Folks, this is a quick note to let the word out about the most amazing
DVD about the last flyable B-17s in the world: B-17 Flying Legend.
It's an award winning film about the importance of preserving the last
flyable B-17s.

It's a DVD packed with bonus features. A definite collector's item.

You can find out more information about it at:
http://www.b17flyinglegend.com

You can also check out the "609" on http://www.collingsfoundation.org .
It's definitely a fliable B-17, at least I hope it is because I went for a
ride on it about a year and a half ago. The schedule of appearances where
you can get a ride is on the web site.

"sixoclock" > wrote in message
om...
> Folks, this is a quick note to let the word out about the most amazing
> DVD about the last flyable B-17s in the world: B-17 Flying Legend.
> It's an award winning film about the importance of preserving the last
> flyable B-17s.
>
> It's a DVD packed with bonus features. A definite collector's item.
>
> You can find out more information about it at:
> http://www.b17flyinglegend.com

"sixoclock" > wrote in message
om...
> Folks, this is a quick note to let the word out about the most amazing
> DVD [...]

You can bet I'll avoid buying that DVD. Go post your spam somewhere else.
Or better yet, don't post it at all.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:42:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>You can bet I'll avoid buying that DVD. Go post your spam somewhere else.
>Or better yet, don't post it at all.

That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:42:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >You can bet I'll avoid buying that DVD. Go post your spam somewhere
else.
> >Or better yet, don't post it at all.
>
> That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
> polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
> turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...

Hey Larry, so now a B-17 is considered GENERAL AVIATION????

"Chuck" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:42:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > wrote in Message-Id:
> > >:
> >
> > >You can bet I'll avoid buying that DVD. Go post your spam somewhere
> else.
> > >Or better yet, don't post it at all.
> >
> > That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
> > polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
> > turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...
>
> Hey Larry, so now a B-17 is considered GENERAL AVIATION????

B-17s are general aviation.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:42:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > > wrote in Message-Id:
> > > >:
> > >
> > > >You can bet I'll avoid buying that DVD. Go post your spam somewhere
> > else.
> > > >Or better yet, don't post it at all.
> > >
> > > That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
> > > polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
> > > turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...
> >
> > Hey Larry, so now a B-17 is considered GENERAL AVIATION????
>
> B-17s are general aviation.
>
>

I don't see that, but I'll take your word for it...

In article . net>,
"Chuck" > wrote:


>
> I don't see that, but I'll take your word for it...
>

The one's still flying are considered GA now.

And this is rec.aviation....not rec.generalaviation <g>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
> polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
> turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...

If the person posting had been a regular contributor here, I would agree.
But someone who posts an advertisement to a newsgroup they otherwise have no
involvement with is a spammer, plain and simple.

Frankly, I don't expect the original poster to even see my reply. My
comments were mainly "out loud" mutterings, sharing with others who have
seen the same spam my own personal boycott of any spammer. If it encourages
someone else to engage in a similar boycott, so much the better.

This is not a marketing newsgroup, and advertising is decidely off-topic (as
you have been so quick to point out in the past). I can tolerate it
somewhat if it's someone who is otherwise producing useful content, but not
at all if someone just does a drive-by.

Pete

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Chuck" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't see that, but I'll take your word for it...
> >
>
> The one's still flying are considered GA now.
>
> And this is rec.aviation....not rec.generalaviation <g>
>
> --


After I sent the previous message, I guess that a B-17 would almost have to
be considered general aviation, as I can't think of any other category to
place it in.

Sorry about that.

But...eventhough the name of the newsgroup isn't rec.generalaviation , it
does have a charter and the charter specifically states that this newsgroup
is general aviation.

Here is a bit of the charter:


************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.


************************************************** *****************

Remember.. the keyword is general aviation.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:25:38 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> That seems a little harsh, Pete. The topic is pertinent to the group,
>> polite, and this is the first occurrence I've noticed. Now if this
>> turns into a semiweekly notice of each version, ...
>
>If the person posting had been a regular contributor here, I would agree.
>But someone who posts an advertisement to a newsgroup they otherwise have no
>involvement with is a spammer, plain and simple.

We disagree. Not all advertisements are spam. If you research the
criteria used by spambots, you'll see that they support that
contention.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> We disagree. Not all advertisements are spam.

Regardless of what you call it, it was unwanted, off-topic, and deserving of
a boycott.