17
to
In article <1n540tk.1af74qa189a774N%ro...@hayter.org>, ro...@hayter.org
not one of them.
(Roger Hayter) wrote:
> There
> are other perfectly proper reasons for voting in favour.
But "build it and they will come" - which was the argument for UKRAM, is
> There
> are other perfectly proper reasons for voting in favour.
not one of them.
Brian Reay
Apr 26, 2017, 5:43:43 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 22:36, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <1n540tk.1af74qa189a774N%ro...@hayter.org>, ro...@hayter.org
> (Roger Hayter) wrote:
>
>> There
>> are other perfectly proper reasons for voting in favour.
>
> But "build it and they will come" - which was the argument for UKRAM, is
> not one of them.
>
>
Unfortunately, some errors were made in the moderation approach. There
> In article <1n540tk.1af74qa189a774N%ro...@hayter.org>, ro...@hayter.org
> (Roger Hayter) wrote:
>
>> There
>> are other perfectly proper reasons for voting in favour.
>
> But "build it and they will come" - which was the argument for UKRAM, is
> not one of them.
>
>
is another group, as you know as you keep whining you were refused
entry, which is far more successful due to better moderation. It
continues to gain members.
A. non Eyemouse
Apr 26, 2017, 6:14:02 PM4/26/17
to
active and on that basis I would vote against this proposal.
--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
Owen Rees
Apr 26, 2017, 6:22:59 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:20 +0100 (BST), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote in
<memo.2017042...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>:
>In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
>mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon) wrote:
>
>> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>
>so were uk.people.support.bullying, and uk.local.yorkshire
deleted groups to see what was posted at the time.
Early in the RFD discussion for removal of uk.people.support.bullying
that ended with fast-track removal we have a message including this
data:
>Newsgroup 'uk.people.support.bullying' - DateRange Stats 21-Dec-04
>Generated by black-dog
>
>From: 22/09/04 to: 27/11/04
>
>Results are based on the messages I get from my news server.
>
>
>Total Posts this period: 11
>Total Bytes this period: 7168
My reading of the other messages I sampled is that the group was
effectively unused - none the little remaining traffic was on topic.
For the other I think you mean uk.local.yorkshire.moderated. This is
from the final RFD:
>RATIONALE: remove uk.local.yorkshire.moderated
>
>The group is not fulfilling its chartered purpose. According to both
>Giganews and Google Groups, the last post in the group was in July this
>year. The last on-topic post was a previous RFD for removal in February
>this year. The proponents believe that this shows that the group is no
>longer used. It should therefore be removed in the interests of the good
>management of the uk.* hierarchy.
The situationt that applied to those groups does not apply here.
Clive George
Apr 26, 2017, 7:32:56 PM4/26/17
to
On 26/04/2017 21:57, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <jZmdnYNfI5V2lZzE...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
>> Of the 53 "yes"
>> votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
>> shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would use
> it - where are they all?
No, they voted that the group should be created. The CFV does not say
> In article <jZmdnYNfI5V2lZzE...@brightview.co.uk>,
> cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk (Clive George) wrote:
>
>> Of the 53 "yes"
>> votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters, not socks, which
>> shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would use
> it - where are they all?
anywhere that the voters have made any promise to use it.
Mike Tomlinson
Apr 27, 2017, 2:41:59 AM4/27/17
to
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:33 +0100 (BST)
>agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> The
>> group was created by 85% socks
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West
Mike Tomlinson
Apr 27, 2017, 2:41:59 AM4/27/17
to
En el artículo <20170426225...@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> escribió:
>/me hangs head in shame
So you should. :)
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> escribió:
>/me hangs head in shame
So you should. :)
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Apr 27, 2017, 3:47:18 AM4/27/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:58:45 +0100, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>It is 1. It always is when Committee members post to the newsgroups,
>unless they specifically say that they are posting on behalf of the
>Committee (or, in Control's case, as Control).
Ok... thanks for the info.
>(And what happened to my own designation - 5. Empress of Usenet?)
I'll try and remember for next time :-)
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>It is 1. It always is when Committee members post to the newsgroups,
>unless they specifically say that they are posting on behalf of the
>Committee (or, in Control's case, as Control).
Ok... thanks for the info.
>(And what happened to my own designation - 5. Empress of Usenet?)
I'll try and remember for next time :-)
Mike Tomlinson
Apr 27, 2017, 4:30:15 AM4/27/17
to
En el artículo <1n53u90.rcdyie1mlh91kN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd word
>of that.
ukra is always good for a giggle. Whatever Spuke is smoking, it must be
good.
<ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd word
>of that.
good.
Bernie
Apr 27, 2017, 4:41:26 AM4/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:29:46 +0100
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <1n53u90.rcdyie1mlh91kN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
> >You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd
> >word of that.
>
> ukra is always good for a giggle. Whatever Spuke is smoking, it must
> be good.
>
I have it on good authority that Burt enjoys a bit of Virginia.
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <1n53u90.rcdyie1mlh91kN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
> >You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd
> >word of that.
>
> ukra is always good for a giggle. Whatever Spuke is smoking, it must
> be good.
>
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 27, 2017, 4:42:52 AM4/27/17
to
Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:
>
> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
>
> Having a system where anyone can start the process in this day and age
> is just plain stupid.
Jeff, you speak good sense there. Expect multiple members of The Committee
to wade in and tell you to "RFD for change or fuck off".
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
>
> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
>
> Having a system where anyone can start the process in this day and age
> is just plain stupid.
Jeff, you speak good sense there. Expect multiple members of The Committee
to wade in and tell you to "RFD for change or fuck off".
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Brian Reay
Apr 27, 2017, 4:56:57 AM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 09:28, Jeff wrote:
>
> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
>
> Having a system where anyone can start the process in this day and age
> is just plain stupid.
>
> Jeff
>
>
Removing a group that isn't used is valid.
>
> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
>
> Having a system where anyone can start the process in this day and age
> is just plain stupid.
>
> Jeff
>
>
Removing a group that is no more than a cess pit of abuse is valid.
Removing a group to satisfy the mean minded pettiness of some
underachieve is madness. Anyone who raises an RFD/RFV for same should be
banned from raising RFD/RFVs for life and any participation in the
running of the usenet hierarchy.
Brian Reay
Apr 27, 2017, 4:58:18 AM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 07:41, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:33 +0100 (BST)
>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> The
>>> group was created by 85% socks
>
> Proof, please. I won't be holding my breath.
>
Cummins doesn't do proof, he just makes wild, false, claims.
>
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:33 +0100 (BST)
>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> The
>>> group was created by 85% socks
>
> Proof, please. I won't be holding my breath.
>
Fred Roberts
Apr 27, 2017, 5:10:52 AM4/27/17
to
On 26/04/2017 19:31, Spike wrote:
>> Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was
>> created solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright
>> forgery.
>
> One got the impression at the time, which remains extant, that UKRAM
> was finally voted in by any means necessary, including blind eyes
> being turned, to get the RFD proponent out of the management groups
> so that the peace, for which we have seen yet another set of pleas,
> return to those groups.
If the vote takers had done their jobs properly ie excluded the obvious
>> Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was
>> created solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright
>> forgery.
>
> One got the impression at the time, which remains extant, that UKRAM
> was finally voted in by any means necessary, including blind eyes
> being turned, to get the RFD proponent out of the management groups
> so that the peace, for which we have seen yet another set of pleas,
> return to those groups.
socks from Cole and Reay et al the group would never have been created.
On this basis alone the group should rm'ed.
> We did warn at the time that appeasement never works, and it
> continues to remain the case.
UKRA by Cole and Reay thus adding to the problem UKRAM was supposed to
solve. Similarly we now have crossfire from UKRAM polluting UKRA as the
moderated nature of UKRAM means topics can't be discussed fully. UKRAM
has created more problems than it solved, in fact I can't think of a
single thing it has solved.
The harassment of Roger will continue unabated on UKRA until Cole or
Reay become moderator(s) of UKRAM which of course was the original game
plan, but you knew that already, right? Best to act now and end the
harassment of Roger, thwart Reay and Cole and halt the further
contamination of UKRA. RM this bastard group.
--
The maths teacher broke down in tears at the North West Wiltshire
Magistrates’ Court
Fred Roberts
Apr 27, 2017, 5:15:50 AM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 09:58, Brian Reay wrote:
>>> The
>>>> group was created by 85% socks
>>
>> Proof, please. I won't be holding my breath.
>>
>
>
> Cummins doesn't do proof, he just makes wild, false, claims.
Even you must see the irony in that. If you don't I suggest you up your
>>> The
>>>> group was created by 85% socks
>>
>> Proof, please. I won't be holding my breath.
>>
>
>
> Cummins doesn't do proof, he just makes wild, false, claims.
medication OM.
Mike Tomlinson
Apr 27, 2017, 5:17:00 AM4/27/17
to
En el artículo <odsbla$csf$2...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
escribió:
>Cummins doesn't do proof, he just makes wild, false, claims.
I know, I thought I'd ask anyway. He's heading for yet another
miserable failure with the RFD to delete uk.ram.
ps. thanks for your email.
escribió:
>Cummins doesn't do proof, he just makes wild, false, claims.
miserable failure with the RFD to delete uk.ram.
ps. thanks for your email.
Fred Roberts
Apr 27, 2017, 5:17:25 AM4/27/17
to
On 26/04/2017 21:57, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> Of the 53 "yes" votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters,
>> not socks, which shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>>
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would
> use it - where are they all?
Where is Michael Cole?
>> Of the 53 "yes" votes, I instantly recognise 31 as usenet posters,
>> not socks, which shows your 85% socks claim to be completely bogus.
>>
>
> So since they voted that the group should be created and they would
> use it - where are they all?
Fred Roberts
Apr 27, 2017, 5:18:21 AM4/27/17
to
On 26/04/2017 22:43, Brian Reay wrote:
> Unfortunately, some errors were made in the moderation approach.
> There is another group, as you know as you keep whining you were
> refused entry, which is far more successful due to better moderation.
> It continues to gain members.
Good. Go there and stay there.
> Unfortunately, some errors were made in the moderation approach.
> There is another group, as you know as you keep whining you were
> refused entry, which is far more successful due to better moderation.
> It continues to gain members.
Brian
Apr 27, 2017, 5:30:48 AM4/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:28:20 +0100, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:
>
>Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
>active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
Personally, I am inclined to agree. I also wonder whether the
>
>Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
>active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
following might not be a good idea:
(a) requiring proponents to participate in the debates they initiate,
rather than writing RFDs and then disappearing over the horizon until
CFV time;
(b) extending the "lock-out" period to prevent repeated RFDs to
similar effect, on a topic where the users' views have been made known
through a ballot.
>Having a system where anyone can start the process in this day and age
>is just plain stupid.
uk.* is managed, it seems to me, is that the system is relatively
open: there is no pre-vetting panel who must be convinced of the
merits of an RFD before it is published. Whether there should now be
one is rather another matter. Of course, it is this openness which
makes the system open to abuse.
The difficulty, as it seems to me, is that the current Guidelines were
drawn up to reflect a culture where the management of the hierarchy
was conducted on a consensual basis, as far as possible. In the last
few years, however, we have seen the emergence of a small but
apparently dedicated number of users with no interest at all in
consensus, but whose self-declared purpose is to be as disruptive as
possible. "Please do not feed the trolls", which I always understood
to be one of the few cardinal rules of usenet, seems to have got lost
along the way somewhere.
I think there is a case for saying that perhaps there needs to be a
debate about whether, and to what extent, these individuals'
activities should be inhibited. However, I don't believe that a
running RFD is the best context within which to have a considered,
dispassionate debate about these things.
Remove .2001 to reply by email. I apologise for the inconvenience.
Richard Kettlewell
Apr 27, 2017, 5:41:14 AM4/27/17
to
Brian <Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> writes:
> I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. One of the strengths of the way
> uk.* is managed, it seems to me, is that the system is relatively
> open: there is no pre-vetting panel who must be convinced of the
> merits of an RFD before it is published. Whether there should now be
> one is rather another matter. Of course, it is this openness which
> makes the system open to abuse.
Vetting RFDs in general might not fly, but determining whether a
> I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. One of the strengths of the way
> uk.* is managed, it seems to me, is that the system is relatively
> open: there is no pre-vetting panel who must be convinced of the
> merits of an RFD before it is published. Whether there should now be
> one is rather another matter. Of course, it is this openness which
> makes the system open to abuse.
newsgroup is active is pretty much objective - the rule can be something
like “any non-spam post within the past year = active”, though
personally I’d leave the choice of rule to control and/or committee. The
worst possible outcomes are pointless votes or the continued existence
of inactive newsgroups, both of which are the status quo anyway.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 27, 2017, 6:49:17 AM4/27/17
to
as in the case of Michael Cole?
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 27, 2017, 6:53:51 AM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 10:30, Brian wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:28:20 +0100, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
>> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
Why not just abolish the whole pointless pompous bureaucracy
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:28:20 +0100, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it not about time that the rules on deleting groups, particularly
>> active ones, was changed to stop this sort of vindictive silliness.
that is uk.*, because there are a milliard of other NGs that
are not burdened by such loathsome little napoleons?
Paul Cummins
Apr 27, 2017, 7:16:43 AM4/27/17
to
In article <0ic3gc1mbe3bme7m6...@4ax.com>,
> In the last
> few years, however, we have seen the emergence of a small but
> apparently dedicated number of users with no interest at all in
> consensus,
I can think of several examples, just in this thread.
Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
> Personally, I am inclined to agree. I also wonder whether the
> following might not be a good idea:
> (a) requiring proponents to participate in the debates they
> initiate, rather than writing RFDs and then disappearing over the
> horizon until CFV time;
Making this RFD 100% more valid than the previous on by "Clive White"
> Personally, I am inclined to agree. I also wonder whether the
> following might not be a good idea:
> (a) requiring proponents to participate in the debates they
> initiate, rather than writing RFDs and then disappearing over the
> horizon until CFV time;
> In the last
> few years, however, we have seen the emergence of a small but
> apparently dedicated number of users with no interest at all in
> consensus,
Paul Cummins
Apr 27, 2017, 7:16:43 AM4/27/17
to
In article <odsbip$csf$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Removing a group to satisfy the mean minded pettiness of some
> underachieve is madness. Anyone who raises an RFD/RFV for same
> should be banned from raising RFD/RFVs for life and any
> participation in the running of the usenet hierarchy.
By whom and on what basis?
> Removing a group to satisfy the mean minded pettiness of some
> underachieve is madness. Anyone who raises an RFD/RFV for same
> should be banned from raising RFD/RFVs for life and any
> participation in the running of the usenet hierarchy.
Paul W. Schleck
Apr 27, 2017, 7:51:37 AM4/27/17
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>-----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:
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
[...]
Mr. Spock: [On the bridge, after Lokai and Bele have beamed to the
surface of Charon] And another life form has appeared on Cheron.
Uhura: That doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Spock: To expect sense from two mentalities of such extreme view
points is not logical.
Sulu: Their planet's dead. Does it matter now which one's right?
Mr. Spock: Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them is their
hate.
Uhura: Do you suppose that's all they ever had, sir?
Captain James T. Kirk: No, but that's all they have left. Warp factor
two, Mr. Sulu. Set course for Starbase 4.
- "Star Trek" Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TV Episode 1969)
Quotes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708435/quotes
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAlkB2woACgkQ6Pj0az779o4AbACgmNgyTkKYu8Z5xk5rFhZR/tdN
ZE8An3X/iLfa4fZCc0L+SaJKK7BRcU2J
=M9aC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20170426121820$6a...@weathertop.principate.org.uk> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>-----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:
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Mr. Spock: [On the bridge, after Lokai and Bele have beamed to the
surface of Charon] And another life form has appeared on Cheron.
Uhura: That doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Spock: To expect sense from two mentalities of such extreme view
points is not logical.
Sulu: Their planet's dead. Does it matter now which one's right?
Mr. Spock: Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them is their
hate.
Uhura: Do you suppose that's all they ever had, sir?
Captain James T. Kirk: No, but that's all they have left. Warp factor
two, Mr. Sulu. Set course for Starbase 4.
- "Star Trek" Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TV Episode 1969)
Quotes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708435/quotes
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAlkB2woACgkQ6Pj0az779o4AbACgmNgyTkKYu8Z5xk5rFhZR/tdN
ZE8An3X/iLfa4fZCc0L+SaJKK7BRcU2J
=M9aC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 27, 2017, 9:05:59 AM4/27/17
to
Graham Nye
Apr 27, 2017, 12:07:41 PM4/27/17
to
On 2017-04-26 18:42, Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <slrnog1eg...@cheddar.urgle.com>, Mike Bristow
> <mi...@urgle.com> writes:
>
>> In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
>> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Exactly. Same reason as I voted against the other deletion.
Another no.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
> In article <slrnog1eg...@cheddar.urgle.com>, Mike Bristow
> <mi...@urgle.com> writes:
>
>> In article <np3efwf...@deskpro108655.internal.sanger.ac.uk>,
>> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>>>
>>> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>> It's a newsgroup that's in active use, so no.
>>
>
> Exactly. Same reason as I voted against the other deletion.
Another no.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
Bernie
Apr 27, 2017, 12:19:33 PM4/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
psch...@novia.net (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
>
> - "Star Trek" Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TV Episode 1969)
"They're all dead, Dave."
psch...@novia.net (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
>
> - "Star Trek" Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TV Episode 1969)
'Red Dwarf' passim.
Brian Reay
Apr 27, 2017, 12:35:18 PM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 12:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <0ic3gc1mbe3bme7m6...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> Personally, I am inclined to agree. I also wonder whether the
>> following might not be a good idea:
>> (a) requiring proponents to participate in the debates they
>> initiate, rather than writing RFDs and then disappearing over the
>> horizon until CFV time;
>
> Making this RFD 100% more valid than the previous on by "Clive White"
>
Why?
> In article <0ic3gc1mbe3bme7m6...@4ax.com>,
> Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk (Brian) wrote:
>
>> Personally, I am inclined to agree. I also wonder whether the
>> following might not be a good idea:
>> (a) requiring proponents to participate in the debates they
>> initiate, rather than writing RFDs and then disappearing over the
>> horizon until CFV time;
>
> Making this RFD 100% more valid than the previous on by "Clive White"
>
Brian Reay
Apr 27, 2017, 12:42:28 PM4/27/17
to
On 27/04/2017 12:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <odsbip$csf$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> Removing a group to satisfy the mean minded pettiness of some
>> underachieve is madness. Anyone who raises an RFD/RFV for same
>> should be banned from raising RFD/RFVs for life and any
>> participation in the running of the usenet hierarchy.
>
> By whom and on what basis?
>
By the committee you keep trying to get elected to.
>
>> Removing a group to satisfy the mean minded pettiness of some
>> underachieve is madness. Anyone who raises an RFD/RFV for same
>> should be banned from raising RFD/RFVs for life and any
>> participation in the running of the usenet hierarchy.
>
> By whom and on what basis?
>
As for basis, those who generate pointless RFD/Vs simply to cause
trouble and/or otherwise abuse the system should be ignored.
Kerr Mudd-John
Apr 27, 2017, 12:51:35 PM4/27/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0100, Paul Cummins
<paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
[]
<paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> The proponent wishes to point out that this proposal is not, in any way,
> intended as a criticism of the moderation team or their running of this
> newsgroup. Originally proposed on a "built it and they will come" basis,
> it was built, and "they" did not come, indeed of those who voted for the
> group, less than 15% have actually used it.
>
Stir and they will come (to bicker here)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 28, 2017, 6:39:15 AM4/28/17
to
On 28/04/2017 11:30, Chronos wrote:
>
> The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike.
That's not the issue. The issue is presenting good PR for
amateur radio with a united front.
Those who are *REAL* radio amateurs will post into URA in
support of the gentlemanly and technical traditions.
Those who cannot behave in a civilised and decent fashion
are the usual nonces who hopefully will dissolve into their
own turds once they realise that they're not welcome.
>
> The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike.
That's not the issue. The issue is presenting good PR for
amateur radio with a united front.
Those who are *REAL* radio amateurs will post into URA in
support of the gentlemanly and technical traditions.
Those who cannot behave in a civilised and decent fashion
are the usual nonces who hopefully will dissolve into their
own turds once they realise that they're not welcome.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 28, 2017, 7:26:22 AM4/28/17
to
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
>> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
>> impossible in ukram.
>
> In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> separate entities. I realise many topics spill from uram to ura
Matt, kindly quantify your "many topics" claim. An exact figure, please.
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
>> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
>> impossible in ukram.
>
> In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> separate entities. I realise many topics spill from uram to ura
Matt, kindly quantify your "many topics" claim. An exact figure, please.
Clive George
Apr 28, 2017, 9:08:35 AM4/28/17
to
On 28/04/2017 11:39, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is presenting good PR for
> amateur radio with a united front.
That's been screwed for years, and the people who are responsible for
> That's not the issue. The issue is presenting good PR for
> amateur radio with a united front.
that failure are very adequately represented on all sides in ukra/ukram.
Paul Cummins
Apr 28, 2017, 9:21:41 AM4/28/17
to
In article <odv5ui$2cc$1...@dont-email.me>,
headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com (Gareth's Downstairs
headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com (Gareth's Downstairs
Computer) wrote:
> Those who are *REAL* radio amateurs will post into URA in
> support of the gentlemanly and technical traditions.
But, regrettably, you are part of the problem.
> Those who are *REAL* radio amateurs will post into URA in
> support of the gentlemanly and technical traditions.
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 28, 2017, 9:22:29 AM4/28/17
to
post there and who also wanted ura deleted and yet post there.
Those usual nonces have existed only to destroy and disrupt.
However, now that there is widespread agreement to KF the
usual nonces, then URA, at least is turning a corner back
to civilisation and decency.
Andrew Marshall
Apr 28, 2017, 9:47:13 AM4/28/17
to
In message <20170428113...@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> writes
>result without stepping on everyone else's right to choose.
This.
--
Regards,
Andrew Marshall, G8BUR, M0MAA.
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> writes
>The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
>simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike. That achieves the same
>result without stepping on everyone else's right to choose.
This.
--
Regards,
Andrew Marshall, G8BUR, M0MAA.
Brian Reay
Apr 28, 2017, 11:20:44 AM4/28/17
to
On 28/04/2017 11:30, Chronos wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
>> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
>> impossible in ukram.
>
> In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> separate entities. I realise many topics spill from uram to ura when
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
>> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
>> impossible in ukram.
>
> In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> they become contentious enough to fail moderation, yet this only
> justifies the arguments made in defence of ura's continued existence
> when even those most vociferous in support of its removal are spilling
> over with posts that would otherwise never have seen the light of day.
>
> The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike. That achieves the same
> result without stepping on everyone else's right to choose. Nowhere in
> The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike. That achieves the same
> the rules that I can find does it say that a group, once created,
> retains a monopoly on its subject and others may be nuked from orbit -
> even with a training weapon...
>
Yawn, do you ever read your own drivel before you post it?
Like Hayter, you are too embedded with the usual rejects, not least due
to your refusal to see what right in front of you because it doesn't fit
your agenda.
Bernie
Apr 28, 2017, 11:23:50 AM4/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:39:08 +0100
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
That post is so demented it has the look of a joke. But unfortunately,
it isn't.
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
it isn't.
Roger Hayter
Apr 28, 2017, 2:51:59 PM4/28/17
to
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> On 28/04/2017 11:30, Chronos wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> > Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
> >> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
> >> impossible in ukram.
> >
> > In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> > separate entities. I realise many topics spill from uram to ura when
> > they become contentious enough to fail moderation, yet this only
> > justifies the arguments made in defence of ura's continued existence
> > when even those most vociferous in support of its removal are spilling
> > over with posts that would otherwise never have seen the light of day.
> >
> > The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> > simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike. That achieves the same
> > result without stepping on everyone else's right to choose. Nowhere in
> > the rules that I can find does it say that a group, once created,
> > retains a monopoly on its subject and others may be nuked from orbit -
> > even with a training weapon...
> >
>
> Yawn, do you ever read your own drivel before you post it?
>
> Like Hayter, you are too embedded with the usual rejects, not least due
> to your refusal to see what right in front of you because it doesn't fit
> your agenda.
I know I shouldn't really bother to reply, but sometimes you are so
> On 28/04/2017 11:30, Chronos wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:57:07 +0100
> > Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the difficulty is that the connection between ukra and ukram
> >> is not equal and bidirectional. It's easy to stir in ukra, essentially
> >> impossible in ukram.
> >
> > In an ideal world, the connection wouldn't exist. The two groups are
> > separate entities. I realise many topics spill from uram to ura when
> > they become contentious enough to fail moderation, yet this only
> > justifies the arguments made in defence of ura's continued existence
> > when even those most vociferous in support of its removal are spilling
> > over with posts that would otherwise never have seen the light of day.
> >
> > The best solution for those who wish either group would go away is
> > simply to unsubscribe from the one they dislike. That achieves the same
> > result without stepping on everyone else's right to choose. Nowhere in
> > the rules that I can find does it say that a group, once created,
> > retains a monopoly on its subject and others may be nuked from orbit -
> > even with a training weapon...
> >
>
> Yawn, do you ever read your own drivel before you post it?
>
> Like Hayter, you are too embedded with the usual rejects, not least due
> to your refusal to see what right in front of you because it doesn't fit
> your agenda.
ridiculously self-centred that it is annoying. There is no united
group, whether you call them rejects or otherwise. There are just a
fairly small group of regular posters, two or three of whom tend to
agree with you on many amateur radio issues (to the point of sycophancy
in only one case), and six or seven have less tendency to agree with
you. These people do not have any specific agenda, and in most cases
are not particularly friends or even in general agreement with each
other.
To try to lump them all together in terms of their attitude to you is a
teensy bit silly, because you are simply not that central to the affairs
of mankind. Or even amateur radio. You just post a lot and make a lot
of unnecessary personal comments, which is why you get a lot of replies.
--
Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Apr 28, 2017, 3:12:56 PM4/28/17
to
On 28/04/2017 19:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yawn, do you ever read your own drivel before you post it?
>>
>> Like Hayter, you are too embedded with the usual rejects, not least due
>> to your refusal to see what right in front of you because it doesn't fit
>> your agenda.
>
> I know I shouldn't really bother to reply, but sometimes you are so
> ridiculously self-centred that it is annoying. There is no united
> group, whether you call them rejects or otherwise. There are just a
> fairly small group of regular posters, two or three of whom tend to
> agree with you on many amateur radio issues (to the point of sycophancy
> in only one case), and six or seven have less tendency to agree with
> you. These people do not have any specific agenda, and in most cases
> are not particularly friends or even in general agreement with each
> other.
>
> To try to lump them all together in terms of their attitude to you is a
> teensy bit silly, because you are simply not that central to the affairs
> of mankind. Or even amateur radio. You just post a lot and make a lot
> of unnecessary personal comments, which is why you get a lot of replies.
+1
>
>>
>> Yawn, do you ever read your own drivel before you post it?
>>
>> Like Hayter, you are too embedded with the usual rejects, not least due
>> to your refusal to see what right in front of you because it doesn't fit
>> your agenda.
>
> I know I shouldn't really bother to reply, but sometimes you are so
> ridiculously self-centred that it is annoying. There is no united
> group, whether you call them rejects or otherwise. There are just a
> fairly small group of regular posters, two or three of whom tend to
> agree with you on many amateur radio issues (to the point of sycophancy
> in only one case), and six or seven have less tendency to agree with
> you. These people do not have any specific agenda, and in most cases
> are not particularly friends or even in general agreement with each
> other.
>
> To try to lump them all together in terms of their attitude to you is a
> teensy bit silly, because you are simply not that central to the affairs
> of mankind. Or even amateur radio. You just post a lot and make a lot
> of unnecessary personal comments, which is why you get a lot of replies.
Brian Reay
Apr 28, 2017, 3:30:53 PM4/28/17
to
On 28/04/2017 19:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
towards me, I never did.
They are, extremely negative towards newcomers, certain social groups,
express racist views, are overly tolerant of criminals, ......
Then someone who sat on a selection board with 'special' rules against
those who had Asian names and women probably doesn't mind that. I do.
Paul Cummins
Apr 28, 2017, 3:48:27 PM4/28/17
to
In article <oe053b$j6m$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
> They are, extremely negative towards newcomers, certain social
> groups, express racist views, are overly tolerant of criminals,
> ......
Can you exemplify each of these traits please?
>
> They are, extremely negative towards newcomers, certain social
> groups, express racist views, are overly tolerant of criminals,
> ......
Roger Hayter
Apr 28, 2017, 4:25:03 PM4/28/17
to
Stephen Thomas Troll <no.spam...@s.thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> Does it not seem a bit odd to you, Gareth, that the above post came
> from someone who was quite happy to post this:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:09:07 +0000
> ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:
>
>
> > I am sorry if I am stating the obvious, but I hope you are aware that
> > Reay, Cole and Tomlinson have a mutual defence pact? A strange
> > alliance but, so far, an unbreakable one.
>
> He sees a pact on one side, but not on the other; why?
Because, while there may be the odd isolated clique of two or three on
the other side, there is not *one* pact but a group of disparate people
who have little in common in terms of opinions or alliances except that
you dislke all of them. There are *not* two sides, just your little
clique and the generality of newsgroup users. Who have little in common
with each other.
--
Roger Hayter
> from someone who was quite happy to post this:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:09:07 +0000
> ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:
>
>
> > I am sorry if I am stating the obvious, but I hope you are aware that
> > Reay, Cole and Tomlinson have a mutual defence pact? A strange
> > alliance but, so far, an unbreakable one.
>
> He sees a pact on one side, but not on the other; why?
Because, while there may be the odd isolated clique of two or three on
the other side, there is not *one* pact but a group of disparate people
who have little in common in terms of opinions or alliances except that
you dislke all of them. There are *not* two sides, just your little
clique and the generality of newsgroup users. Who have little in common
with each other.
--
Roger Hayter
Roger Hayter
Apr 28, 2017, 4:25:04 PM4/28/17
to
linked. I have suggested that the only thing they have in common is
that you tend to lump them together.
>
> They are, extremely negative towards newcomers, certain social groups,
> express racist views, are overly tolerant of criminals, ......
many of them do not have a vinidictive attitude to people previously
convicted. Some of them show no such attitudes. Though I think you
are the only person in the group who wants compulsory organ donation for
criminals.
>
> Then someone who sat on a selection board with 'special' rules against
> those who had Asian names and women probably doesn't mind that. I do.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
Apr 28, 2017, 5:27:12 PM4/28/17
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Apr 29, 2017, 3:28:06 AM4/29/17
to
cookie jar. Just have some dignity and admit your bias, OM.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Apr 29, 2017, 4:01:29 AM4/29/17
to
"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:19UubGF6...@jasper.org.uk...
> En el artículo <1n53u90.rcdyie1mlh91kN%ro...@hayter.org>, Roger Hayter
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>>You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd word
>>of that.
>
> ukra is always good for a giggle. Whatever Spuke is smoking, it must be
> good.
>
not old pink socks like you .....
> <ro...@hayter.org> escribió:
>
>>You parody yourself, Sir. I cannot believe you meant one absurd word
>>of that.
>
> ukra is always good for a giggle. Whatever Spuke is smoking, it must be
> good.
>
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Apr 29, 2017, 4:03:41 AM4/29/17
to
"Fred Roberts" <arbi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vAiMA.896116$0k4.8...@fx37.am4...
> On 26/04/2017 19:31, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Gets my vote. A totally unwanted and unnecessary group that was
>>> created solely on the basis of lies, cheating and outright
>>> forgery.
>>
>> One got the impression at the time, which remains extant, that UKRAM
>> was finally voted in by any means necessary, including blind eyes
>> being turned, to get the RFD proponent out of the management groups
>> so that the peace, for which we have seen yet another set of pleas,
>> return to those groups.
>
> If the vote takers had done their jobs properly ie excluded the obvious
> socks from Cole and Reay et al the group would never have been created. On
> this basis alone the group should rm'ed.
>
>> We did warn at the time that appeasement never works, and it
>> continues to remain the case.
>
> Indeed, what we have now is the harassment of the groups moderator on UKRA
> by Cole and Reay thus adding to the problem UKRAM was supposed to solve.
> Similarly we now have crossfire from UKRAM polluting UKRA as the moderated
> nature of UKRAM means topics can't be discussed fully. UKRAM has created
> more problems than it solved, in fact I can't think of a single thing it
> has solved.
>
> The harassment of Roger will continue unabated on UKRA until Cole or Reay
> become moderator(s) of UKRAM which of course was the original game plan,
> but you knew that already, right? Best to act now and end the harassment
> of Roger, thwart Reay and Cole and halt the further contamination of UKRA.
> RM this bastard group.
>
ha ha they have got one of their pet twinks in as a moderator ..... more
reason never to use moderated again ...
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Apr 29, 2017, 4:42:27 AM4/29/17
to
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1n53cqq.1msi7kc1q4xf0sN%ro...@hayter.org...
> Paul Cummins <paulc...@gstgroup.co.uk> 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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think this is any sillier than the proposal to delete ukra, but
>
>> -----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:
>>
>> delete newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>>
>>
>>
> that is a pretty low bar. It's still silly to suggest deleting an
> active group. If i ever comes to a vote I hope more of those who think
> deleting an active group is inappropriate bother to vote than last time,
> as I thought 37:15 was a worryingly close thing.
>
>
>
>
I would vote for deletion purely because of the new moderator who obviously
has no standards...none
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages