2nd RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Changes from previous RFD:

Amended rationale - Added a sentence providing emphasis of the opinion
that the current state of ukra inhibits discourse.

Amended charter - Revised the language used to describe the
moderation. Made it less confrontational and more balanced. Looked to
set out the moderation terms in plain language. Made a decision to
disallow discussion of the moderation policy in the group as I came to
the conclusion that allowing general discussion of moderation could
potentially lead to abuse/attempts to game the system. Added that
moderators are expected to act on moderating submissions quickly.

Amended initial moderators - Added Paul W. Schleck and Kathy Morgan.

Amended moderation policy - Fully revised moderation policy to, again,
make it less confrontational and more open and honest. Outlined that
the moderators will only moderate on content, not contributor.
Outlined the two main areas that the policy will always look to remove
(abuse and crapfloods). Outlined that criticism of any matter in
amateur radio is permitted, as long as it is not abusive. Gave
examples of what may be abusive criticism. Declared that swearing is
permitted, but the moderators may act in cases of excessive/gratuitous
swearing. Tidied up whitelist policy. Removed blacklisting altogether.
Permitted all advertising (only relating to amateur radio).

Added initial hosting - Outlined where I intend to host the group
initially. I included this as there was a strong negative reaction to
the idea of it being hosted on Chiark. Whilst I make no comment on
Chiark, I have gone with the path of least resistance to ensure as
smooth a passage as possible for the proposal. Panix.com was suggested
by Paul W. Schleck and currently hosts the moderation of several
groups, including the amateur radio newsgroups that Paul already
moderates in the Big* rec.* hierarchy, thus proving that the Panix
system is fit for purpose.

Newsgroup line:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable time,
been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-topic
discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often degenerate
into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain posters that these
abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations have resulted in
real-world issues, including police investigations, and at least one known
court case. Perusal of the group via Google will provide much evidence that
these issues have been ongoing for many years. Recently, there has been an
influx of spam/flood postings which have led to further inhibition of the
group's primary use; the discussion of amateur radio. Many, myself
included, have expressed the opinion that the net effect of these issues
is for new and established users of the group to be dissuaded from
contributing, leading to an ever-increasing stifling of legitimate
content.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.radio.amateur.moderated


CHARTER:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the hobby of
amateur radio, both UK based and globally.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains within the remit
of its charter and that the prevailing atmosphere is civil, pleasant, and
sympathetic to all users of the group and to the wider uk.* hierarchy.

An FAQ and the moderation policy will be posted to the group on a regular
basis (suggestion monthly).

Binary postings are forbidden, as are HTML postings. Relevant binary
content hosted elsewhere (web, FTP etc.) may be linked to in group
postings.

The moderators will be empowered to enforce the current (at the time of
receiving each submission) moderation policy in order to achieve the stated
goals of the charter. The moderators will approve or reject content at
their discretion and in-line with the moderation policy. The moderators
may operate a whitelist, at their discretion, to auto-approve posters. The
moderators may also choose, if the situation requires it, to retain
individual posters on manual moderation. In short, the moderators may use
whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the
group.

In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo shall
remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint moderators.
Discussion of the moderation policy is not permitted within the group and
individuals wishing to discuss such should be directed to the proper forum;
uk.net.news.moderation.

Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue without
undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on all posts
within a few hours of submission.

END CHARTER

INITIAL MODERATORS

Stephen Thomas Cole
Paul W. Schleck
Kathy Morgan

INITIAL HOSTING

The moderation of the group will be hosted on Panix.com servers (US
based commercial provider) at the proposer's expense.


INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

Postings should be conducive to a civil and pleasant atmosphere,
and remain sympathetic to all contributors. Each moderator will
accept or reject postings based on their own judgement and in-line
with the moderation policy.

The moderators will only ever moderate according to the content of
each submitted message and will never moderate according only to the
contributor. Retromoderation will only be performed in instances of
catastrophic moderation software failure or abuse of the moderation
system. Content of posts will never be edited before authorization.

All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised. The discussion in the
group will be UK-centric, but posts relating to the hobby of amateur
radio in a global sense will also be considered on-topic and will be
allowed. General, off-topic, discussion will also be considered
acceptable and will be regarded as "rag-chewing" (to use the amateur
radio slang) and will be authorized in-line with the normal policy.

Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable
to be rejected are:

1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

2 - Floods of irrelevant and/or nonsensical postings, whether seeming
to emanate from a single source or not.

Whilst constructive criticism of any aspect of amateur radio is
welcomed, the moderators will reject such posts, at their discretion,
which contain derogatory language. One example of this would be the
use of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its
employees or members. Referring to the foundation license as 'Fool's
License' is another. Use of such language is not conducive to civil
debate and is, therefore, in contravention of the charter.

Swearing is permitted, if used in a non-abusive manner. The moderators
reserve the right to reject posts that contain excessive or gratuitous
foul-language.

The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to
them first. The moderators may, after a small number of posts in line
with the charter having been submitted successfully, add the poster to
the whitelist. Whitelisted posters' messages will thereafter be posted
automatically. Individual
moderators may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post
inappropriate or borderline messages. A warning may be issued to the
poster at the moderators' discretion but is not required for removal.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The
panel would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the
panel to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face. If
a contributor is not satisfied with the outcome of their appeal they
are advised to post such in uk.net.news.moderation.

Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of
the group.


END MODERATION POLICY

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until May 29th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.radio.amateur

Proponent:
Stephen Thomas Cole <***@gmail.com>

[Bernie]

Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!


Four years ago today!


Doesn't time fly?

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

The Mother And Father Of All Fuck Ups. Glorious memories, the precise
moment when Burt utterly derailed his entire Usenet presence. He's never
recovered, and never can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_person_smell

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

The Mother And Father Of All Fuck Ups. Glorious memories, the precise
moment when Burt utterly derailed his entire Usenet presence. He's never
recovered, and never can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_person_smell

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

Spike's arrogance, especially for a retired postman, is truly staggering.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[]

Spike's arrogance, especially for a retired postman, is truly staggeri=

ng.
Keep your feud in your pond.

FU set.

-- =

Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[]

Post by Brian Reay
Spike's arrogance, especially for a retired postman, is truly staggering.

Keep your feud in your pond.

It's more of a cesspit, tbh.

[Bernie]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:14:31 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[]

Post by Brian Reay
Spike's arrogance, especially for a retired postman, is truly staggering.

Keep your feud in your pond.

It's more of a cesspit, tbh.

And it's good to share.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:31 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
Keep your feud in your pond.

It's more of a cesspit, tbh.

Your re-instating of the xpost says volumes about you and your regard for
usenet. You belong in the pond.

FU set again.

[Bernie]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:23:59 +0100

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:31 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
Keep your feud in your pond.

It's more of a cesspit, tbh.

Your re-instating of the xpost says volumes about you and your regard
for usenet. You belong in the pond.

Your insistence on bigging yourself up with this sort of wanker
netkopping says volumes about what an utter fucktard you are.

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
FU set again.

Go fuck yourself, again.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:31 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
Keep your feud in your pond.

It's more of a cesspit, tbh.

Your re-instating of the xpost says volumes about you and your regard for
usenet. You belong in the pond.

Cesspit, bro. HTH.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[]

Post by Brian Reay
Spike's arrogance, especially for a retired postman, is truly
staggering.

Keep your feud in your pond.
FU set.

I bet you go to Church on your bicycle, little man.

[Mike Tomlinson]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[Spuke|Burt drivelectomy]

Ahhhh, that explains a lot.

Poor old Spuke.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Mike Tomlinson

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday, L'il Burty!
Four years ago today!
Doesn't time fly?

[Spuke|Burt drivelectomy]
Ahhhh, that explains a lot.
Poor old Spuke.

Burt shat the bed, badly.

[Bernie]

Five years ago today - doesn't time fly.

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

And with one misplaced sock, Poor Old Burt utterly derailed his entire
Usenet persona for ever. WAFI.

Happy Burtday, Burt! On my way home today, I'll be picking up some
replacement car aerials to snap in celebration.

Post by Bernie
Five years ago today - doesn't time fly.

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Brian Howie]

Post by Bernie
Five years ago today - doesn't time fly.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.

796 now

Post by Bernie

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

[Spike]

Postings to text-based user groups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
hierarchy, and these are decreasing in number.

 796 now

And that includes all those newly drawn in from the thousands of hits a
day, on social media such as Twatter and Faceache, to the Shangri-La of
UKRAM.

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

--
Spike

"RSGBTech is meant for everyone", or so the RSGB says. The group is
moderated 'to
ensure that the questions are on topic', but the group's own admissions
policy mention
(a pre-) 'vet', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', but not the vetting
policy! None of these are
'moderation' issues and none are mentioned in the RSGB's Guidelines.....

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Bernie
Five years ago today - doesn't time fly.

And the sky hasn't fallen yet on uk.r.a. [Project Fear didn't succeed.]
--

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Bernie
Five years ago today - doesn't time fly.

And the sky hasn't fallen yet on uk.r.a. [Project Fear didn't succeed.]

If anything, ukra has become a much better and more useable group in the
couple of years that ukram has existed. Think back to what this place was
like circa 2013, not to mention the deranged days of the mid/late 00s.
ukram is the best thing to ever happen to ukra.

[Stephen Thomas Troll]

Post by Spike

Postings to text-based user groups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
hierarchy, and these are decreasing in number.

 796 now

And that includes all those newly drawn in from the thousands of hits a
day, on social media such as Twatter and Faceache, to the Shangri-La of
UKRAM.

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

Burt, shame you couldn't squeeze in a mention of Micro$oft Windoze, Burt.


Burt, Gotten To, Burt.


Burt, Thanks, Burt

[Bernie]

Happy Burtday to you

Happy Burtday to you

Happy Burtday dear Spukey

H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Poor Old Burt. WAFI.

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

You know he is always in a bad mood at weekends, now he will be even
more insufferable than usual.

I just hope he gets his first choice in the Meal for Two scrum at M&S,
if he has to eat the same meal he doesn't like today and tomorrow, his
poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday if she is a
minute late.

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Spike]

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross belly.
You really should show more consideration.

Heavy night, was it?

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

Can’t believe it’s been 6 years since Burt totally destroyed his entire
Usenet legacy. Time flies when you’re laughing at a scrotum-necked old
twat!

[Seaside digs ...]

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

Can't believe it's been 6 years since Burt totally destroyed his entire
Usenet legacy. Time flies when you're laughing at a scrotum-necked old
twat!

must have missed that ....

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 15:50:47 +0100

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

Can't believe it's been 6 years since Burt totally destroyed his
entire Usenet legacy. Time flies when you're laughing at a
scrotum-necked old twat!

must have missed that ....

Thanks for the recunt, Jim.

[Rambo]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 15:50:47 +0100, "Seaside digs ..."

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

Can't believe it's been 6 years since Burt totally destroyed his entire
Usenet legacy. Time flies when you're laughing at a scrotum-necked old
twat!

must have missed that ....

me too....

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Rambo
On Sat, 18 May 2019 15:50:47 +0100, "Seaside digs ..."

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 10:55:44 +0000

Post by Spike

[The] poor meals on wheels lady will get a bad time on Monday
if she is a minute late.

That's no way to speak of your better half, slaving away over a
low-consumption microwave in your caravan just to feed your gross
belly. You really should show more consideration.
Heavy night, was it?

Happy Burtday, Burt!

Can't believe it's been 6 years since Burt totally destroyed his entire
Usenet legacy. Time flies when you're laughing at a scrotum-necked old
twat!

must have missed that ....

me too....

Rich, why did you say, Rich, that you held a Full, Rich, when you actually,
Rich, only held a 2E0, Rich? Thanks, Rich.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.

FU set.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:25:43 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.
FU set.

Thanks Wan.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 13:31:21 +0100

Post by Bernie
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:25:43 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]

Post by Bernie

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:26:06 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole

Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.
FU set.

Thanks Wan.

Sorry, Wan, forgot the shed.

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

You mammy gimme good head.
LOL

[Huge]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.

Pitiful, isn't it?

[Seaside digs ...]

Post by Huge

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.

Pitiful, isn't it?

but fun never the less ....tee hee

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 May 2019 13:45:30 GMT

Post by Huge

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.

Pitiful, isn't it?

It could be worse; the shed is full of supercilious, finger-wagging
wankers.

Yes. But it must have some disadvantages.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 18:48:50 +0100

Post by Roger Hayter

On 18 May 2019 13:45:30 GMT

Post by Huge

On Sat, 18 May 2019 09:38:26 GMT, Bernie

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you

[nothing about news config]
Still feuding after all these years, what a mess ukra is.

Pitiful, isn't it?

It could be worse; the shed is full of supercilious, finger-wagging
wankers.

Yes. But it must have some disadvantages.

Not for some, apparently.

[Seaside digs ...]

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

that's nice...always said you were an OK bloke.......

[Seaside digs ...]

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

that's nice...always said you were an OK bloke.......

or am I missing a sub text as usual ? ......

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

that's nice...always said you were an OK bloke.......

Excellent retwatting, Jim.

[Seaside digs ...]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Seaside digs ...

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

that's nice...always said you were an OK bloke.......

Excellent retwatting, Jim.

thanks recunt...your channel is very quiet....tee hee

[Bernie]

On 18 May 2019 09:38:26 GMT

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

+1

ROLF!

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not
been tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow
discussion of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the
group. I could not escape the conclusion, however, that this would
be continually tested by elements acting in bad faith. There
exists a channel in the Uk.* hierarchy for moderation issues to be
discussed. The mod policy does invite those who have had posts
rejected to contact the moderation team in the first instance to
discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB
believes itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK,
this is oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see
such a restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that
is intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is
what has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it
about and they must therefore be associated with the outcome that
gave rise to the term. They might not like it, but it succinctly
sums up their position. One wonders why you feel sensitivity on
their behalf over the issue, and why you choose to build it into
the moderation policy. The RSGB will sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts
about the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your
language and remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have
deeply-held issues with the Society. I also know that you are all
articulate enough to voice them without being insulting, if only
you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently
enjoys a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived
despite them. There is plenty of technical and other discussion
of subjects of interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The
current crapflood has not been shown to diminish these
discussions in any way. Merely making such an assertion as that
above does not make it true, and is to be rejected without
proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity
between the various factions of the group is quite another and
dates back multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would
otherwise have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's
more than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's
popularity. I believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago
and found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150
lurkers. Now, if you want to counter this evidence of stability in
ukra against the general trend, provide some hard facts rather than
talking generally about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what
someone told you, or personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup
from the Southgate club and some topics of more general

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics
for a group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the
claim of '... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio
matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil.
I'm not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra
(indeed, I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in
quite a few both with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!)
but it certainly does not suggest any great recovery of the
group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole
uk. heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has
not been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being
dissuaded from posting - should they even discover Usenet in the
first place - for other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated
group is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the
group. I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new
threads as I know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends
there, perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude.
'Killfile the wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help
people, but you're an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I
should insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter,
although I rather think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against
individuals, communities, organizations or races. This will
include derogatory references to individuals holding perceived
'inferior' amateur radio qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the
nature of a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some
licences are 'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not
equal to some others. Other licences have qualification criteria
that have been eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense
some are 'superior' and some are not. This restriction is a mere
sop to those who are over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a
foundation licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior
qualification" is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation
licencee as an inferior person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias
in your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline
case, could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto
approve the message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email
to the contributor asking if they would like to reconsider their
submission. I'm trying to craft a moderation policy that is fluid
enough to allow for the moderators to work with the group's
contributors in more than just a black and white fashion. If this
is no good, then perhaps it simply must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something
more suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's
face, that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same
goes for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working
amicably with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private
classified posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is
permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio
related. It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see
fit in order to better serve the charter and to allow the
smooth running of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of
radio amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input
into the running of it, and that the moderators will listen to
this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Bernie
On 18 May 2019 09:38:26 GMT

Post by Bernie
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday to you
Happy Burtday dear Spukey
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!

+1
ROLF!

WHS!

Happy Burtday, Burt, you scrotum-necked old cunt!

Post by Bernie

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not
been tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow
discussion of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the
group. I could not escape the conclusion, however, that this would
be continually tested by elements acting in bad faith. There
exists a channel in the Uk.* hierarchy for moderation issues to be
discussed. The mod policy does invite those who have had posts
rejected to contact the moderation team in the first instance to
discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB
believes itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK,
this is oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see
such a restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that
is intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is
what has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it
about and they must therefore be associated with the outcome that
gave rise to the term. They might not like it, but it succinctly
sums up their position. One wonders why you feel sensitivity on
their behalf over the issue, and why you choose to build it into
the moderation policy. The RSGB will sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts
about the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your
language and remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have
deeply-held issues with the Society. I also know that you are all
articulate enough to voice them without being insulting, if only
you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently
enjoys a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived
despite them. There is plenty of technical and other discussion
of subjects of interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The
current crapflood has not been shown to diminish these
discussions in any way. Merely making such an assertion as that
above does not make it true, and is to be rejected without
proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity
between the various factions of the group is quite another and
dates back multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would
otherwise have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's
more than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's
popularity. I believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago
and found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150
lurkers. Now, if you want to counter this evidence of stability in
ukra against the general trend, provide some hard facts rather than
talking generally about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what
someone told you, or personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup
from the Southgate club and some topics of more general

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics
for a group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the
claim of '... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio
matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil.
I'm not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra
(indeed, I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in
quite a few both with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!)
but it certainly does not suggest any great recovery of the
group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole
uk. heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has
not been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being
dissuaded from posting - should they even discover Usenet in the
first place - for other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated
group is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the
group. I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new
threads as I know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends
there, perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude.
'Killfile the wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help
people, but you're an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I
should insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter,
although I rather think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against
individuals, communities, organizations or races. This will
include derogatory references to individuals holding perceived
'inferior' amateur radio qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the
nature of a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some
licences are 'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not
equal to some others. Other licences have qualification criteria
that have been eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense
some are 'superior' and some are not. This restriction is a mere
sop to those who are over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a
foundation licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior
qualification" is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation
licencee as an inferior person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias
in your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline
case, could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto
approve the message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email
to the contributor asking if they would like to reconsider their
submission. I'm trying to craft a moderation policy that is fluid
enough to allow for the moderators to work with the group's
contributors in more than just a black and white fashion. If this
is no good, then perhaps it simply must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something
more suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's
face, that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same
goes for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working
amicably with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private
classified posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is
permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio
related. It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see
fit in order to better serve the charter and to allow the
smooth running of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of
radio amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input
into the running of it, and that the moderators will listen to
this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

What a fucking tool! Poor Old Burt.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

there is bernie there......

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

[b***@gmail.com]

On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy, and my laptop died.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy, and my laptop died.

as long as that was all...one of my roadkill lappies has just died
won't charge ...

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...

but I don't boast about it...busy one-upmanship...tee hee

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

that will be it

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

[Rambo]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

to quote a recent cole post

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

Just doing my civic duty, Jim. That’s what us decent folk do, Jim, while
others flout the lockdown, Jim. Scum they are, Jim, degenerate human filth,
Jim. Thanks, Jim.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

Just doing my civic duty, Jim. That’s what us decent folk do, Jim, while
others flout the lockdown, Jim. Scum they are, Jim, degenerate human filth,
Jim. Thanks, Jim.

don't talk about brian like that.....anyway come 1st june regardless of
what bloody wee jimmy crankie wummin' says I'm out joyriding in the
mustang ...and I won't need to mot it in july......

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

Just doing my civic duty, Jim. That’s what us decent folk do, Jim, while
others flout the lockdown, Jim. Scum they are, Jim, degenerate human filth,
Jim. Thanks, Jim.

don't talk about brian like that.....anyway come 1st june regardless of
what bloody wee jimmy crankie wummin' says I'm out joyriding in the
mustang ...

Thoughts and prayers, Jim.

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
and I won't need to mot it in july......

Dodgy Jim’s Kwality Used Motors. Fob it off on another Polish lad, Jim,
before it falls apart. Thanks, Jim.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Rambo
On Tue, 19 May 2020 19:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by b***@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2020 08:13:28 +0100

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
there is bernie there......

thought you had carked it ...

I've bean busy,

you and brian then ....I have been busy too...never done so much DIY ...

Bleaching shitted gussets must be a real time sink, yes.

stalking brian then snitching on him must take your time....

Damning dashcam footage, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

informer
betrayer
canary
fink
informant
informer
nark
rat
snitcher
squealer
stoolie
talebearer
tattler
tattletale
telltale
whistle-blower
blabbermouth
deep throat
double-crosser
grass
mole
narc
plant
rat fink
sneak
snout
source
stool pigeon
tipster
turncoat
weasel
traitor
Judas
spy
snake
quisling
accuser
snake in the grass
backstabber
deceiver
supergrass
fizgig
taleteller
defector
leaker
deserter
insider
blab
double agent
nose
rumormonger
collaborator
crier
notifier
apostate
tattle
tabby
double-dealer
recreant
clype
serpent
fifth columnist
gossip
scab
tout
scandalmonger
ratfink
adviser
announcer
beagle
intelligencer
meddler
parrot
prattler
chatterer
busybody
flibbertigibbet
babbler
snoop
whisperer
chatterbox
scandalizer
Benedict Arnold
pimp
renegade
treasonist
stooge
back-stabber
preacher
journalist
propagandist
herald
newsperson
reporter
messenger
newscaster
interviewer
two-timer
conspirator
renegado
gossipmonger
gossiper
newsmonger
stooly
circulator
blabber
quidnunc
bigmouth
finger
infiltrator
shelf
tergiversator
peacher
songbird
colluder
fraternizer
dog
singer
miscreant
rebel
backslider
traditor
tale teller
fork tongue
fat mouth
shill
decoy
pigeon
crypto
Brutus
rumourmonger

Damning
Dashcam
Footage
Jim
Thanks
Jim

Lee
Harvey
Cole

Nosey cunt, more like.

Just doing my civic duty, Jim. That’s what us decent folk do, Jim, while
others flout the lockdown, Jim. Scum they are, Jim, degenerate human filth,
Jim. Thanks, Jim.

don't talk about brian like that.....anyway come 1st june regardless of
what bloody wee jimmy crankie wummin' says I'm out joyriding in the
mustang ...

Thoughts and prayers, Jim.

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
and I won't need to mot it in july......

Dodgy Jim’s Kwality Used Motors. Fob it off on another Polish lad, Jim,
before it falls apart. Thanks, Jim.

good idea.....but I love my mustang so can't ...

https://ibb.co/KhzLnCF

[Bernie]

# Fark! The Usenet readers blurt. Poor Old Spike is Poor Old Burt.

H A P P Y B U R T D A Y, B U R T !

8 years ago today!

Doesn't time fly...

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Bernie
# Fark! The Usenet readers blurt. Poor Old Spike is Poor Old Burt.
H A P P Y B U R T D A Y, B U R T !
8 years ago today!

Was an incredible event, in one fell swoop Poor Old Burt completely
snookered himself and undid the years and years of cultivating his image he
had invested. All downhill from there. WAFI!

Post by Bernie
Doesn't time fly...

Tick, tock...

Post by Bernie

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500, Burton Bradstock wrote:





H A P P Y B U R T D A Y, B U R T !

9 years ago today!

Doesn't time fly...

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.
This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.
I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.
You have more work to do.

[Bernie]

H A P P Y B U R T D A Y, B U R T!

10 years ago today!

Post by Bernie
--
Burton Bradstock

WTF did that come from?
It's Spike, I tell you!

LOL!

[A. non Eyemouse]

On 18 May 2023 07:15:49 GMT
BrightView. There's a blast from the past.

[Bernie]

On Thu, 18 May 2023 15:12:51 +0100

Post by A. non Eyemouse
On 18 May 2023 07:15:49 GMT
BrightView. There's a blast from the past.

Yeah, Giganews provided by Plusnet, Madasafish, jumpers for goalposts...

Original header:


NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500
From: Burton Bradstock <***@here.invalid>
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
Reply-To: ***@live.com
X-Face:
?hH+i]@+}Zt1ttc~]FCL#XEQPxJfR[45Yw*!UZan4/3I)"***@ps8A6HdSTL;sED@^b^ZVYldJ*><v;
Fc_{P'<)Q)[nIHVbufT3GE^9SSV_Gx|h
References:
<rfd2-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130518070702$***@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
<***@mid.individual.net>
<REMOVEsteve.t.cole-***@192.168.0.139>
User-Agent: Pan/0.136 (I'm far too busy being delicious; GIT 926a150
git://git.gnome.org/pan2)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <y8Cdnfsehv-***@brightview.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500
Lines: 215
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com

[Bernie]

11 years ago today!

Doesn't time fly.

Post by Bernie
--
Burton Bradstock

WTF did that come from?
It's Spike, I tell you!

LOL!

Happy Burtday, Burt!