Discussion:
An hypocritical breach of the rules?
Add Reply
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
2018-02-06 13:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

In addition, on their website, the RSGB say that all subscribers
to that discussion group must obey the RSGB rules about
Internet behaviour.

But that can only mean the behaviour once that discussion
group is joined, and not in some imagined fraction of the
rules beforehand, else how can someone with a history of
posting abusive messages on the Internet about Asperger's
Syndrome and about employment limited to lavatory cleaning
be not only a subscriber to that discussion group but also
a manager of that group?

Is there a double standard being applied, or is it
merely the disingenuity of the RSGB for which they
have become renowned in recent years?

It was bad enough that the RSGB kicked its former
supporters in the teeth when the bequeathed historical
equipment was binned and the acquisition of its own
headquarters by the investers of the Lamba Investment
company was substituted by a rented slum juxta the
sewage works of Bedford, but this treatment of _REAL_
radio amateurs being refused a subscription to RSGBTech
really shows up the RSGB, its board of directors, and
its former directors for what they really are.

Do not forget that it was the RSGB who petitioned for
the introduction of the 3-tier coffer-filling fiasco to
the detrimant of _REAL_ amateur radio in Brit.
Stephen Thomas Troll
2018-02-06 14:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
sewage
--
Visit Derbyshire's 2nd biggest supplier of Bullshit:
http://jprfarmdirect.co.uk
===
Obsessed with someone in North Kent?
Feeling inferior due to being a lying halfwit?
Fed up of being laughed at due to your badly thought out lies?
Then post the same old shit to Usenet day-after-day-after-day...
Roger Hayter
2018-02-06 14:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.

That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.

[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-02-06 15:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.

Still, it is amusing to watch you.
Roger Hayter
2018-02-06 16:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-02-06 17:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.

You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Roger Hayter
2018-02-06 20:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.

I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-02-06 21:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.

Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who run
RSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwing
another of your tantrums.
Roger Hayter
2018-02-06 21:31:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.
Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who run
RSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwing
another of your tantrums.
Well done for not disputing the substance of my criticism! You can't.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-02-06 21:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.
Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who run
RSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwing
another of your tantrums.
Well done for not disputing the substance of my criticism! You can't.
You can blow hot air all you like. It changes nothing. In another year,
you will still be blowing air, I'll still be ignoring you- other than
pointing out you are a fool etc. You are rather like your chum, although
his world is looking very shaking just now ;-)
--
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
Jim.GM4DHJ ...
2018-02-07 07:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.
Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who run
RSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwing
another of your tantrums.
Well done for not disputing the substance of my criticism! You can't.
You can blow hot air all you like. It changes nothing. In another year,
you will still be blowing air, I'll still be ignoring you- other than
pointing out you are a fool etc. You are rather like your chum, although
his world is looking very shaking just now ;-)
very shaking .....
Jim.GM4DHJ ...
2018-02-07 07:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.
Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who run
RSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwing
another of your tantrums.
In other words you win don't take things any further...I underdtood that
......
Jim.GM4DHJ ...
2018-02-07 07:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.
Still, it is amusing to watch you.
OK, mention one fact I have wrong.
This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on is
more fun.
You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,
you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?
Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrow
than in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you as
a member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by your
inability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectly
reasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought you
would have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.
I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with you
and not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practical
control. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact that
it was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.
I wish I understood all that but it sounded good ......
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
2018-02-06 16:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
I see from his header that M3OSN has joined the thread.

Would I be correct to asssume that his response is that of
a civilised decent and polite adult displaying the
statesmanlike behaviour that might
be expected of a former director of the RSGB, a national
organisation, and showing the appropriateness of someone who
is concerned about the state of amateur radio in Brit?

But taking your [1] above, no-one could possibly cause any trouble
for that group because of the moderators.
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-02-07 06:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
RSGBTech is open to all:

www.facebook.com/RSGBTech
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Jim.GM4DHJ ...
2018-02-07 07:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
www.facebook.com/RSGBTech
was that your sore finger? ......
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-02-07 18:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim.GM4DHJ ...
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
www.facebook.com/RSGBTech
was that your sore finger? ......
There was a chip shop near my house in the early 90s that was owned by a
Chinese guy and that's how he said "Salt and vinegar?". Did good chips,
though, and only 10p a portion!
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Jim.GM4DHJ ...
2018-02-07 18:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Jim.GM4DHJ ...
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Roger Hayter
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and is
so minuted in the reports of a committee or a board
meeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be no
doubt that it is an official RSGB facility.
If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that they
had set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhaps
officers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a right
to take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly they
have no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount of
members' money it would cost0.
That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of the
RSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breaching
the trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their own
personal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.
But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.
[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis of
personal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed member
would cause problems for the group.
www.facebook.com/RSGBTech
was that your sore finger? ......
There was a chip shop near my house in the early 90s that was owned by a
Chinese guy and that's how he said "Salt and vinegar?". Did good chips,
though, and only 10p a portion!
did he do flied lice ? ......was his name fuk tu wan ? .......

Custos Custodum
2018-02-06 17:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can just about understand why some people emulate the French
pronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -
this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? The
word is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quite
heavily.

An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?
Roger Hayter
2018-02-06 20:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Custos Custodum
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
I can just about understand why some people emulate the French
pronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -
this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? The
word is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quite
heavily.
An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?
"An hotel" is perfectly correct written English, irregardless of how the
writer pronounces the word. I am less sure about "an hypocritical
...".
--
Roger Hayter
Custos Custodum
2018-02-06 23:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Custos Custodum
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
I can just about understand why some people emulate the French
pronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -
this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? The
word is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quite
heavily.
An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?
"An hotel" is perfectly correct written English, irregardless of how the
writer pronounces the word.
Fowler thinks it's old fashioned. I think it's an affectation of the
vowel-mangling RP-speaking middle classes.
Post by Roger Hayter
I am less sure about "an hypocritical
...".
As well you might be. There is absolutely no historical or
etymological justification for it. Typical Garethspeak, in fact.
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-02-07 06:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Custos Custodum
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
I can just about understand why some people emulate the French
pronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -
this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? The
word is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quite
heavily.
An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?
English as spoken via meths intoxication.
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Loading...