Any support for a moderated version of UKRA?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
I'd give it a go and see what the response is.

This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various
parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly
depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the
general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any
radio discussion.

So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody
be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a
vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and
posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so
(don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but
what can I say? I'm a geek).

If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth
asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in
having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------

[Lordgnome]

On 13/03/2013 11:01, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody
> be interested in using it?

I would be very keen to use it, but what is the procedure (and who) will
set it up. Any volunteers for moderators?

Les.

[John Benn]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

I think it would be a great idea. This group is difficult to read at times
because of the mentally-ill.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:01:34 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I
> figured I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>
> This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
> topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between
> various parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it
> mildly depressing to generally find very little amateur radio
> discussion, and the general tone of madness and bile puts me off from
> trying to start any radio discussion.
>
> So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated to be started? If such a group was started

> and propagated, would anybody be interested in using it?

The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the years.

I'll let you guess how successful they have been.

If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF having regex facilities.

[alt.steve removed from the FU as my server says it doesn't exist]

--
Spike, of Spike Mitty & Co

[Spike Mitty & Co]

Reading uk.net.news.moderation might supply some clues as to some of the difficulties involved.

Postings regarding two groups appear there frequently, and illustrate the difference that moderation policy and
personal bias can have.

[John Benn]

"Spike Mitty & Co" <Sp...@Spike-Mitty-and-Co.invalid> wrote in message
news:aqb84l...@mid.individual.net...

There are few problems with the existing moderated groups with the exception
of uk.rec.cycling.moderated, the moderators of which are like the North
Korean Government. Any moderated radio group should not make the same
mistake.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

But given the level of control freakery that exhibits itself on ukra from time to time, there is no guarantee that
ukram won't also take a leaf from the DPRK Publicity Handbook.

[John Benn]

"Spike Mitty & Co" <Sp...@Spike-Mitty-and-Co.invalid> wrote in message

news:aqbaji...@mid.individual.net...

Never any guarantee. But most other moderated groups work well.

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

I appreciate your sentiments, but moderation would inevitably reflect upon
the moderator's personal opinion. I left skool a long time ago, and prefer
to make my own decisions regarding what I read.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

[Ian Wade G3NRW]

___Original Message_________________________________________
From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notl...@nowaymail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 Time: 11:01:34

>what can I say? I'm a geek).
>

Then the RSGB Tech reflector is for you:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgbtech/

It's geeky, it's moderated (but the moderators are not from North
Korea). Just the job.

--
73
Ian, G3NRW

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <0ZqBJPL2...@ntlworld.com>, Ian Wade G3NRW

I do not get along with the Yahoo Group web interface. It's horrible!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <8I_%s.50199$Lp1....@fx03.fr7>, "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI"

<g3...@turner-smith.co.uK> wrote:
> >
> I appreciate your sentiments, but moderation would inevitably reflect upon
> the moderator's personal opinion. I left skool a long time ago, and prefer
> to make my own decisions regarding what I read.

My take on moderation would be along the lines of no personal attacks, no
baiting, no crapfloods, and that's about all, everything else, within sane
limits, would be allowed. UKRA is ruined, for me, by the constant warring
and the spam/crapfloods. Take those away and I'd be happy!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqb7q9...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:01:34 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the years.
>
> I'll let you guess how successful they have been.

Noted. But if the idea has been posited several times previously, then
there must be a compelling argument in favour, otherwise it wouldn't be a
recurring theme (/devils advocate).

>
> If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF
having regex facilities.
>

I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly been
reconsidering that stance lately.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Thanks Les. The process is relatively simple. A discussion here is a good
starting point, then an RFD to the relevant UK.* group for debate, and
then revisions to the RFD and then a vote. If passed, the group would be
created and shoulf (*should* being the operative word) propogate out to
news-servers quite quickly, as long as all proper channels are followed.
News admins who don't add it automatically could be emailed directly
requesting it's addition to your news feed.

I'd happily moderate, and would be keen to work with a team of moderators.
Such issues would be sorted out in the RFD process I believe.

To kick the debate off as to the nature of the group charter I'd suggest
something along the lines of: moderated discussion pertaining to the hobby
of amateur radio. UK-centric discussion is most relevant but, reflecting
the global nature of the hobby, topics relating to amateur radio in any
part of the world would be on topic. Moderation will be relatively "off
handed", a light touch if you will, with the presumption being that all
posts are allowed, with the only verboten subjects being personal attacks,
derogatory comments, baiting, and floods of irrelevancy. I'd go so far as
to suggest that general off-topic discussion be allowed and regarded as
"rag chewing", as long as it doesn't veer into the verboten categories.
Trusted posters could be set to auto-moderation, a priviledge that can and
will be revoked if abused. Trusted status would be offered to all posters
in good faith and would be theirs to lose. All posters would be treated
initially with equanimity, disregarding any and all conflicts that have
taken place elsewhere, ie in UKRA.

Something like that could make for a nicer group to use.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khpp2f$83p$1...@dont-email.me>, "John Benn"

<mrbenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think it would be a great idea. This group is difficult to read at times
> because of the mentally-ill.

Thanks John. I've just posted an elaboration further down the thread in
reply to Les, please join in!

[Fred Roberts]

On 13/03/2013 13:29, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I do not get along with the Yahoo Group web interface. It's horrible!

There is absolutely no need to use the web interface.

[Lordgnome]

I subscribe to uk.legal.moderated, which seems to work well. Killfiles
are fine to a point, but they are frequently negated by someone who is
NOT killed, re-posting drivel from the killed, so it crops up anyway!

Frank's point is taken and reflects my view, but Stephen's suggestion
would regrettably, seem to be the only practical way to achieve a decent
signal to noise ratio.

Les.

[Fred Roberts]

On 13/03/2013 13:32, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> My take on moderation would be along the lines of no personal attacks, no
> baiting, no crapfloods, and that's about all, everything else, within sane
> limits, would be allowed. UKRA is ruined, for me, by the constant warring
> and the spam/crapfloods. Take those away and I'd be happy!

Take them away yourself. Learn how to use a killfile.

[Fred Roberts]

>> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the years.
>>
>> I'll let you guess how successful they have been.
>
> Noted. But if the idea has been posited several times previously, then
> there must be a compelling argument in favour, otherwise it wouldn't be a
> recurring theme (/devils advocate).

Quite the opposite, there have been compelling arguments against a
moderated group. If you like a moderated group try the White Rose one,
you'll then get an idea of how bad things are when a tinpot dictator
gets to decide who can and can't post and what they can post.

>> If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF
> having regex facilities.
>>
>
> I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly been
> reconsidering that stance lately.

Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your own
moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone doing it
for you? Is this a troll?

[Ian Wade G3NRW]

___Original Message_________________________________________

From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notl...@nowaymail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 Time: 13:29:03

>I do not get along with the Yahoo Group web interface. It's horrible!

I wholeheartedly agree, but there is no need to use the web interface at
all. When you join the group you can elect to receive reflector messages
as ordinary emails. Then, assuming you have a competent emailer, the
messages will be filed by thread in their own folder. Couldn't be
easier.

--
73
Ian, G3NRW

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <rXTmadNS...@ntlworld.com>, Ian Wade G3NRW

An excellent point, and one which I had forgotten. I have used the Yahoo
email digest system before, some years ago, maybe I should investigate it
again. I seem to recall giving up on it in frustration for one reason or
another, can't recall right now.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <cJ%%s.24525$%c5.1...@fx19.fr7>, Fred Roberts <f...@bar.com> wrote:

> >> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the years.
> >>
> >> I'll let you guess how successful they have been.
> >
> > Noted. But if the idea has been posited several times previously, then
> > there must be a compelling argument in favour, otherwise it wouldn't be a
> > recurring theme (/devils advocate).
>
> Quite the opposite, there have been compelling arguments against a
> moderated group. If you like a moderated group try the White Rose one,
> you'll then get an idea of how bad things are when a tinpot dictator
> gets to decide who can and can't post and what they can post.
>

I see what you're saying, but your assumption is that whoever would
moderate would automatically default to tyrant mode. I contend that that
would hopefully not be the case, and with a robust moderation team
nomination/denomination process, shouldn't become an issue.

> >> If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF
> > having regex facilities.
> >>
> >
> > I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly been
> > reconsidering that stance lately.
>
> Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your own
> moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone doing it
> for you? Is this a troll?

Not a troll, not at all. Killfiles are, to my mind, a waste of time
considering how easily they can be subverted.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134>,

notl...@nowaymail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
> I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>

<snip>

Well, I've taken the initiative here and submitted an RFD to the relevant
control body. It should, hopefully, be posted to the relevant group(s)
shortly, including uk.net.news.config, where the discussion on the merits
and demerits of the RFD should take place.

I am obviously in favour of a moderated group being created, it would be
great to see everybody's opinion posted in the RFD thread. If the majority
want a moderated group, then the majority will receive one. The reverse is
also true. This RFD should be considered an opportunity to settle the
matter fairly and without conflict.

[Ian Wade G3NRW]

___Original Message_________________________________________
From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notl...@nowaymail.com>

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 Time: 14:36:29

>I have used the Yahoo
>email digest system before, some years ago, maybe I should investigate it
>again. I seem to recall giving up on it in frustration for one reason or
>another, can't recall right now.

You probably gave it up in frustration because you had selected digest
mode. In that mode you get all the messages for the specified period all
lumped together in one (possibly very large) email -- even less helpful
than the web interface. If you request messages as individual emails
instead, you can file and retrieve them much more easily.

And it's much easier to respond to individual messages -- you don't have
to cut a message out of a digest to reply to it, and, even more
important, you preserve the message thread for other people.

Sorry, Stephen, you have no alternative: RSGB Tech + individual messages
from the reflector is the way to go for you!

--
73
Ian, G3NRW

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:36:07 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <aqb7q9...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:01:34 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the
>> years.
>>
>> I'll let you guess how successful they have been.
>
> Noted. But if the idea has been posited several times previously, then
> there must be a compelling argument in favour, otherwise it wouldn't be
> a recurring theme (/devils advocate).

Not necessarily; control freaks both within and without the RSGB would love to see the end of this group, so that
there will be no such thing as 'off-message' postings.

>> If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF
> having regex facilities.
>>
> I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly
> been reconsidering that stance lately.

That smacks of tail-wag-dog.

I run a KF here and am astonished when for example, I try a new news client, and see the crapflood.

All I see here is a well-ordered group already, and I'm a big-enough boy to make my own decisions.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:06:00 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

>>> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the
>>> years.

>> I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly
>> been reconsidering that stance lately.
>
> Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your own
> moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone doing it
> for you? Is this a troll?

That's what I thought, but chose to take the good-faith route.

When I say I used a KF, what I actually do is use a Watch File; it's the only way to go!

I see postings from people I want to read, and I don't see the rest, including ever-changing sock-puppets.

Should a new sensible poster appear, someone on my WL will answer and I will see that; I can then add the
new poster to the list - that's how the OP came to be 'watched'.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:29:03 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I do not get along with the Yahoo Group web interface. It's horrible!

What I find nugatory is that you have to join them to read them.

What's the point of that?

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:58:33 +0000, Lordgnome wrote:


> Frank's point is taken and reflects my view, but Stephen's suggestion
> would regrettably, seem to be the only practical way to achieve a decent
> signal to noise ratio.

Run a Watch List - although that means using a decent news client.

[rec.radio.amateur.moderated Admin]

In <notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134> notl...@nowaymail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) writes:

>Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
>I'd give it a go and see what the response is.

>This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
>topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various
>parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly
>depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the
>general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any
>radio discussion.

>So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody

>be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a
>vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and
>posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so
>(don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but

>what can I say? I'm a geek).

>If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth
>asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in
>having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk.

>--
>-------------------
>Stephen Thomas Cole
>-------------------

Stephen,

Please contact the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Moderation Team at
rec-radio-amateur...@panix.com from a replyable E-mail
address. We have some practical suggestions for you with regard to
recruiting a moderation team, setting up a moderation software "bot" on
a host, and submitting a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new
moderated discussion newsgroup. Our experience is that such a new
moderated discussion newsgroup can succeed in parallel with an existing
unmoderated forum, serving as a "bomb shelter" for dignified discussion
out of the target of flame-warriors who don't understand that freedom is
not the same as anarchy. A newsgroup governed by sensible editorial
control from a moderation team can appeal to those who know that kill
files have their limitations (as they can lead to counter-escalation and
neutralization from thread-jacking and nym-shifting, and don't affect
first impressions for new users who haven't yet set up kill files).

The initial planning and recruitment is best done off-line of the
newsgroups, via private E-mail, leaving public discussion for the
eventual formal RFD process after a realistic plan and moderation team
is already formed.

We look forward to hearing from you, as well as from any other
interested volunteers.

--
rec.radio.amateur.moderated Admin
rec-radio-amateur...@panix.com

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqbjej...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:
> Not necessarily; control freaks both within and without the RSGB would
love to see the end of this group, so that
> there will be no such thing as 'off-message' postings.

Indeed. However, I can assure you that my intentions are not of that nature.

This group would, obviously, not be ended by the creation of a moderated
group. So whether I, or an RSGB representative, or anybody else created
one, it shouldn't matter, right?

> That smacks of tail-wag-dog.
>
> I run a KF here and am astonished when for example, I try a new news
client, and see the crapflood.
>
> All I see here is a well-ordered group already, and I'm a big-enough boy
to make my own decisions.

I've never had faith in killfiles as I've seen them very easily
outmanouvered, and I've never wanted to get into a game of cat and mouse
with trolls and trying to keep idiots blocked. Going to what you say about
"watch lists", that's a new idea on me and sounds interesting, albeit
heavy handed.

[John Benn]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

Well done. I'll be following that RFD.

P.S. When you post, the group alt.stev keeps appearing in your newsgroups
line.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:42:04 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I've never had faith in killfiles as I've seen them very easily
> outmanouvered, and I've never wanted to get into a game of cat and mouse
> with trolls and trying to keep idiots blocked. Going to what you say
> about "watch lists", that's a new idea on me and sounds interesting,
> albeit heavy handed.

It's 'moderation' that doesn't affect anyone else, how the deuce can that be 'heavy handed'?

[BiB the Boulder !!HIC!!]

On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-
smith.co.uK> wrote:
> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <notlik...@nowaymail.com> wrote in messagenews:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

Give a man a FL, and he will always want power EH!

[BiB the Boulder !!HIC!!]

On Mar 13, 11:01 am, notlik...@nowaymail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
wrote:

> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
> I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>
> This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
> topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various
> parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly
> depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the
> general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any
> radio discussion.
>
> So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody
> be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a
> vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and
> posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so
> (don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but
> what can I say? I'm a geek).
>
> If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth
> asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in
> having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk.
>
> --
> -------------------
> Stephen Thomas Cole
> -------------------

Javol Mein Furer

[Fred Roberts]

On 13/03/2013 14:39, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Not a troll, not at all. Killfiles are, to my mind, a waste of time
> considering how easily they can be subverted.

Not really. Killfile everything emanating from yahoo, google and north
of the border (except Jimbo - I quite like him) and you're done.

[BiB the Boulder !!HIC!!]

well fred you join you have been warned """"""HACKER""""""""

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Heavy handed insofar as you are purposefully blinding yourself to all
content other than a small sampling that you have arbitrarily allowed. I'm
not necessarily saying that that's a bad thing, if it works for you, then
that's great! But it seems limiting, to me at least.

I don't think that a comparison, positive or negative, can be made between
your "watch list" approach and a moderated group. The moderated group is
custom built to be policed and kept in order, and people choose to read
and/or post with that knowledge. Those that are inherently opposed to the
limits of moderated newsgroups are, of course, at liberty to ignore it's
existence.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khq640$2d3$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
rec-radio-amateur...@panix.com (rec.radio.amateur.moderated

Thank you for that, I will email you directly shortly.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khq6al$ka1$1...@dont-email.me>, "John Benn"

<mrbenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well done. I'll be following that RFD.
>
> P.S. When you post, the group alt.stev keeps appearing in your newsgroups
> line.

Yes, I'm archiving my Usenet output in a dead group that I claimed.
Initially it was as part of a long term project I had in mind, but I've
not done any further thinking on it, although I will continue to archive!

[johnnyg3liv]

On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:01:34 UTC, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured I'd give it a go and see what the response is. This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any radio discussion. So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so (don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but what can I say? I'm a geek). If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk. -- ------------------- Stephen Thomas Cole -------------------

Hi there de Johnny G3LIV

YES I am with you.
Its worth a try.
It used to be a good place to chat.

[Fred Roberts]

On 13/03/2013 15:20, Spike Mitty & Co wrote:

>> Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your
>> own moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone
>> doing it for you? Is this a troll?
>
> That's what I thought, but chose to take the good-faith route.

I often wonder if those who moot a moderated group and technical
discussion etc ever think of search this groups archive! It would save a
lot of bandwidth if they did.

> When I say I used a KF, what I actually do is use a Watch File; it's
> the only way to go!

I've taken the blunderbus approach of killfiling everything from yahoo,
google and Scotland. Anyone using google or yahoo to post to usenet has
already stigmatised himself as a prat IMHO.

> I see postings from people I want to read, and I don't see the rest,
> including ever-changing sock-puppets.

How are you finding Pan as a newsgroup reader Spike? I used it a few
years ago under Linux but strictly to download stuff from the binary
groups. Why did you abandon Agent anyway? I'd have switched to it myself
but it's lack of imap support made it unsuitable as a "one shot"
solution for my needs.

> Should a new sensible poster appear, someone on my WL will answer and
> I will see that; I can then add the new poster to the list - that's
> how the OP came to be 'watched'.

Your approach has much to commend it.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:26:14 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <aqbli2F...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:42:04 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>> > I've never had faith in killfiles as I've seen them very easily
>> > outmanouvered, and I've never wanted to get into a game of cat and
>> > mouse with trolls and trying to keep idiots blocked. Going to what
>> > you say about "watch lists", that's a new idea on me and sounds
>> > interesting, albeit heavy handed.
>>
>> It's 'moderation' that doesn't affect anyone else, how the deuce can
>> that be 'heavy handed'?
>
> Heavy handed insofar as you are purposefully blinding yourself to all
> content other than a small sampling that you have arbitrarily allowed.
> I'm not necessarily saying that that's a bad thing, if it works for you,
> then that's great! But it seems limiting, to me at least.

So's a moderated group, no matter how well-intentioned things start out.

My WF affects no-one else, and I have a deep suspicion that my 'arbitrary' decisions are no more so than those
of any group of self-appointed policemen.

> I don't think that a comparison, positive or negative, can be made
> between your "watch list" approach and a moderated group.

Really? Even if the outcome is the same? Are your motives purer than mine? Will they stay that way?

> The moderated
> group is custom built to be policed and kept in order, and people choose
> to read and/or post with that knowledge.

That's exactly what I do here, with the considerable exception that it affects no-one else while the moderation of
the other groups affects all who belong.

>Those that are inherently
> opposed to the limits of moderated newsgroups are, of course, at liberty
> to ignore it's existence.

Oh, there many non-moderated groups that I ignore; moderation isn't a special qualification.

[Brian Reay]

On 13/03/2013 11:01, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
> I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>
> This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
> topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various
> parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly
> depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the
> general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any
> radio discussion.
>
> So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody
> be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a
> vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and
> posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so
> (don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but
> what can I say? I'm a geek).
>
> If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth
> asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in
> having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk.
>

there is no shortsge of moderated groups.

The trouble makers either don't get in or are put on moderation (others
are not moderstered- eg one of the main stirrers on here was
'moderaterd' after he caused a problems on one of the civilised groups).

Keeping the usual suspects here leaves places for us decent people to enjoy.

73
Brian

[Jim Stewart ...]

I will be the Moderator if you would like........

My terms...

No post allowed from electronics or radio professionals as the hobby is
AMATEUR RADIO.....no posts from the Greater Glasgow area as they are 99%
headcases....no Free Masons allowed to post as they are all slimy
bastards....no Laughing Polis man members as they are loonies and self
proclaimed professionals...no class Bs that went for the Fl to get on HF as
they showed no backbone and are all two faced... that would about sort it
all out.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:32:33 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 15:20, Spike Mitty & Co wrote:
>
>>> Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your
>>> own moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone doing
>>> it for you? Is this a troll?
>>
>> That's what I thought, but chose to take the good-faith route.
>
> I often wonder if those who moot a moderated group and technical
> discussion etc ever think of search this groups archive! It would save a
> lot of bandwidth if they did.

It's a great pity that a FAQ was never put together; but it seems it's easier to start a moderated group and go
over it all again.

>> When I say I used a KF, what I actually do is use a Watch File; it's
>> the only way to go!
>
> I've taken the blunderbus approach of killfiling everything from yahoo,
> google and Scotland. Anyone using google or yahoo to post to usenet has
> already stigmatised himself as a prat IMHO.

I've done that here for the Pan newsreader.

>> I see postings from people I want to read, and I don't see the rest,
>> including ever-changing sock-puppets.
>
> How are you finding Pan as a newsgroup reader Spike? I used it a few
> years ago under Linux but strictly to download stuff from the binary
> groups. Why did you abandon Agent anyway? I'd have switched to it myself
> but it's lack of imap support made it unsuitable as a "one shot"
> solution for my needs.

Long story short: a couple of years ago this laptop crashed while running XP, never to recover. As I was using it
for contract work (but had backed things up) I borrowed a desktop from a family member and carried on with
that. It was only in a recent idle moment I read of the latest Ubuntu release (12.10), and gave it a try. It was
unsuccessful in that I could get a desktop but nothing would run. With 12.04 LTS, it ran perfectly. Bunged in the
WiFi key and it connected straight away and updated itself. Basically, I like the way it does things, and I'm a
Firefox user anyway.

That just left the usergroups. I tried Pan and settled on that, occasionally trying others such as XPN; Thunderbird
was poor for Usenet but good as an email program, which is what I use it for.

Previously I was running Agent 1.93, and Pan was a bit of a leap. It's nice to have all identities in one place, but I
don't think the KF/WF facility is as good as Agent's simple but effective and highly-adaptable system. I still use
1.93, especially as an archiver; it's on the desktop computer, though, and it's easier to use the laptop for non-
contract stuff.

Which version of Agent are you running? 1.93's file system isn't compatible with that of succeeding versions,
which is why I stuck with it. In it's heyday there were 40+ users of 1.93 on here; I think Walt and I were the last.

>> Should a new sensible poster appear, someone on my WL will answer and I
>> will see that; I can then add the new poster to the list - that's how
>> the OP came to be 'watched'.
>
> Your approach has much to commend it.

It makes the missable, well, missable...;-)

[RipeCrisbies]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:42:04 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I've never had faith in killfiles as I've seen them very easily
> outmanouvered,

It does depend on your client and how long you kill people for. Like
others have said the idiots and little hitlers are easily removed
although they do sometimes get quoted which can be a PIA.

Moderated groups are open to abuse of a different sort - people get
banned because a moderator doesn't like them, etc. It's a very hard job
being a fair moderator in a group with such a wide remit as UKRA.

Moderation works well when the subject matter is pretty narrow, for
example UKQRP. For moderation purposes Yahoo! Groups fit the bill.



Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[A. non Eyemouse]

On 13/03/2013 13:58, Lordgnome wrote:

> I subscribe to uk.legal.moderated, which seems to work well. Killfiles
> are fine to a point, but they are frequently negated by someone who is
> NOT killed, re-posting drivel from the killed, so it crops up anyway!

>
> Frank's point is taken and reflects my view, but Stephen's suggestion
> would regrettably, seem to be the only practical way to achieve a decent
> signal to noise ratio.

I have a decent set of Thunderbird filters for this NG and half the fun
is tuning them. I find it quite easy to switch them in and out as the
background noise level and off-channel QRM goes up and down.

A bit like a decent filter in a receiver really...

Moderated (restricted) NG == buy your own receiver and extra filtering
Unmoderated (free) NG == build and debug your own receiver.

--
Mouse.
Where morse meets house.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:32:50 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <8I_%s.50199$Lp1....@fx03.fr7>, "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI"

> <g3...@turner-smith.co.uK> wrote:
>> >
>> I appreciate your sentiments, but moderation would inevitably reflect
>> upon the moderator's personal opinion. I left skool a long time ago,
>> and prefer to make my own decisions regarding what I read.
>

> My take on moderation would be along the lines of no personal attacks,
> no baiting, no crapfloods, and that's about all, everything else, within
> sane limits, would be allowed. UKRA is ruined, for me, by the constant
> warring and the spam/crapfloods. Take those away and I'd be happy!

The only issue with that is that may well be those[1] who say 'take Stephen Thomas Cole away and I'd be
happy'; and their view is as right as yours.

[1] Not me, you understand. This is for the purposes of discussion, in that what you see as being the way to go
isn't shared by everyone (or necessarily anyone). And that's where the problems of moderation start.

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

> To kick the debate off as to the nature of the group charter I'd suggest
> something along the lines of: moderated discussion pertaining to the hobby
> of amateur radio. UK-centric discussion is most relevant but, reflecting
> the global nature of the hobby, topics relating to amateur radio in any
> part of the world would be on topic. Moderation will be relatively "off
> handed", a light touch if you will, with the presumption being that all
> posts are allowed, with the only verboten subjects being personal attacks,
> derogatory comments, baiting, and floods of irrelevancy. I'd go so far as
> to suggest that general off-topic discussion be allowed and regarded as
> "rag chewing", as long as it doesn't veer into the verboten categories.
> Trusted posters could be set to auto-moderation, a priviledge that can and
> will be revoked if abused. Trusted status would be offered to all posters
> in good faith and would be theirs to lose. All posters would be treated
> initially with equanimity, disregarding any and all conflicts that have
> taken place elsewhere, ie in UKRA.
>
> Something like that could make for a nicer group to use.
>
You must have noticed from listening on the bands that the conversations
there are often nothing at all to do with radio, and it's just the same
here.
You will also have found that some amateurs are worth talking to, while some
are best avoided; again just the same here.
On the radio (amateur or broadcast) if you hear something you don't like,
what do you do? I just tune away and look for something else. Why not do the
same here?
The nanny state is already far too intrusive, why bring it to UKRA?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <3B30t.35009$Ic....@fx07.fr7>, "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI"

<g3...@turner-smith.co.uK> wrote:
>
> You must have noticed from listening on the bands that the conversations
> there are often nothing at all to do with radio, and it's just the same
> here.
> You will also have found that some amateurs are worth talking to, while some
> are best avoided; again just the same here.
> On the radio (amateur or broadcast) if you hear something you don't like,
> what do you do? I just tune away and look for something else. Why not do the
> same here?
> The nanny state is already far too intrusive, why bring it to UKRA?

Oh yes, I understand all that you say. I must make clear, though, that a
new moderated amateur radio group would obviously have no bearing on the
continuing operation of this one. It would be an additional place where
people could read and post if they chose to. I'm not trying to lay the law
down on UKRA and change things up, rather just trying to find an alternate
way of doing things elsewhere on Usenet, and folk can come and join in if
they wish.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqbuccF...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:
> The only issue with that is that may well be those[1] who say 'take
Stephen Thomas Cole away and I'd be
> happy'; and their view is as right as yours.
>
> [1] Not me, you understand. This is for the purposes of discussion, in
that what you see as being the way to go
> isn't shared by everyone (or necessarily anyone). And that's where the
problems of moderation start.

Agreed. Many may not be bothered with the freakshow that happens here
daily and may see no need to change things. Others may have found methods
to tune out the worst of the noise. Others still, like myself, may
appreciate an opportunity to post in peace without the fear of any
drive-by flamings kicking off for no fathomable reason. Horses for
courses. The RFD process will give any interested party the chance to add
their input to the mix, help form a consensus and place their vote
accordingly.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khqacv$du2$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@am.com> wrote:
> there is no shortsge of moderated groups.
>
> The trouble makers either don't get in or are put on moderation (others
> are not moderstered- eg one of the main stirrers on here was
> 'moderaterd' after he caused a problems on one of the civilised groups).
>
> Keeping the usual suspects here leaves places for us decent people to enjoy.
>
> 73
> Brian

In terms of moderation, in the RFD (which should be posted this evening or
tomorrow by control) I've suggested that moderation be carried out
manually to begin with and once contributors have demonstrated a
willingness to work within the constraints of the group's charter (ie; no
personal attacks, no baiting, no derogatory comments, no crapfloods) then
they would be added to the whitelist and granted automatic approval
privileges. This is a privilege that can be lost if the charter is
contravened, and posters can ultimately be blacklisted altogether.

I'm not a fascist and would lean very heavily towards "light-touch"
moderation, only refusing posts that were out of line, as per the charter
(see above).

[Lordgnome]

On 13/03/2013 20:02, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> In terms of moderation, in the RFD (which should be posted this evening or
> tomorrow by control) I've suggested that moderation be carried out
> manually to begin with and once contributors have demonstrated a
> willingness to work within the constraints of the group's charter (ie; no
> personal attacks, no baiting, no derogatory comments, no crapfloods) then
> they would be added to the whitelist and granted automatic approval
> privileges. This is a privilege that can be lost if the charter is
> contravened, and posters can ultimately be blacklisted altogether.
>
> I'm not a fascist and would lean very heavily towards "light-touch"
> moderation, only refusing posts that were out of line, as per the charter
> (see above).
>

Stephen,
My congratulations for the effort you are making. As I indicated, I know
nothing about setting up a newsgroup, so please let us know what may be
done to assist.
A number of folks have mentioned Yahoo groups. I have tried these and
found no end of problems which I wont bother to list. Some of the forums
are pretty good, e.g. http://www.vintage-radio.net (for those that find
old kit of interest). I was once on the RSGB reflector, but found that
the deluge of stuff coming through email was a bit of a pain. I
definitely prefer the old style newsgroups!

Les.

[Jim Stewart ...]

"Fred Roberts" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:sC%%s.24524$%c5.1...@fx19.fr7...

> On 13/03/2013 13:32, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> My take on moderation would be along the lines of no personal attacks, no
>> baiting, no crapfloods, and that's about all, everything else, within
>> sane
>> limits, would be allowed. UKRA is ruined, for me, by the constant warring

>> and the spam/crapfloods. Take those away and I'd be happy!
>
> Take them away yourself. Learn how to use a killfile.
>
>
yes..I have blocked Old King Cole.......

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"MM3QRO/MM" <mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ifiw88...@news.albasani.net...
> Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:
>
>> ___Original Message_________________________________________
>> From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notl...@nowaymail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 Time: 11:01:34

>>
>> > what can I say? I'm a geek).
>> >
>>
>>

>> Then the RSGB Tech reflector is for you:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgbtech/
>>
>> It's geeky, it's moderated (but the moderators are not from North
>> Korea). Just the job.
>
> And you can be banned from rsgbtech for only reading it.
> You can be banned from it for just being registered on it.
>
Can you be banned for not bothering to join?

[gareth]

"Fred Roberts" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message

news:cJ%%s.24525$%c5.1...@fx19.fr7...
>>> The idea of a moderated group has been floated many times over the
>>> years.
>>> I'll let you guess how successful they have been.
>> Noted. But if the idea has been posited several times previously, then
>> there must be a compelling argument in favour, otherwise it wouldn't be a
>> recurring theme (/devils advocate).
> Quite the opposite, there have been compelling arguments against a
> moderated group. If you like a moderated group try the White Rose one,
> you'll then get an idea of how bad things are when a tinpot dictator gets
> to decide who can and can't post and what they can post.
>>> If you don't like the crapflood on here (is there one?) then use a KF
>> having regex facilities.
>> I'm semi-ideologically opposed to killfiles, although I've certainly been
>> reconsidering that stance lately.

> Are you having laugh? Seriously. You're opposed to performing your own
> moderation via a killfile but you've no objection to someone doing it for
> you? Is this a troll?
>

Didn't see the OP of this thread, but let me guess - it was something punted
by someone who holds, or used to hold, a licence issued under the
gangrenous degeneration that is the M3 / M6 / CB Fools' Licence scheme,
and is an example of a rank (in more senses than one!) amateur tail trying
to wag the dog of the cadre of Class A licensees?

[BiB the Boulder !!HIC!!]

On Mar 13, 9:33 pm, "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-

smith.co.uK> wrote:
> "MM3QRO/MM" <mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:xn0ifiw88...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
> > Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:
>
> >> ___Original Message_________________________________________

> >> From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notlik...@nowaymail.com>

> >> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013   Time: 11:01:34
>
> >> > what can I say? I'm a geek).
>
> >> Then the RSGB Tech reflector is for you:
>
> >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgbtech/
>
> >> It's geeky, it's moderated (but the moderators are not from North
> >> Korea). Just the job.
>
> > And you can be banned from rsgbtech for only reading it.
> > You can be banned from it for just being registered on it.
>
> Can you be banned for not bothering to join?
> --
> ;-)
> .
> 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
> .http://turner-smith.co.uk

in those famous words. I would not join if they would have me as a
member

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

You'd be more than welcome to post to the moderated group Gareth, as long
as you could abide by the charter.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"MM3QRO/MM" <mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I
>> figured I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>>
>

> Isnt this wonderful....
> an M6 for a "wet week" and already trying to re-organise the deck-chairs.
>
>
> But yet with all this enthusiasm for re-arranging uk-r-a -
> no obvious sign of progress towards the 2E or M0 licence.

My 2e exam is in a week and a half.

[Brian Reay]

Good luck Steve, at least you've been open about your exam. Unlike Paul.

Why not try the Yahoo Group RSGBTech, you will find it is run much as
per your 'charter' outlines.

73
Brian

[Brian Reay]

On 13/03/2013 22:14, MM3QRO/MM wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I
>> figured I'd give it a go and see what the response is.
>>
>
> Isnt this wonderful....
> an M6 for a "wet week" and already trying to re-organise the deck-chairs.
>

Well, he is in the UK so has more right to comment on a UK group than
you do about anything to do with UK amateur radio. After all, you
closest link to the UK is owing us a huge pot of money in loans.

>
> But yet with all this enthusiasm for re-arranging uk-r-a -
> no obvious sign of progress towards the 2E or M0 licence.
>

He told when he is doing his licence exam, when did you do yours, and where?

[Rambo]

Decent is defined as conforming to the recognized standard of
propriety, good taste, modesty, etc., as in behavior or speech.

Hardly describes you does it?

[ŚĿĄⱤ₮ῘḆḁṜṱḟᶏȘȶ ©__∑]

The NG has always been full of off topic postings, which are actually
against the terms and conditions small print from all ISPs.

Even if you go back more than 15 years, at least 50% of the postings were
off topic with the idiots using this as if it were the only news group.

Stupid stories from newspapers, idiotic rubbish about about Landrovers, the
list goes on.

What the current people are doing is just the same as always, just in
greater numbers.

Sadly, this has always been a newsgroup for idiots, and long may it
continue, radio amateurs made it what it is today, there is no going back.





"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
news:notlikely-130...@192.168.0.134...

Hello. I'm loathe to put my head above the parapet like this but I figured
I'd give it a go and see what the response is.

This newsgroup is hard to read and use, there's an awful lot of "off
topic" content as well as the continual low-level warfare between various
parties. Downloading new headers every couple of days, I find it mildly
depressing to generally find very little amateur radio discussion, and the
general tone of madness and bile puts me off from trying to start any
radio discussion.

So, i was thinking, is it time to petition for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
to be started? If such a group was started and propogated, would anybody
be interested in using it? As I've stated in earlier posts, I have a
vintage computing fetish and am keen to roll that into my radio hobby and
posting to Usenet on my vintage Mac is a pretty neat way of doing so
(don't mock me, I know it's pretty kinky in the grand scheme of things but
what can I say? I'm a geek).

If this idea is met with a wall of flames, fair enough, it was worth
asking. If there's even a handful of regs who would be interested in
having a ring-fenced UK-centric radio zone on Usenet, then let's talk.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:25:38 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> abide by the charter.

And who is to write it?

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:55:28 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <aqbuccF...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>> The only issue with that is that may well be those[1] who say 'take
> Stephen Thomas Cole away and I'd be
>> happy'; and their view is as right as yours.
>>
>> [1] Not me, you understand. This is for the purposes of discussion, in
> that what you see as being the way to go
>> isn't shared by everyone (or necessarily anyone). And that's where the
> problems of moderation start.
>
> Agreed. Many may not be bothered with the freakshow that happens here
> daily and may see no need to change things. Others may have found
> methods to tune out the worst of the noise. Others still, like myself,
> may appreciate an opportunity to post in peace without the fear of any
> drive-by flamings kicking off for no fathomable reason.

What you don't quite seem to have grasped is that all this is in *your* hands.

You keep banging on about 'freakshows' and 'the worst of the noise' etc without realising that those of us on
here with brains and ability don't see these anyway, and manage to 'post in peace' as a result. As a result, we
don't need our hands held by a newcomer. We're grown up people, mostly, and have been around and done
things. If the proposed group gets off the ground, is it really going to moderated by the too-sensitive and those
with a vision of 'what's right'? God help us if it is.

> Horses for
> courses. The RFD process will give any interested party the chance to
> add their input to the mix, help form a consensus and place their vote
> accordingly.

Of course it will.

My betting is that is will turn into another version of North Korea, although started with the best of intentions.

How do these things work, in the sense that does someone write a charter and we all vote on it? Or do we vote
on it and someone writes a charter? One could easily wind up buying a pig in a poke.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <khs254$5so$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jef <je...@assystems.com>
writes
>On 13/03/2013 13:29, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> In article <0ZqBJPL2...@ntlworld.com>, Ian Wade G3NRW
>> <g3nrw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ___Original Message_________________________________________
>>> From: Stephen Thomas Cole <notl...@nowaymail.com>

>>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 Time: 11:01:34
>>>

>>>> what can I say? I'm a geek).
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Then the RSGB Tech reflector is for you:
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgbtech/
>>>
>>> It's geeky, it's moderated (but the moderators are not from North
>>> Korea). Just the job.
>>

>> I do not get along with the Yahoo Group web interface. It's horrible!
>>
>
> Well don't use it! All Yahoo groups allow you to receive and send
>post via e-mail
>
Do they? I receive the Yahoo UKQRM forum by e-mail, but posting by
e-mail doesn't work. I've always assumed you had to use the forum to
post - but maybe not?
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <khs45t$bnu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jef <je...@assystems.com>
writes

>
>>> Well don't use it! All Yahoo groups allow you to receive and send
>>> post via e-mail
>>>
>> Do they? I receive the Yahoo UKQRM forum by e-mail, but posting by
>> e-mail doesn't work. I've always assumed you had to use the forum to
>> post - but maybe not?
>

>I have not come across one that does not allow email posting. I have a
>feeling that some do not reflect your own posts back even though they
>appear to everyone else. Not sure about ukqrm or rsgbthech.
>
Ummmmm....
Apart from the first deliberate unsuccessful attempt to contribute to
UKQRM via email, I think I've also done it a couple more times
accidentally - and nothing appeared (either email or on Yahoo).
--
Ian

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khqv3s$ido$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <nos...@private.com> wrote:
> >
> Good luck Steve, at least you've been open about your exam. Unlike Paul.
>
> Why not try the Yahoo Group RSGBTech, you will find it is run much as
> per your 'charter' outlines.
>
> 73
> Brian

Thanks Brian. I've had a persistent chest infection for the last 3 weeks
or so, most of which time I've felt thoroughly rotten and moped in bed. So
my revision schedule has been not as robust as I'd might have liked. I
remain confident though, more or less, and still have a week and a half to
cram so *should* be OK.

I will certainly check out RSGBTech in due course.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <xn0ifjau...@news.albasani.net>, "MM3QRO/MM"

<mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote:

> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>
> > My 2e exam is in a week and a half.
>

> Good I'm glad to hear/read it.
> I'd rather see you make progress to and get the M0 before doing anything
> else.

I appreciate the concern, but feel happy with the way I'm handling things.
My rough plan for the near future is to obtain the 2E and sit tight with
that awhile so I have a chance to really absorb and assimilate all the
knowledge I've gained before then undertaking the M0. I'd be very happy if
I'm licensed M0 within 12 months from now. I'm in no mad rush.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqdh53...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:
> What you don't quite seem to have grasped is that all this is in *your* hands.
>
> You keep banging on about 'freakshows' and 'the worst of the noise' etc
without realising that those of us on
> here with brains and ability don't see these anyway, and manage to 'post
in peace' as a result. As a result, we
> don't need our hands held by a newcomer. We're grown up people, mostly,
and have been around and done
> things. If the proposed group gets off the ground, is it really going to
moderated by the too-sensitive and those
> with a vision of 'what's right'? God help us if it is.

Spike, I've certainly "grasped" that which you point out. I made clear in
my previous post that different people will be satisfied with different
things. It satisfies you to blank out that which you don't wish to see,
and it's great that that approach works for you. But just as I don't speak
for you, you don't speak for me. I look at this newsgroup and see a
terrible waste of a resource and shudder when I read some of the bilious
input on here. I see an atmosphere that is neither inviting to newcomers
nor conducive to sensible debate (what with the constant threat of
flamewars lighting up any and all threads). I consider a moderated
newsgroup as a potential answer to these concerns. You will obviously not
be forced to participate if you don't want to, and the existence of a
moderated group will have no impact on you if you choose to give it a wide
berth.

> Of course it will.
>
> My betting is that is will turn into another version of North Korea,
although started with the best of intentions.
>
> How do these things work, in the sense that does someone write a charter
and we all vote on it? Or do we vote
> on it and someone writes a charter? One could easily wind up buying a
pig in a poke.

The process is that an RFD (Request for Discussion) is submitted to the UK
Usenet control team containing the newgroup proposal, a rationale and a
first draft charter (I have already done this). Control will then confirm
that it is formatted correctly and post to uk.net.news.config. The RFD
will be open to debate for 10 days, during which time any party can
provide their thoughts and comments on the proposal. This commentary is
then used to make a 2nd draft of the RFD, which is then posted for debate
and further commentary. If I, as proponent, feel that the draft charter
etc is robust enough, i can then submit it to control as a final article
which will then be open for voting. I can also choose to further refine
the RFD and post again for further debate if needed. It's a transparent
process and you will be as entitled to have your say as any other person,
if you so choose.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqdgfg...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:25:38 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> > abide by the charter.
>
> And who is to write it?

I've submitted a draft which will hopefully shortly be posted for debate
at uk.net.news.config.

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-140...@192.168.0.134...

> Thanks Brian. I've had a persistent chest infection for the last 3 weeks
> or so, most of which time I've felt thoroughly rotten and moped in bed.

> ...

Eh? Why have you got a moped in your bed?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.co.uK> wrote:
> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
> news:notlikely-140...@192.168.0.134...
>> Thanks Brian. I've had a persistent chest infection for the last 3 weeks
>> or so, most of which time I've felt thoroughly rotten and moped in bed. > ...
>
> Eh? Why have you got a moped in your bed?

Well, given the strange sounds that were emanating from my chest at it's
worst, having an idling moped in the bed isn't too far removed. I haven't
had a cigarette for a fortnight though, so things have been much clearer. I
moved on to smoking a pipe a few times a day and I must admit to being
rather taken by it. Lungs feel much better for not inhaling the smoke,
that's for sure. Hopefully I will keep off the fags.

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:10:34 +0700
ŚĿĄⱤ₮ῘḆḁṜṱḟᶏȘȶ ©__∑ wrote:

> The NG has always been full of off topic postings, which are actually
> against the terms and conditions small print from all ISPs.

Sorry Slarti, but due to the age and history of uk.r.a. and its lack
of a charter, your assertion is incorrect.

--

Brian Morrison

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <aqdgfg...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:25:38 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>> > abide by the charter.
>>
>> And who is to write it?
>
> I've submitted a draft which will hopefully shortly be posted for debate
> at uk.net.news.config.

That group has unfortunately locked up my Pan newsreader, so I'm having to use a backup (XPN) to read it.

Can you post on here when the draft is available? TIA

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I requested that the RFD be cross posted to ukra so that all users will be
aware. If it's not, I will make an announcement that it's live.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:02:58 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:


> Spike, I've certainly "grasped" that which you point out. I made clear
> in my previous post that different people will be satisfied with
> different things. It satisfies you to blank out that which you don't
> wish to see, and it's great that that approach works for you. But just
> as I don't speak for you, you don't speak for me.

Sorry to bang on about this, but your solution is to affect *everyone*.

My approach, as well as that of the more experienced user, affects *no-one*.

Merely by doing what you propose, you are going to speak for all users on here; and I don't hink you've grasoed
that.

> I look at this
> newsgroup and see a terrible waste of a resource and shudder when I read
> some of the bilious input on here.

Get a thicker skin, it'll help you in all areas of life.

> I see an atmosphere that is neither inviting to newcomers

Once upon a time, when the Great Leap Forward of 2003 was under way, there were no end of posters
appearing with pleas like 'My G5RV doesn't work very well, is there a better aerial?'. It was so frequent a
request I almost wrote a FAQ about it. All were answered with the information they sought but didn't necessarily
want.

These days they just go to a dealer and open a cheque-book.

If they aren't turning up now, in a medium that's fast fading into obscurity, what is going to attract them either to
this group or your new one?

You might do better opening a Twitter or Facebook group.

> nor conducive to sensible debate (what with the
> constant threat of flamewars lighting up any and all threads).

It's non-conducive to debate only if you, rather than someone holding your hand, can't use self-training and
experience to deal with it yourself.

> consider a moderated newsgroup as a potential answer to these concerns.
> You will obviously not be forced to participate if you don't want to,
> and the existence of a moderated group will have no impact on you if you
> choose to give it a wide berth.

Quite.

> The process is that an RFD (Request for Discussion) is submitted to the
> UK Usenet control team containing the newgroup proposal, a rationale and
> a first draft charter (I have already done this). Control will then
> confirm that it is formatted correctly and post to uk.net.news.config.
> The RFD will be open to debate for 10 days, during which time any party
> can provide their thoughts and comments on the proposal. This commentary
> is then used to make a 2nd draft of the RFD, which is then posted for
> debate and further commentary. If I, as proponent, feel that the draft
> charter etc is robust enough, i can then submit it to control as a final
> article which will then be open for voting. I can also choose to further
> refine the RFD and post again for further debate if needed. It's a
> transparent process and you will be as entitled to have your say as any
> other person, if you so choose.

Thanks. I await developments with interest.

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:10:19 -0000
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
> news:notlikely-140...@192.168.0.134...
> > Thanks Brian. I've had a persistent chest infection for the last 3
> > weeks or so, most of which time I've felt thoroughly rotten and
> > moped in bed. ...
>
> Eh? Why have you got a moped in your bed?

He's been reading Poldark?

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:51:41 +0000
Rambo wrote:

> Decent is defined as conforming to the recognized standard of
> propriety, good taste, modesty, etc., as in behavior or speech.

Such definitions are subject to customary behaviour in a particular
place, so as to avoid unnecessarily good or bad behaviour for a given
forum.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:09:08 +0000
A. non Eyemouse wrote:

> I have a decent set of Thunderbird filters for this NG and half the
> fun is tuning them. I find it quite easy to switch them in and out as
> the background noise level and off-channel QRM goes up and down.

A good and valid analogy. I think most of the long-time posters here do
something very similar.

--

Brian Morrison

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqdtsp...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:
> Sorry to bang on about this, but your solution is to affect *everyone*.

I'm not sure that it is. My solution effects nobody other than those who
choose to participate in the new group, should it be created. There will
be no changes at UKRA as a consequence of this proposal. UKRA will remain
free and lawless.

>
> My approach, as well as that of the more experienced user, affects *no-one*.
>
> Merely by doing what you propose, you are going to speak for all users
on here; and I don't hink you've grasoed
> that.
>

I don't claim to speak for anybody other than myself. I started this
thread to gauge interest in a *new*, moderated newsgroup being created and
very quickly received some positive responses. So i went ahead and began
the process. As outlined, the process is transparent and is one of
collaboration and debate. The end result will be a reflection of that
debate, so will actually be all users speaking for themselves.

> Get a thicker skin, it'll help you in all areas of life.
>

My skin is perfectly thick. That doesn't mean that I should ignore or not
notice some of the digusting behaviour that occurs here. And please don't
take offence at my use of the term "disgusting". I'm not pointing the
finger at anybody, merely making an observation based on my own standards
of conduct.

> Once upon a time, when the Great Leap Forward of 2003 was under way,
there were no end of posters
> appearing with pleas like 'My G5RV doesn't work very well, is there a
better aerial?'. It was so frequent a
> request I almost wrote a FAQ about it. All were answered with the
information they sought but didn't necessarily
> want.
>
> These days they just go to a dealer and open a cheque-book.

I'm not accusing you of this Spike, I haven't seen enough of your input to
this group to know what your take on it is, but there is a strong
anti-beginner/anti-foundation licence sentiment in this group. It has been
displayed in this thread by at least two posters, each essentially
questioning who I thought I was as a mere FL holder (although hopefully to
be 2E!) daring to question the status quo.

However you may wish to dress it up, or rationalize it, this attitude is
unpleasant, intimidating and disinviting. It's not an attitude that's
particular to this newsgroup either, I've seen it in the flesh and in
other forums online, and heard it on the bands. I'm sure that there are
many perfectly valid reasons for people to harbour these feelings, but
it's patently unfair to take them out on all newcomers to the hobby.

>
> If they aren't turning up now, in a medium that's fast fading into
obscurity, what is going to attract them either to
> this group or your new one?

Well, I turned up didn't I? My first post here was, I think, last October.
So don't assume that there will never be newcomers looking for a place to
chat.

>
> You might do better opening a Twitter or Facebook group.

I prefer to invest my efforts into a medium that's lasted 30+ years and
will likely last another 30 rather than whichever privately owned, closed
source, locked down site is the fad du jour. Remember Geocities? That
*was* the internet to tens of millions of people for years until Yahoo
decided to turn it off all of a sudden a couple of years ago.

>
> It's non-conducive to debate only if you, rather than someone holding
your hand, can't use self-training and
> experience to deal with it yourself.

Holding hands isn't the issue. Having a promising thread degenerate into
open warfare and slagging matches between embittered parties is.

> Thanks. I await developments with interest.

I'm looking forward to the debate. The Control body has just emailed to
confirm that everything is fine and that the RFD is scheduled for posting
before Monday.

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:04:12 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> My solution effects nobody other than those who
> choose to participate in the new group, should it be created. There
> will be no changes at UKRA as a consequence of this proposal. UKRA
> will remain free and lawless.

Yes and no, the very fact that there is an alternative group will
necessarily result in a separation of posters. Some who post here now
may not do so any more, and as a consequence there will be at least a
temporary diminution of uk.r.a.'s active readership.

There will also be a naming problem, since uk.r.a. pre-dates the uk
hierarchy changes uk.r.a.m. cannot be created AFAIAA.

--

Brian Morrison

[John Benn]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <notl...@nowaymail.com> wrote in message
news:notlikely-140...@192.168.0.134...

Well done Stephen. I am very must for a moderated group.

[Brian Morrison]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:06:00 +0000
Fred Roberts wrote:

> If you like a moderated group try the White Rose one,
> you'll then get an idea of how bad things are when a tinpot dictator
> gets to decide who can and can't post and what they can post.

I see that I have not received anything from the White Rose group since
October, but I don't think I've been banned. Is it still active?

--

Brian Morrison

[John Benn]

"Spike Mitty & Co" <Sp...@Spike-Mitty-and-Co.invalid> wrote in message
news:aqdtsp...@mid.individual.net...

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:02:58 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>
>> Spike, I've certainly "grasped" that which you point out. I made clear
>> in my previous post that different people will be satisfied with
>> different things. It satisfies you to blank out that which you don't
>> wish to see, and it's great that that approach works for you. But just
>> as I don't speak for you, you don't speak for me.
>
> Sorry to bang on about this, but your solution is to affect *everyone*.

No it won't. From the sound of it, you won't be using any moderated group
so it won't affect you. Despite setting up filters both in Outlook Express
and Thunderbird, I still can't keep the rubbish out. I am probably others
really do have a problem with seeing so much off-topic nonsense.

[Brian Morrison]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:39:26 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I see what you're saying, but your assumption is that whoever would
> moderate would automatically default to tyrant mode. I contend that
> that would hopefully not be the case, and with a robust moderation
> team nomination/denomination process, shouldn't become an issue.

Go and have a look at the traffic in uk.net.news.moderation concerning
uk.rec.cycling.moderated, it isn't a pretty sight.

--

Brian Morrison

[John Benn]

"Brian Morrison" <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20130314130...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk...

uk.rec.amateur-radio

Or uk.rec.hammery!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130314130...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison

<b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> Yes and no, the very fact that there is an alternative group will
> necessarily result in a separation of posters. Some who post here now
> may not do so any more, and as a consequence there will be at least a
> temporary diminution of uk.r.a.'s active readership.

Perhaps, but I'd consider a moderated group as an alternate place to post
rather than a flat out replacement. People could engage in conversation in
each. There may also be those who lurk UKRA but rarely post, due to the
"issues" that this place experiences, who would be encouraged to post in
the moderated group as a comparative "safe zone", so nothing lost for UKRA
in that case.

> There will also be a naming problem, since uk.r.a. pre-dates the uk
> hierarchy changes uk.r.a.m. cannot be created AFAIAA.

Yes, this is an issue, but one that will be covered in the RFD debates.
Considering that the moderated group would essentially be a sister to
UKRA, perhaps there would be an argument to over-ride the naming
convention. That would be for Control to rule on.

[John Benn]

"John Benn" <mrbenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khsiae$f3s$1...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, that was meant to read "very much".

[Brian Morrison]

On 13 Mar 2013 17:01:12 GMT
Spike Mitty & Co wrote:

> Previously I was running Agent 1.93, and Pan was a bit of a leap.
> It's nice to have all identities in one place, but I don't think the
> KF/WF facility is as good as Agent's simple but effective and
> highly-adaptable system.

The really determined can still use slrn or trn or even tin, and for the
deranged ;-) there's emacs/gnus.

If you mainly do text groups they work very well and have very good
scoring/killfile support.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:23:29 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <20130314130...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
> Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> > Yes and no, the very fact that there is an alternative group will
> > necessarily result in a separation of posters. Some who post here
> > now may not do so any more, and as a consequence there will be at
> > least a temporary diminution of uk.r.a.'s active readership.
>
> Perhaps, but I'd consider a moderated group as an alternate place to
> post rather than a flat out replacement. People could engage in
> conversation in each. There may also be those who lurk UKRA but
> rarely post, due to the "issues" that this place experiences, who
> would be encouraged to post in the moderated group as a comparative
> "safe zone", so nothing lost for UKRA in that case.

I disagree, any one of these people could easily make the environment
to their taste without much effort, I can't see how having a moderated
group with all its inherent delays and subjectivity is going to appeal
very much.

>
> > There will also be a naming problem, since uk.r.a. pre-dates the uk
> > hierarchy changes uk.r.a.m. cannot be created AFAIAA.
>
> Yes, this is an issue, but one that will be covered in the RFD
> debates. Considering that the moderated group would essentially be a
> sister to UKRA, perhaps there would be an argument to over-ride the
> naming convention. That would be for Control to rule on.

Yes, but I would be surprised if they accepted it. From my perspective
I would prefer that any putative moderated group was hierarchically
separated from uk.r.a. but then I am merely one voice among many.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:15:25 -0000
John Benn wrote:

> Despite setting up filters both in Outlook Express
> and Thunderbird, I still can't keep the rubbish out.

That's because their filtering is actually very poor, you need to use
something that uses regexs and can score a post based on various rules.

You could try the Windows port of Pan and see if that helps.

--

Brian Morrison