Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much time
and annoys me.

I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of you
"weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this group into
the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.

I'll check back from time to time, and when he goes, I'll return.

See you in the funny papers! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Sorry for calling some of you weenies, but that's how I see it, at the moment.

I agree.

Unfortunately have to agree as well.

Viperdoc > wrote:

> Unfortunately have to agree as well.

You all really need to become familiar with your scoring and actions
feature of your newsreader. If you don't have one with such a feature,
consider switching.

I use 40tude Dialog and I was easily able to create a filter that not only
blocks Msux, but also any follow-ups to his posts.

In my experience, this newsgroup still contains a lot of valuable exchanges
and the noise is back to a tolerable level.

--
Peter

On 10/22/06 7:48 PM, in article
, "Peter R."
> wrote:

> Viperdoc > wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately have to agree as well.
>
> You all really need to become familiar with your scoring and actions
> feature of your newsreader. If you don't have one with such a feature,
> consider switching.
>
> I use 40tude Dialog and I was easily able to create a filter that not only
> blocks Msux, but also any follow-ups to his posts.
>
> In my experience, this newsgroup still contains a lot of valuable exchanges
> and the noise is back to a tolerable level.

There's a couple of groups that I wouldn't subscribe to if I didn't have the
option of filtering specific posters. It makes a world of difference in my
enjoyment of those groups. I haven't filtered M yet, but it's probably
coming to that.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Morgans wrote:
> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
> noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much
> time and annoys me.


No need for you to bail. What you need to do is grit your teeth and filter the
troll. I notice you use Outlook Express, as I do. The very first thing you do
is when you see one of his messages go up to the top of your window and click on
Messages > Block Sender. Instantly away go troubles down the drain. That takes
care of him. Your next step can be handled in a number of ways: how to rid
yourself of the threads he's polluted the group with. One would be to pick a
message in the offending thread, go to the top of the window and select Message
> Ignore Thread. WHOOSH!!!!! Gone. It won't take you long to clean up the
newsgroup with just a click or two.

I've chosen to apply a different approach to step two: I use a program called
NewsProxy as an add-on to Outlook Express. It allows me to filter based on
different characteristics. One of the most valuable is the ability to filter on
cross posts. I've noted over time that most of the worst off-topic crap gets
posted via crossposting. That's not unique to this group; it made
sci.medicine.nursing damn near unreadable. Anyway, I already had a filter that
deleted any message that was crossposted to more than two groups. That cleaned
up 95% of the traffic in the nursing group, as well as talk. politics.guns and
several others. It didn't cut it for our particular problem though, so I added
a special filter just for this newsgroup that says that if a message is posted
to rec.aviation.piloting and is also posted to ANY other newsgroup, delete it.
That took care of Numbnuts (if the block sender didn't already) but more
importantly nuked the threads... since he always crossposts any thread he
starts. If he mutates, I'll just initiate the Ignore Thread option. Either
way, I've gone all day without him or his crap.

If anyone is interested in how to set up News Proxy, you can send me an email
with a phone number and I can talk you through the setup in about 5 minutes.
I'm free pretty much any day except Tuesday afternoon; don't have to work again
until next Saturday.


> I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of you
> "weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this group
> into the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.


That grated on my nerves as well. All I can say is get over it. There are
others in this group who very much agree with both of us. The others deserve
what they're getting.


> I'll check back from time to time, and when he goes, I'll return.


I'd ask you to reconsider. First, don't let the ******* win. Second, you have
something to contribute here that is worth much more than the dribblings of that
little diaper smear. Third, it is very possible to rid your world of his odor,
as I've described above.

I should have nuked him long ago but found myself drawn to his postings like a
lemming to the sea. Yet the more I read, the more I'd get ****ed. The more the
enablers insisted he wasn't really a troll, the more ****ed I'd get. I'm a
nurse, I know a turd when I see one. Please don't tell me it's a rose. But I
digress. Take my advice and just nuke him instead of the group.

Nulle *******o carborundum.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

> NewsProxy as an add-on to Outlook Express.

I googled NewsProxy . Couldn't find a decent link. Any link to this program?

Howard

Just dont read them. Jeez.

See Ya.

Don't hurry back. Its a public forum not your personnel newsgroup. If you
don't like it you should leave and find one that fits your needs. Maybe you
can start alt.rec.corncobupmyass.pilot.

I will go back to just lurking again. I just felt compelled to say that. You
can go and correct my grammer now. I am sure I made a million mistakes.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal
> to noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too
> much time and annoys me.
>
> I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of
> you "weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this
> group into the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.
>
> I'll check back from time to time, and when he goes, I'll return.
>
> See you in the funny papers! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
> Sorry for calling some of you weenies, but that's how I see it, at the
> moment.

flyin_coyote > wrote:

> You can go and correct my grammer now.

Classic! Did you do that on purpose? :)

--
Peter

> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
> noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much time
> and annoys me.

That's just silly, Jim. You make skipping a thread sound like changing
the transmission in your van at OSH! (Oh, wait, you've done THAT
already... ;-)

Honestly, computers have made us SO lazy. Whenever the computer takes
a while to download a file, we like to yell out "Dang it -- just LOOK
at this thing! I don't have all MINUTE!" Our expectations of speed
and results versus time expended have become absurdly unrealistic.

Skipping a thread -- or marking it "read" -- takes a second. I'm
unable to do even that using these stupid Google Groups (which I'm
stuck using at the hotel), but I don't find it difficult to simply not
read dumb threads.

There's a lot of value here, and you're one of the more level-headed
aviators in the group. Start some good threads, instead of leaving,
dang it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> [...] Skipping a thread -- or marking it "read" -- takes a second.
> [...]

Yes, but on an ongoing basis, every such a second is an aggrevating
waste. It drains the joy (such as it is) of participating.

It would be better if all those who actively enable msxmanic, by
answering his unbelievably lazy and uninformed questions, were to sit
back and stay quiet unless their replies are witty or informative
enough for the bulk of the audience.

> There's a lot of value here, and you're one of the more level-headed
> aviators in the group. Start some good threads, instead of leaving,
> dang it!

Sometimes, ostracism of harmful elements (and their enablers!) can do
more-long term good. Technical translation? Get your news-reader
software to score down not just the dumbest of threads, but every
person who participates in them.

- FChE

Howard Nelson wrote:
>> NewsProxy as an add-on to Outlook Express.
>
> I googled NewsProxy . Couldn't find a decent link. Any link to this program?


http://www.nfilter.org/download.html


NewsProxy used to be called nfilter. That's why there might be some confusion.
I'm using version 1.2.0 and don't have any problems. I can't testify for the
beta version.

If you find the documentation daunting (frankly, I found it sucks), email me
your phone number and we can cut right to the chase in about five minutes. I
was lucky enough to have somebody in the rec.woodworking NG help me when I
started; it's not what I'd call intuitive. YMMV.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

flyin_coyote wrote:
> Don't hurry back. Its a public forum not your personnel newsgroup. If you
> don't like it you should leave and find one that fits your needs. Maybe you
> can start alt.rec.corncobupmyass.pilot.
>
> I will go back to just lurking again. I just felt compelled to say that. You
> can go and correct my grammer now. I am sure I made a million mistakes.



Your grammar is acceptable but your spelling and punctuation suck. I just felt
compelled to say that. Have a nice day.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

uninformed questions

Yeah, I hate it when someone askes a question and doesn't already know
the answer. I don't know very much but they seem reasonable questions
for his experience level. Sorry beginners bother you.

>
> Sometimes, ostracism of ...snip... their enablers!)

That would be me.


> person who participates in them.
>


That would be this thread, that would be you, welcome to the club!

John

The Visitor wrote:
> Yeah, I hate it when someone askes a question and doesn't already know
> the answer. I don't know very much but they seem reasonable questions
> for his experience level. Sorry beginners bother you.


He claims to have flown sims for 15 years. That hardly makes him a beginner; it
makes him a troll.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> He claims to have flown sims for 15 years. That hardly makes him a beginner; it
> makes him a troll.
>



I'm not sticking up for him, or going to bash him. I wuold guess he is a
real keener. There are kids growing up in my neighbourhood that have
been flying sims since they could play on the computer. When they are 20
something they will be able to make the same claim also. And thier level
of questions will increase with their curisity and experience.

I just wish he would sign a name every now and then. Even just a first
name would be nice. It's like talking to somebody wearing a hood.

I would guess he is a 20 something student. What is amazing is he is
still so fascinated by flying sims.

I try not to judge people. A long time ago I was maybe 14, I sold an
antenna to somebody, via a second party. Talking with the first party on
2m, he had all kinds of frustrating problems installing it. Then wanted
his money back. Well I gave it to him and my frustration was more than
obvious to all on the frequency. Somebody interjected and mentioned to
me, on the telephone this person is a white caner. Not knowing even that
had to be spelled out for me. He got his money back, the antenna was
fine actually just installed poorly, and I don't know how or who he got
to go up and down this tower of his. But I sure felt stupid and still do
30+ years later. Sorry Stan.

So I'm patient. And perhaps one day he will take to a real plane. Or a
full motion simulator.

It seems to me he is talking about piloting even if he does apply it to
a sim. I don't. And he does pose questions many doorknobs with licenses
should be thinking about. And if I don't like the thread, I move on.

Some feel he is too much a beginner to be here. Some here look like real
beginners to me. And that's fine with me. Funniest of all; the maturity
level of a person whom is compelled to post "plonk" or simiar
sentiments. Second place goes to self appointed herd leaders.

Can't everybody get along, do it for the children.

John

flyin_coyote wrote:
> Don't hurry back. Its a public forum not your personnel newsgroup. If you
> don't like it you should leave and find one that fits your needs. Maybe you

You're right that the newsgroups are public fora. However, when they
were started, people were supposed to abide by each newsgroup's
charter, though there would be no one to police such activity except
each forum's own contributors. The charters for the rec.aviation
newsgroups can be found at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aviation/faq/preamble.html.

According to the charter for the rec.aviation newsgroups,
rec.aviation.piloting is for "general discussion for aviators."
According to Merriam-Webster, an aviator is "the operator or pilot of
an aircraft and especially an airplane." MXS doesn't appear to be an
aviator, at least by this definition. Many of his questions are more
appropriate for other newsgroups. For example, many of his postings
are probably more appropriate for the rec.aviation.simulators or
rec.aviation.student newsgroups.

This newsgroup has certainly deteriorated in the (nearly) decade that
I've been reading it (using this and other email addresses). If people
used the most appropriate newsgroups for their postings, the value of
the newsgroups increases for everyone. If people post blindly to
whichever newsgroup is most convenient or will provoke the most
reaction, the newsgroups lose value for us all. Sadly, it has lost
value for at least one of our contributors.

Jim:

Tired of MXS? Then just killfile him. I'll read the first
couple posts then killfile the thread, because by that time,
it's disintegrated into noise.

rps > wrote:
>This newsgroup has certainly deteriorated in the (nearly) decade that
>I've been reading it (using this and other email addresses). If people
>used the most appropriate newsgroups for their postings, the value of
>the newsgroups increases for everyone. If people post blindly to
>whichever newsgroup is most convenient or will provoke the most
>reaction, the newsgroups lose value for us all. Sadly, it has lost
>value for at least one of our contributors.

A decade. Hm...that's when they started selling computers at
the grocery store. Pick your color and price, no need to read the
back of the box for the instructions. And the bag boy/girl will even
carry it out to the car for you.

Have you notice how many of the big box computer stores even have
grocery carts now?

"rps" > wrote in message >
> You're right that the newsgroups are public fora. However, when they
> were started, people were supposed to abide by each newsgroup's
> charter, though there would be no one to police such activity except
> each forum's own contributors. The charters for the rec.aviation
> newsgroups can be found at
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aviation/faq/preamble.html.

The way I read it is he should start a moderated version.
rec.aviation.corncobupmyass.piloting.moderated.
I wonder how many members would contribute to that. He could have his own
exclusive members.

Blanche wrote:
>
> A decade. Hm...that's when they started selling computers at
> the grocery store. Pick your color and price, no need to read the
> back of the box for the instructions.

Are you folks aware of the large number of newsgroup users who don't
know what Usenet is? There are more and more "web forums" that simply
display and post to Usenet with the user thinking it's a web forum.


Here's an example:

<http://www.aviatorlive.com/thread/521799-MXSMANIC++-+The+posts+don't+add+up.html>

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> rps > wrote:
>>This newsgroup has certainly deteriorated in the (nearly) decade that
>>I've been reading it (using this and other email addresses). If people
>>used the most appropriate newsgroups for their postings, the value of
>>the newsgroups increases for everyone. If people post blindly to
>>whichever newsgroup is most convenient or will provoke the most
>>reaction, the newsgroups lose value for us all. Sadly, it has lost
>>value for at least one of our contributors.
>
> A decade. Hm...that's when they started selling computers at
> the grocery store. Pick your color and price, no need to read the
> back of the box for the instructions. And the bag boy/girl will even
> carry it out to the car for you.
>
> Have you notice how many of the big box computer stores even have
> grocery carts now?
>
>

The entire phenomenon is known as "the September that never ended" and it
started when America Online opened to Usenet. The September part is based on
how there used to be a huge influx of internet users every September when
new students got access to their first internet connection at college.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
> Blanche wrote:
>>
>> A decade. Hm...that's when they started selling computers at
>> the grocery store. Pick your color and price, no need to read the
>> back of the box for the instructions.
>
> Are you folks aware of the large number of newsgroup users who don't know
> what Usenet is? There are more and more "web forums" that simply display
> and post to Usenet with the user thinking it's a web forum.
>
>
> Here's an example:
>
> <http://www.aviatorlive.com/thread/521799-MXSMANIC++-+The+posts+don't+add+up.html>
>
>

The thing is it would be VERY easy for the big USENET service providers to
not accept post from those sites. The problem is Google would just take up
the slack.

Blanche wrote:
> rps > wrote:
> >This newsgroup has certainly deteriorated in the (nearly) decade that
> >I've been reading it (using this and other email addresses). If people
> >used the most appropriate newsgroups for their postings, the value of
> >the newsgroups increases for everyone. If people post blindly to
> >whichever newsgroup is most convenient or will provoke the most
> >reaction, the newsgroups lose value for us all. Sadly, it has lost
> >value for at least one of our contributors.
>
> A decade. Hm...that's when they started selling computers at
> the grocery store. Pick your color and price, no need to read the
> back of the box for the instructions. And the bag boy/girl will even
> carry it out to the car for you.
>

No, I think that's a more recent phenomenon. I started reading this
newsgroup about a decade ago at around the same time I started getting
serious about flying and earned my instrument ticket. To my
recollection, there were no megastores that sold PCs around that time.
My first post to a newsgroup was in 1986, when I started using usenet
on a terminal connected to a network of VAXes ("vixen") and IBM 3/60s.
I started using computers in 1979 when I first learned to program and
logged into BBS's using 110bps modems.

On 23 Oct 2006 08:13:58 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in m>:

>using these stupid Google Groups (which I'm stuck using at the hotel),

Of course, that's not true. Martin will give you Usenet access on his
server, and there used to be free Usenet accounts available for
text-based newsgroups, IIRC.

> >using these stupid Google Groups (which I'm stuck using at the hotel),
>
> Of course, that's not true. Martin will give you Usenet access on his
> server, and there used to be free Usenet accounts available for
> text-based newsgroups, IIRC.

I only have web access on our two DSL lines at the hotel. I have no
way to access email or newgroups directly, as a result. (I therefore
also must use the web to access my email -- which also drives me nuts.)


Are you saying there's another solution, short of upgrading our hotel's
internet service?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> >using these stupid Google Groups (which I'm stuck using at the hotel),
>>
>> Of course, that's not true. Martin will give you Usenet access on his
>> server, and there used to be free Usenet accounts available for
>> text-based newsgroups, IIRC.
>
> I only have web access on our two DSL lines at the hotel.

That is highly unlikely. It would only be true if your DSL ISP was
filtering your Internet traffic, allowing only stuff on port 80 (and maybe
8080) through.

If I recall correctly, you offer Internet access to your customers through
the same DSL connection, and I guarantee you they would be having huge fits
if their Internet access was restricted to port 80.

> I have no
> way to access email or newgroups directly, as a result. (I therefore
> also must use the web to access my email -- which also drives me nuts.)

As Larry said, Martin's already offered you newsgroup access. All you need
is an Internet connection (which you have), a user account on his server
(which Martin will provide), and the name of his server (which Martin also
can provide).

Ditto with email. I find it remarkable that your Internet connection comes
without ANY sort of email service, but it's not hard to find someone who can
provide that for you.

All that said, I suspect that you are incorrect about your assertion that
you don't have email or newsgroup access. In particular, you appear to be
using Mediacom as your Internet provider, and they DO include email and
newsgroup access. For email, you would use mail.mchsi.com (for both the POP
and SMTP servers), and for newsgroups you would use netnews.mchsi.com.
Login using your email user name and password.

> Are you saying there's another solution, short of upgrading our hotel's
> internet service?

I doubt you need to upgrade your hotel's Internet service even to get email
and newsgroups *through your own ISP*. But even if they aren't offering
those services to your account, they are available through other sources.
Newsgroups you already have an offer for free access, and email you can
probably mooch one if you ask.

Pete

> > Are you saying there's another solution, short of upgrading our hotel's
> > internet service?
>
> I doubt you need to upgrade your hotel's Internet service even to get email
> and newsgroups *through your own ISP*.

Our hotel DSL lines are provided by Qwest. Our ISP is Mediacom, a
cable-modem company (which we have at home). It would be an extra
charge each month for email and newsgroup access through Qwest at the
hotel -- times two DSL accounts -- which makes little sense if it's
just for me to screw around on Usenet between phone calls.... ;-)

Google Groups actually isn't half bad, once you get used to it. It
doesn't offer the same level of filtering as Outlook (Express), but
I've only kill-filed one person in my 8+ years here, so that doesn't
bother me. And the search features can be quite valuable.

> Newsgroups you already have an offer for free access, and email you can
> probably mooch one if you ask.

If we're talking about Martin Hotze, I don't recall him offering me
free access to anything. I could be wrong, of course.

Web-based email takes a bit getting used to, but after a while it's
kind of nice having your email stored on a central server that is
accessible from anywhere, rather than downloading your email onto your
computer, ala Outlook (Express).
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I doubt you need to upgrade your hotel's Internet service even to get
>> email
>> and newsgroups *through your own ISP*.
>
> Our hotel DSL lines are provided by Qwest. Our ISP is Mediacom, a
> cable-modem company (which we have at home). It would be an extra
> charge each month for email and newsgroup access through Qwest at the
> hotel

So use your Mediacom accounts instead. I can use my email and newsgroup
accounts provided by my ISP from whatever Internet connection I choose. It
need not be my home DSL connection. I doubt your situation is different.

> [...]
> Google Groups actually isn't half bad, once you get used to it. It
> doesn't offer the same level of filtering as Outlook (Express), but
> I've only kill-filed one person in my 8+ years here, so that doesn't
> bother me. And the search features can be quite valuable.

Hey, you're the one that called the "stupid Google Groups". Larry was just
trying to point out the error in your claim that you have no other
alternative.

> If we're talking about Martin Hotze, I don't recall him offering me
> free access to anything. I could be wrong, of course.

You are wrong. He did offer. Here's one post (there may be others):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/a0dea2fc404af7aa

> Web-based email takes a bit getting used to, but after a while it's
> kind of nice having your email stored on a central server that is
> accessible from anywhere, rather than downloading your email onto your
> computer, ala Outlook (Express).

That's true. Most people who need access to email from multiple sources use
either web mail (as you do), or some other server-side solution (such as
Exchange), or they put their email message store on a USB drive so that they
can carry it with them from place to place. Any of those solutions work
fine.

If you are happy using web mail, then that's fine. The point is not that we
are trying to get you to switch. We are just trying to point out to you
that it's incorrect to claim that you don't have newsgroup or email access
from your hotel.

Pete

If yo have a web page you should have a pop 3 account. You should be able to
access that from anywhere. The newsgroups are different.
> news>>> and newsgroups *through your own ISP*.
>>
>> Our hotel DSL lines are provided by Qwest. Our ISP is Mediacom, a
>> cable-modem company (which we have at home). It would be an extra
>> charge each month for email and newsgroup access through Qwest at the
>> hotel
>
> So use your Mediacom accounts instead. I can use my email and newsgroup
> accounts provided by my ISP from whatever Internet connection I choose.
> It need not be my home DSL connection. I doubt your situation is
> different.
>
>> [...]
>> Google Groups actually isn't half bad, once you get used to it. It
>> doesn't offer the same level of filtering as Outlook (Express), but
>> I've only kill-filed one person in my 8+ years here, so that doesn't
>> bother me. And the search features can be quite valuable.
>
> Hey, you're the one that called the "stupid Google Groups". Larry was
> just trying to point out the error in your claim that you have no other
> alternative.
>
>> If we're talking about Martin Hotze, I don't recall him offering me
>> free access to anything. I could be wrong, of course.
>
> You are wrong. He did offer. Here's one post (there may be others):
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/a0dea2fc404af7aa
>
>> Web-based email takes a bit getting used to, but after a while it's
>> kind of nice having your email stored on a central server that is
>> accessible from anywhere, rather than downloading your email onto your
>> computer, ala Outlook (Express).
>
> That's true. Most people who need access to email from multiple sources
> use either web mail (as you do), or some other server-side solution (such
> as Exchange), or they put their email message store on a USB drive so that
> they can carry it with them from place to place. Any of those solutions
> work fine.
>
> If you are happy using web mail, then that's fine. The point is not that
> we are trying to get you to switch. We are just trying to point out to
> you that it's incorrect to claim that you don't have newsgroup or email
> access from your hotel.
>
> Pete
>

The Visitor wrote:
> I would guess he is a 20 something student. What is amazing is he is
> still so fascinated by flying sims.

I spent quite some time on the sim groups when I was first training,
setting up my own computer for pre-flying trips.

I was shocked to notice that many, if not most, of the simmers were
gentlemen in their 60s and way above. They felt as if they were too
old or poor or perhaps frightened to take up real flying, but would
spend hours (in real time) "flying" across the world. With the amazing
sim scenery these days, it's a great way to travel without leaving
home. Especially if you have a sick spouse who can't travel.

Kev

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal
> to noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too
> much time and annoys me.
>
> I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all
> of you
> "weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this
> group into the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.
>
> I'll check back from time to time, and when he goes, I'll return.
>
> See you in the funny papers! <g>

Hi Jim,
I think you're being a bit too sensitive, simply because the guy admitted
that he's not a pilot. I never saw you reprimand any of the regulars on
this group for answering OT questions, or even for responding to flames and
trolls who were clearly just out trolling.

If there are pilots in the group that enjoy talking about his topics, it
would seem that the messages even meet the charter.

Personally, I stopped visiting the newsgroup for a while when I would log
on after a week and there would be no new posts except maybe an occassional
post about how there are no new posts... I like it better this way, I
think. Some of Manix's questions spark some interesting conversations. I
thought the thread about Rented vs. Owned was quite informative, and Jay
even admitted that it was sparked by a Manix post...

Sometimes even the trollers stir up some good fishin'...

For the record, I don't like being called a "weenie" any more than you
like being called a netcop. But it's just a newsgroup! You know, something
to do to pass the time when I can't otherwise be in an airplane.

Kev writes:

> I was shocked to notice that many, if not most, of the simmers were
> gentlemen in their 60s and way above. They felt as if they were too
> old or poor or perhaps frightened to take up real flying, but would
> spend hours (in real time) "flying" across the world.

What's so shocking about that? You need lots of money and time and
excellent health to fly. Anyone who cannot get a medical certificate,
or doesn't have many thousands of dollars of spare cash, or can't
afford many hours of spare time, may find solace in simulation.

> With the amazing sim scenery these days, it's a great way to travel
> without leaving home. Especially if you have a sick spouse who
> can't travel.

I've discovered things about the region where I was born in the sim
that I never knew from real life. You can fly over places to which
you cannot easily drive, and flying around the region gives you a much
better feel for the layout of the land, so to speak. I had only a
vague idea of the relative positions of many well-known spots in my
own State and the surrounding area until I actually flew to them
(well, in the sim) and discovered exactly where they were.
Unfortunately, flying to them for real is out of the question now.
But, as you say, the scenery is pretty well simulated (for flying
purposes).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
> > I was shocked to notice that many, if not most, of the simmers were
> > gentlemen in their 60s and way above. They felt as if they were too
> > old or poor or perhaps frightened to take up real flying, but would
> > spend hours (in real time) "flying" across the world.
>
> What's so shocking about that? You need lots of money and time and
> excellent health to fly. Anyone who cannot get a medical certificate,
> or doesn't have many thousands of dollars of spare cash, or can't
> afford many hours of spare time, may find solace in simulation.

I didn't say I was shocked in a bad way. Since I'm headed towards 60
myself, I have no problem with whatever people wish to do in their free
time. I was pointing out that there's probably far more older people
seriously simming, than everyone thinks.

Especially you'll notice that the people with very expensive sim setups
are usually older... they can afford it.

Kev

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Skipping a thread -- or marking it "read" -- takes a second. I'm
> unable to do even that using these stupid Google Groups (which I'm
> stuck using at the hotel), but I don't find it difficult to simply not
> read dumb threads.

Even if you have the ability to filter, the problem in my book is he
doesn't stick to the inane threads he starts, which are easy enough to
ignore in any case. He also posts in legitmate threads and soon enough
they turn into a steaming pile of crap too. Except there may also be
some useful discussion still trying to go on, so you've got to either
wade through the crap or just give up altogether.

I don't have a problem with him simming or not wanting to fly in a real
plane - that's entirely up to him. If he were a student pilot behaving
the same way it would be just as bad. Obviously he's well aware by now
that there are plenty of books out there, as well as material on the
web, so if he were actually interested in learning anything he could
spend his time reading and then come back when he has some more
intelligent questions to ask. I don't understand how anyone can defend
his behaviour - it's classic trolling and should be met with the
equally classic "RTFM!"

todd.

Kev writes:

> Especially you'll notice that the people with very expensive sim setups
> are usually older... they can afford it.

One wonders if they could also afford real flight as well. But
perhaps they are medically unfit, or they simply don't want the hassle
of flying for real.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

rps > wrote:
>on a terminal connected to a network of VAXes ("vixen") and IBM 3/60s.
>I started using computers in 1979 when I first learned to program and
>logged into BBS's using 110bps modems.

VAXen

Bonus points if you know the genealogy of the IBM 7090 name

Gold star if you know the genealogy of the CDC 3600 name

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> If yo have a web page you should have a pop 3 account. You should be able
> to access that from anywhere. The newsgroups are different.

Huh?

There is absolutely ZERO connection between whether one has a web page,
whether one has an email (POP3) account, and whether one has a news server
account. You can have any combination of all three.

My point is that in Jay's case, he has both an email account and a news
server account, and the fact that they are hosted by someone other than his
DSL provider should not stop him from using those accounts through his DSL
connection.

Pete

Morgans wrote:
> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
> noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much time
> and annoys me.
>
> I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of you
> "weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this group into
> the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.
>
> I'll check back from time to time, and when he goes, I'll return.
>
> See you in the funny papers! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
> Sorry for calling some of you weenies, but that's how I see it, at the moment.

Try I-pilot.com. I like it much better there. See if you can find
Skylune there. ;-)

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If yo have a web page you should have a pop 3 account. You should be able
>> to access that from anywhere. The newsgroups are different.
>
> Huh?
>
> There is absolutely ZERO connection between whether one has a web page,
> whether one has an email (POP3) account, and whether one has a news server
> account. You can have any combination of all three.
>
> My point is that in Jay's case, he has both an email account and a news
> server account, and the fact that they are hosted by someone other than
> his DSL provider should not stop him from using those accounts through his
> DSL connection.
>
> Pete
I agree.
>

tjd wrote:
> Even if you have the ability to filter, the problem in my book is he
> doesn't stick to the inane threads he starts, which are easy enough to
> ignore in any case. He also posts in legitmate threads and soon enough
> they turn into a steaming pile of crap too.

The reason some threads turn into crap, is because people (including
you) respond to him with off-topic attempts at derision, humor, and
whining. Otherwise his threads would mostly be made up of interesting
replies from experienced people.

> [...] I don't understand how anyone can defend his behaviour -

This is usenet. His behavior speaks for itself and is what it is.
He's ungrateful and obstinate. Big deal. Grow up. That describes
half the 'net. What you CANNOT defend is the unbelievably childish and
offensive response to him. Everyone involved in that kind of behavior
should be ashamed.

> it's classic trolling and should be met with the
> equally classic "RTFM!"

To quote Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means you what think
it means". Anyone calling him a troll has obviously never been really
trolled, and is probably a relative newbie to the online world.

If people didn't respond to him with idiotic comments, then his threads
would be far less wasteful to everyone.

Kev

Morgans wrote:
> Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
> noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much time
> and annoys me.

Don't do it. If you leave, you'll regret the hell out of it. Been
there, done that, over twenty years ago. Let me clue you in:

First off, it makes you look like a crybaby. Sorry to be harsh, but
grow up.

Almost everyone gets frustrated online sometime, and makes a big deal
of "leaving". Unless you're the main guru of a group, you will barely
be remembered a few weeks later. You're just cutting off your own
nose. Besides, you're going to be checking in all the time to see the
responses to your message. Admit it :-)

> I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of you
> "weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this group into
> the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.

It's just really embarassing to see other pilots act like children.
Take for example, the recent question about an ejection seat. If a cub
scout had asked the question, he'd have gotten a polite answer. But
just because it was someone who rubs some people the wrong way, there
were about 100 self-wanking attempts at being funny (NOT), and about
two serious responses. Sad and unnecessary.

People aren't defending him per se, as much as they are opposed to the
spewing of hatred from the more immature and redneck replies... and all
simply because he ignores their answers. Hey, I'm an ex-Staff Sergeant
in Intelligence. I'm an expert in some pretty weird things. If I took
offense at everyone on the net who ignored my opinions, then I'd be a
pretty poor man.

Final clue: this is Usenet. Get over it. If you take postings
personally, then you're going to be very disappointed in life :-)

So come on back and post some decent piloting threads.

Kev

Kev,

> That describes
> half the 'net.
>

Maybe. But not this group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Kev wrote:
> Anyone calling him a troll has obviously never been really
> trolled, and is probably a relative newbie to the online world.

In my book, the essence of trolling involves baiting people - or maybe
even more generally, intentionally causing a disruption. If your
personal definition is narrower than that, feel free to call it
something else.

I'm not looking to get into an argument with you or anyone else, I'm
sure we're all frustrated by this situation. I try to ignore him, but
I'll admit I took some pot-shots at him and I can't exactly defend that
as "mature" behaviour. But, come on, I posted what I thought was a
calm, rational statement in this thread and you respond with a
patronizing attitude and name-calling - is that really any better? I'm
willing to just leave it at that - you're not the problem, I'm not the
problem, and no-one who responds to him is the problem.

What do you think is the purpose of his behaviour? Does he really want
to learn something? Maybe he does, but if you assume that's his only
agenda, there are far more efficient ways to go about it than asking
questions on a newsgroup. But he refuses to even open a book, some of
which (like the FAA pubs) are freely available online and won't cost
him a cent. So, I think he clearly has another agenda, whether that's
to cause disruption, garner some attention for himself, or whatever -
and that's what I have a problem with. Unfortunately he's been wildly
successful, and regardless of how long you've been on the net I doubt
you can point me to an instance where telling people not to respond to
someone has had the desired effect.

todd.

On 24 Oct 2006 12:37:09 -0700, "tjd" > wrote in
m>:

>In my book, the essence of trolling involves baiting people - or maybe
>even more generally, intentionally causing a disruption. If your
>personal definition is narrower than that, feel free to call it
>something else.

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#troll
troll v.,n.

1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting
on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or,
the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"
which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing
in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies
and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they
already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and
experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't
fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly
posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than
to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable
by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the
topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the
ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form
of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

3.[Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS
students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab
policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves
lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower
category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by
containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly
controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:59:14 -0700, "flyin_coyote"
> wrote in >:

>Maybe you can start alt.rec.corncobupmyass.pilot.
>
>I will go back to just lurking again.

Permanently would be good, from the lack of dignity you confer on all
airmen in this worldwide, public forum. :-(

The Visitor wrote:
> It seems to me he is talking about piloting even if he does apply it to
> a sim.

Yed. Those who call him a troll are simply wrong. He's asking
reasonable, intelligent questions about how real airplanes work, are
equipped, etc. I haven't seen him start an off-topic thread yet - more
than I can say for most of his detractors.

> And he does pose questions many doorknobs with licenses
> should be thinking about.

That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred. He's asking mostly
reasonable questions, and the people reading this realize (at some
level) that they should know the answers, and not only is it quite
common for them not to know the answers, quite often they haven't even
thought about the questions.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Yed. Those who call him a troll are simply wrong. He's asking
> reasonable, intelligent questions about how real airplanes work, are
> equipped, etc.

There has been generally nothing wrong with the initial questions. The
problem occurs when he refuses to believe the answers.

>> And he does pose questions many doorknobs with licenses
>> should be thinking about.
>
> That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred.

No, it's not. I have never seen anyone here be aroused to hatred by a
question that they should be thinking about. Rather, people are aroused to
hatred by his refusal to believe informed, experienced answers. It's fine
to be skeptical, but he makes the incorrect assumption that he already
*knows* the answer is wrong, and argues points inanely on that basis.

> He's asking mostly
> reasonable questions, and the people reading this realize (at some
> level) that they should know the answers, and not only is it quite
> common for them not to know the answers, quite often they haven't even
> thought about the questions.

You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred.
>
> No, it's not. I have never seen anyone here be aroused to hatred by a
> question that they should be thinking about. Rather, people are aroused to
> hatred by his refusal to believe informed, experienced answers. It's fine
> to be skeptical, but he makes the incorrect assumption that he already
> *knows* the answer is wrong, and argues points inanely on that basis.

Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.

You might spurn him, not answer him, or continue to try to reach him,
but to spew hatred? That's so redneck, it's sad. Someone mentioned
the other day that this group has diginity. You sure couldn't prove it
by the ugly response to his questions by people who should know better,
and probably would act better in person.

Every one of us is an expert in some field, but I guarantee you that
many of the people we talk to don't believe everything we say.
They're just more polite to our face than he is, and pretend they do
:-)

C'mon people. You're better than this, or should be.

Regards, Kev

"Kev" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
> defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
> of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
> would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.
>
> You might spurn him, not answer him, or continue to try to reach him,
> but to spew hatred? [...]

You are overreacting, and frankly you are inferring way more from my post
than you have any right to.

I used the phrase "to hatred" because that is in fact the phrase that was
used in the post to which I replied. Nowhere in my post did I say such a
response was justified, but inasmuch as anyone here *is* aroused to hatred,
it IS because of the way the guy responds to the answers, and it is NOT
because the people so moved feel guilty about not knowing the answers
themselves.

My post was in response to Michael's claim that the only reason Mxsmanic
gets a negative response is the nature of the questions. That is patently
false -- the response is largely *directly* due to the behavior of Mxsmanic
himself -- and that's what I said. Any other message you get from my post,
that's your own doing and has nothing to do with what I think or feel.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
> > defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
> > of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
> > would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.
>
> You are overreacting, and frankly you are inferring way more from my post
> than you have any right to.

You are correct. I see now why you replied as you did.

I was misled because, while the response explained what part of the
postings moved people "to hatred", there was no associated condemnation
of that kind of response. That lack appeared, at first glance, as
approval.

Regards, Kev

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> There has been generally nothing wrong with the initial questions. The
> problem occurs when he refuses to believe the answers.

That was my take on this situation as well. Those who are defending the
character obviously missed the many examples of his posts where this
occurred.

--
Peter

Peter Duniho writes:

> You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.

People who don't know what they are talking about become emotional and
defensive when the answers they give are questioned. People who know
what they are talking about are undisturbed ... because they know that
they know. So when someone becomes upset simply because his answer
isn't accepted unconditionally, there's an extremely good chance that
he really doesn't have a clue, and is stressed by the potential
exposure of that fact.

I know people who are experts in their fields. If you ask a question,
they answer it. If you question the answer, they explain why the
answer is right. Since they are experts, they can explain as much as
necessary to convince anyone. They don't get emotional or angry,
because they have nothing to hide, and they know exactly what they are
talking about.

If anything, experts are more hesitant to answer than non-experts,
because experts know how many variables are involved. For example,
doctors typically qualify their answers to questions much more than
nurses, because doctors realize how many factors are involved in
giving a correct answer, whereas nurses often do not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.
>
> People who don't know what they are talking about become emotional and
> defensive when the answers they give are questioned. People who know
> what they are talking about are undisturbed ... because they know that
> they know. So when someone becomes upset simply because his answer
> isn't accepted unconditionally, there's an extremely good chance that
> he really doesn't have a clue, and is stressed by the potential
> exposure of that fact.
>
> I know people who are experts in their fields. If you ask a question,
> they answer it. If you question the answer, they explain why the
> answer is right. Since they are experts, they can explain as much as
> necessary to convince anyone. They don't get emotional or angry,
> because they have nothing to hide, and they know exactly what they are
> talking about.
>
> If anything, experts are more hesitant to answer than non-experts,
> because experts know how many variables are involved. For example,
> doctors typically qualify their answers to questions much more than
> nurses, because doctors realize how many factors are involved in
> giving a correct answer, whereas nurses often do not.
>
> --




So now you are saying those here don't know what they are talking about so I
have one question for you. Why do you keep asking question?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So now you are saying those here don't know what they are talking about so I
> have one question for you. Why do you keep asking question?

I didn't say anything about anyone here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

grit your teeth and filter the
> troll.

Argh, alright then.

Okay, somebody say, "I told ya' so."

I 'try' to refuse to be dragged into arguments when the quality goes
downhill. I am not always good at it, but when words get put in my mouth
and he claims I am getting personal, that level of behaviour ends it. He
is on his own.

Troll, curiosity or immature, I can't really say, and it doesn't matter.

The Visitor > wrote:

> I 'try' to refuse to be dragged into arguments when the quality goes
> downhill. I am not always good at it, but when words get put in my mouth
> and he claims I am getting personal, that level of behaviour ends it. He
> is on his own.

"You're on your own."

- Rev. Johnson, after he attempted to defend the new sheriff and someone
shot a hole in his bible, from Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles"

--
Peter