has anyone else noticed???

[John Ammeter]

RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.

BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
thinking and posting.

His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
push.

With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
or posts...

Prove me wrong...

John

[Ed]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:40:49
-0800, John Ammeter
>
wrote:

>RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
>BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
>before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
>I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
>thinking and posting.
>
>His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
>push.
>
>With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
>or posts...
>
>Prove me wrong...
>
>John
As we used to say in the
army... you ain't wrong

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

John Ammeter schreef:
> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
> thinking and posting.
>
> His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
> push.
>
> With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
> or posts...

You are certainly right that we could do with more messages, more
interesting messages. But I am not missing BWB at all. I rather wonder
if we'll ever hear again from Bob Hoover, and perhaps Jim Weir. And
there must be more, whom I am not thinking of right now.

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

John Ammeter wrote:
> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

Bavaria was pretty boring after Ludwig II kicked the bucket, too....

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan[_12_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> John Ammeter wrote:
>> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>>
>> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long
>> time before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> Bavaria was pretty boring after Ludwig II kicked the bucket, too....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

So, we need a mad king? What is the aircraft version of Neuschwanstein?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Stealth Pilot[_3_]]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:17:51 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>John Ammeter wrote:
>> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>>
>> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
>> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
>Bavaria was pretty boring after Ludwig II kicked the bucket, too....
>
>Ron Wanttaja

there is still room for a certain Ron Wanttaja to rediscover N500F and
**** everyone off with details of the $3.50 annual overhauls.
to me that was the era when RAH was addictive!

I had nothing to do today so I spent 3 hours on usenet.
I was pretty busy today but I still managed 3 hours on usenet.
God I was flat out like a lizard drinking, try as I might I only
managed 3 hours on usenet.

remember those days?

I think what we need is to ignore the overbearing mantra of safety,
thumb our nose at the terrorists and just go out and fly off the
world's last avgas in a huge party.

I cant envisage that tales of derring do involving stolen
photovoltaics will enthuse many so we may as well party the place to
death.

"grandson, now avgas that was a fuel!! it twinkled green in the jar,
water wouldnt mix with it and the tetraethyllead had a musty aroma
that hung around like chanel number 7. gawd those were the days"
electrons! can you put a spanner to one? gawd you cant even see the
buggers. you kids dont know what it is to live! cough cough pass me
smokes over will yah?" :-)

Stealth Pilot

[vaughn[_2_]]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.

It is not just RAH. In general, Usenet is an outmoded and dying method of
communications. Since many think that the only way to use it is through Google,
thousands are being chased away by the spam.

>
> Prove me wrong...

Yes please!

Vaughn

[Anyolmouse]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or
questions.
>
> It is not just RAH. In general, Usenet is an outmoded and dying
method of
> communications. Since many think that the only way to use it is
through Google,
> thousands are being chased away by the spam.
>
> >
> > Prove me wrong...
>
> Yes please!
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Anyolmouse]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or
questions.
>
> It is not just RAH. In general, Usenet is an outmoded and dying
method of
> communications. Since many think that the only way to use it is
through Google,
> thousands are being chased away by the spam.
>
> >
> > Prove me wrong...
>
> Yes please!
>
> Vaughn
>
>

Whoops, darn mouse sent before I was ready <G>. The Toyota truck group
used to have a lot of info and misinfo posts. Not much on the group
anymore. Pictures Aviation had a lot of great posts up to about a year
ago. There are still some good ones but also a few posters that just
have to use Y encoding.

A lot of folks have went to moderated forums to avoid the spam, I think.

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse

[BobR]

On Jan 24, 10:40*pm, John Ammeter >
wrote:
> RAH has become BORING... *no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
> thinking and posting.
>
> His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
> push.
>
> With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
> or posts...
>
> Prove me wrong...
>
> John

Can't prove you wrong when you are SOOOOOO Right! I won't claim that
the Campbell, BWB, Chuck, and other (let them remain nameless) wars
were all that great but they sure as hell were NOT BORING! I often
defended some of the off-topic discussions because they were, love
them or hate them, stimulation for keeping a lot of people active in
the forum. Those same people were also the ones who would answer the
questions and pose new topics of discussion that enlightened and
sometimes amused. Clearly, that is gone now and so are those who
contributed so much.

The "Good old days" are never quite a good as we would like them to
have been nor were they as bad as some would have us believe. They
were what they were and there are many friendships that resulted from
them and have endured despite them.

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

Anyolmouse wrote:
>
> A lot of folks have went to moderated forums to avoid the spam, I think.
>
The spam and the trolls. Rec.aviation.piloting saw a mass exodus when a
couple of trolls started near-continuous postings.

To quote Wikipedia, "A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of
provoking other users into an emotional response."

The trouble is, spam is pretty obvious, but whether a given poster is a
troll or not depends on your personal relationship of the poster. They
may claim it's "all in fun," but not everyone takes it that way. To a
newcomer, who doesn't know the relationships, it just plain looks ugly
so they go away.


Ron Wanttaja

[stol]

On Jan 25, 8:28*am, BobR > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:40*pm, John Ammeter >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RAH has become BORING... *no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> > BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> > before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> > I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
> > thinking and posting.
>
> > His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
> > push.
>
> > With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
> > or posts...
>
> > Prove me wrong...
>
> > John
>
> Can't prove you wrong when you are SOOOOOO Right! *I won't claim that
> the Campbell, BWB, Chuck, and other (let them remain nameless) wars
> were all that great but they sure as hell were NOT BORING! *I often
> defended some of the off-topic discussions because they were, love
> them or hate them, stimulation for keeping a lot of people active in
> the forum. *Those same people were also the ones who would answer the
> questions and pose new topics of discussion that enlightened and
> sometimes amused. *Clearly, that is gone now and so are those who
> contributed so much.
>
> The "Good old days" are never quite a good as we would like them to
> have been nor were they as bad as some would have us believe. *They
> were what they were and there are many friendships that resulted from
> them and have endured despite them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The concept of this arena was to share building experiences for
homebuilt aircraft. The topics were of great help in the beginning but
then egos weaseled their way into the conversations. What would start
as ' how best to skin a rudder' would drift into , my rot gut
moonshine is better then your booze. Building an experimental is a
dynamic and always evolving process. God help the guys who would
propose a new idea only to be flamed by a few very vocal "experts' who
heard from a friends cousins hairdressers stepchild that no way that
could that work. Most questions started out as someone thinking out
loud and instantly the "group' would start their, my dicks bigger
then yours, my guns are bigger then yours, my motorcycle is faster
then yours, my explosions are louder then yours, etc etc etc. Too bad
they didn't have a usenet group for REC, bragging and bull****ting. A
few guys drove the hardcore builders away and now ask , what the ****
happened.??????

Off my soapbox now and off to go fly my experimental with a ( god
forbid) auto engine conversion in it. <GGGG>

Ben, i dont need a flame suit just a delete key, Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

[John Ammeter]

I thought you were dead..... channeling BWB...

Ed wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:40:49
> -0800, John Ammeter
> >
> wrote:
>
>> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>>
>> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
>> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>>
>> I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
>> thinking and posting.
>>
>> His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
>> push.
>>
>> With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
>> or posts...
>>
>> Prove me wrong...
>>
>> John
> As we used to say in the
> army... you ain't wrong

[Brian Whatcott]

John Ammeter wrote:
> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
> thinking and posting.
>
> His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
> push.
>
> With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
> or posts...
>
> Prove me wrong...
>
> John

Newgroups are suffering an illness.
It may be terminal.
Look at rec.aviation.piloting for example.
The problem is not so much R.A. H
as the fraction of posters who have relevant insights on the
aviation groups.
Airplanes are getting almost out of reach for so many now.

I know of one aviation newsgroup that is vital and active,
but I fear to mention it, for fear of despoilers....

Brian W

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote

> The spam and the trolls. Rec.aviation.piloting saw a mass exodus when a
> couple of trolls started near-continuous postings.
>
> To quote Wikipedia, "A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
> extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
> online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of
> provoking other users into an emotional response."
>
> The trouble is, spam is pretty obvious, but whether a given poster is a
> troll or not depends on your personal relationship of the poster. They may
> claim it's "all in fun," but not everyone takes it that way. To a
> newcomer, who doesn't know the relationships, it just plain looks ugly so
> they go away.

You hit the nail on the head, Ron. The trolls used to be dealt with by
shunning, like good ole' Bass Wars days. Now, someone always has to play
with the troll, and it ****ed off anyone that had something to say, so they
left.

Vicious Circle, describes it. Troll wins, everyone is gone. Once in a
while, there has been a little real discussion start up here, then the
neurotic troll joins in and quickly kills it. Everyone leaves again, and
after that happens a few times, they don't come back.

I think Usenet still could be big. It fits today's style of not talking
directly to anyone. Ampeater, why don't you be the life of our party? I
have a feeling that you have plenty of stories yet to tell. Then when a
troll joins in, blast him with both barrels, and a little 3 phase high
tension line voltage, and drive him off. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Ammeter" > wrote

> Sure, I've got stories but if I was to tell them I'd have to put out a
> contract on all of you... and I don't have the "connections" that BWB
> had.

Me neither. I could probably get someone ('nuff said) to dump a load of
concrete into a convertable (ala a favorite told story) if it was in my own
little part of the world, or a few other clever tricks, but nobody with true
power and reach into the world.

> Bill tried to project a gruff and rough image but, in reality, he was a
> compassionate and loving man. We cried together when we lost our dogs… I
> knew that if I’d ever needed him he would have dropped whatever he was
> doing and have been at my side within hours. As I would have done for
> him. If you were his friend he was a true friend; you could talk to him
> about anything and know that he would care and he would help. On the
> other hand, if you were being stupid he wouldn’t hesitate to let you know
> that, too…

I think I saw that in him, from time to time. The fact that many people
that know someone well can testify to that kind of quality is enough to me.
The part where he wouldn't hesitate to tell you if you were being stupid was
where he had problems with people that did not know him well. He probably
went further than he should have, where people were involved that did not
know him well enough to take all of his bluster. That's the way he was,
though.

I suspect he is like many people with strong personalities. You love them
or hate them. Then you have to just move on, from there.

It was too bad how he left the world. A violent end like that is something
that I personally would never wish even on my worst enemy. I hope those
that were close to him are dealing with his departure as smoothly as they
are able.

> John aka "amprobe" or "anteater"..... although ampeater is fairly
> close....

Dang! I guess my dislexia is kicking in! I stand corrected! Amprobe it
is, since I somehow connect your past electricity relationship with your
handle in the group.

Good to see your name come up here. I so wish that we could get some people
back to using the group like it was used in the past. This group is
responsible for teaching me many things, and stoking the fires of my
interest. The key to that happening is dealing with people who play with
the trolls. The trolls will always be here. Can't change that fact. What
can be changed is how those with a brain and some amount of social skills
deal with the trolls. These people can be reached, I truly believe.

Try as I might, I just can't get into the other groups that have been a
replacement for these Usenet groups. They lack the life breathed and shared
in this type of forum, I feel.

See ya in the funnies! I am still,
--
Jim in NC

[tom c[_4_]]

Between the economic issues keeping many from starting a build and the
gradual withering away of use net as a communication tool most groups are
suffering.
Online forums tend to be easier to use and have the advantage of (or
disadvantage of) moderation. There is also the advantage of no cross posting
to unrelated groups and the lunatics trying to rant like king jerky america,
belmont weath@r, and the musl3m troll can't get in the door. A lot of forums
have been over run by old school trolls and just destroyed. It's hard to do
that on an active web forum.

That being said the fact that use still exists means it can be used. And yes
it does need a spark

How about this:

EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
>
> BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
> before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
> I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
> thinking and posting.
>
> His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
> push.
>
> With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas or
> posts...
>
> Prove me wrong...
>
> John

[Jim Ham]

tom c wrote:
<snip>
> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
> printer!
>
> Tom c
<snip>
I doubt that it's cheaper than printing 8 1/2 x 11. Also the pages are
really thin - thin paper is expensive if it's also opaque. They probably
are saving money by not printing separate magazines for each EAA
section. Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't
handle well, especially in the reading room (read head).

I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
the glitz factor. What about AirVenture as a name? This may have been a
copyright issue, although simply referring to the convention as Oshkosh
served well for many years.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"jim ham" > wrote in message
...
> tom c wrote:
> <snip>
>> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
>> printer!
>>
>> Tom c
> <snip>
>...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
>especially in the reading room (read head).
>
> I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by the
> glitz factor.

The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old one!
In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference. I do
prefer the old size.

> What about AirVenture as a name?

I don't know what they were thinking. It will always be "Oshkosh" to me.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Ammeter" > wrote
>
>> Sure, I've got stories but if I was to tell them I'd have to put out a
>> contract on all of you... and I don't have the "connections" that BWB
>> had.
>
> Me neither. I could probably get someone ('nuff said) to dump a load of
> concrete into a convertable (ala a favorite told story) if it was in my
> own little part of the world, or a few other clever tricks, but nobody
> with true power and reach into the world.
>
>> Bill tried to project a gruff and rough image but, in reality, he was a
>> compassionate and loving man. We cried together when we lost our dogs. I
>> knew that if I'd ever needed him he would have dropped whatever he was
>> doing and have been at my side within hours. As I would have done for
>> him. If you were his friend he was a true friend; you could talk to him
>> about anything and know that he would care and he would help. On the
>> other hand, if you were being stupid he wouldn't hesitate to let you know
>> that, too.
>
> I think I saw that in him, from time to time. The fact that many people
> that know someone well can testify to that kind of quality is enough to
> me. The part where he wouldn't hesitate to tell you if you were being
> stupid was where he had problems with people that did not know him well.
> He probably went further than he should have, where people were involved
> that did not know him well enough to take all of his bluster. That's the
> way he was, though.
>
> I suspect he is like many people with strong personalities. You love them
> or hate them. Then you have to just move on, from there.
>
> It was too bad how he left the world. A violent end like that is
> something that I personally would never wish even on my worst enemy. I
> hope those that were close to him are dealing with his departure as
> smoothly as they are able.
>
>> John aka "amprobe" or "anteater"..... although ampeater is fairly
>> close....
>
> Dang! I guess my dislexia is kicking in! I stand corrected! Amprobe it
> is, since I somehow connect your past electricity relationship with your
> handle in the group.
>
> Good to see your name come up here. I so wish that we could get some
> people back to using the group like it was used in the past. This group
> is responsible for teaching me many things, and stoking the fires of my
> interest. The key to that happening is dealing with people who play with
> the trolls. The trolls will always be here. Can't change that fact.
> What can be changed is how those with a brain and some amount of social
> skills deal with the trolls. These people can be reached, I truly
> believe.
>
> Try as I might, I just can't get into the other groups that have been a
> replacement for these Usenet groups. They lack the life breathed and
> shared in this type of forum, I feel.
>
> See ya in the funnies! I am still,
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Too true, the bulletin board format just doesn't work for me.

It really seems to me that the nail in the coffin, at least temporarily, was
the decision of the ATT based ISPs to dump usenet. There's just no way to
tell when or even if it will recover.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jim ham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> tom c wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
>>> printer!
>>>
>>> Tom c
>> <snip>
>>...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
>>especially in the reading room (read head).
>>
>> I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
>> the glitz factor.
>
> The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old
> one! In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.
> I do prefer the old size.
>
>> What about AirVenture as a name?
>
> I don't know what they were thinking. It will always be "Oshkosh" to
> me.
>
> Vaughn
>
I agree or both issues. The old size was a better fit with my other
magazines as well.

Peter

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Peter Dohm schreef:

> It really seems to me that the nail in the coffin, at least temporarily, was
> the decision of the ATT based ISPs to dump usenet.

It is more general than that, not limited to the USA. u.r.aviation was a
very nice place where I learnt many things and read many fine posts,
today it is ghastly silent. And that's only one example.

> There's just no way to
> tell when or even if it will recover.

I am much afraid it won't.

[et]

On Jan 28, 12:53*pm, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> Peter Dohm schreef:
>
> > It really seems to me that the nail in the coffin, at least temporarily, was
> > the decision of the ATT based ISPs to dump usenet.
>
> It is more general than that, not limited to the USA. u.r.aviation was a
> very nice place where I learnt many things and read many fine posts,
> today it is ghastly silent. And that's only one example.
>
> > There's just no way to
> > tell when or even if it will recover.
>
> I am much afraid it won't.

After reading previous post about the quality of the "new" Sport
Aviation I had to dig it out for a scan. About 1/3 of the content is
advertising. Add to that, about 15% is informercial type articles.
Another 10% for oversize photos. Less than 10% devoted to "how to"
articles[in my opinion, the most important part]. It really is a
glitzy rag[again my opinion]. Your mileage my vary, depending on
your interests.

Ed

[BobR]

On Jan 28, 2:45*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "vaughn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jim ham" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> tom c wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
> >>> printer!
>
> >>> Tom c
> >> <snip>
> >>...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
> >>especially in the reading room (read head).
>
> >> I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
> >> the glitz factor.
>
> > * * The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old
> > one! In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.
> > I do prefer the old size.
>
> >> What about AirVenture as a name?
>
> > * *I don't know what they were thinking. *It will always be "Oshkosh" to
> > me.
>
> > Vaughn
>
> I agree or both issues. *The old size was a better fit with my other
> magazines as well.
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What the hell were they thinking with the new size? None of the other
magazines use that size and it doesn't do a thing to enhance the
magazine.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

BobR wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2:45 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "vaughn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "jim ham" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> tom c wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
>>>>> printer!
>>>>> Tom c
>>>> <snip>
>>>> ...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
>>>> especially in the reading room (read head).
>>>> I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
>>>> the glitz factor.
>>> The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old
>>> one! In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.
>>> I do prefer the old size.
>>>> What about AirVenture as a name?
>>> I don't know what they were thinking. It will always be "Oshkosh" to
>>> me.
>>> Vaughn
>> I agree or both issues. The old size was a better fit with my other
>> magazines as well.
>>
>> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What the hell were they thinking with the new size? None of the other
> magazines use that size and it doesn't do a thing to enhance the
> magazine.
>


Sail

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."

[Scott[_7_]]

jim ham wrote:
They probably
> are saving money by not printing separate magazines for each EAA
> section. Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't
> handle well, especially in the reading room (read head).
>
> I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
> the glitz factor. What about AirVenture as a name? This may have been a
> copyright issue, although simply referring to the convention as Oshkosh
> served well for many years.
>

That all said, I did notice a lot more "how to" stuff which has been
missing from Sport Av for a long time. Glad to see it coming back :)

Scott

[tom c[_4_]]

"jim ham" > wrote in message
...
> tom c wrote:
> <snip>
>> EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
>> printer!
>>
>> Tom c
> <snip>
> I doubt that it's cheaper than printing 8 1/2 x 11. Also the pages are
> really thin - thin paper is expensive if it's also opaque. They probably
> are saving money by not printing separate magazines for each EAA section.
> Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
> especially in the reading room (read head).


Yes, it doesn't balance well on the top of the tank :) And when the cat is
in the sink it tends to overlap on top of him!

Tom C

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Too true, the bulletin board format just doesn't work for me.
>
> It really seems to me that the nail in the coffin, at least temporarily,
> was the decision of the ATT based ISPs to dump usenet. There's just no
> way to tell when or even if it will recover.

Could be, but that is only ignorance of the other possibilities available to
still be online with Usenet.

Take the way I read them. I use nntp.aioe.org. It has been 100% reliable,
and free, but the only thing they do not have is binaries. I can live
without.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"et" > wrote

After reading previous post about the quality of the "new" Sport
Aviation I had to dig it out for a scan. About 1/3 of the content is
advertising. Add to that, about 15% is informercial type articles.
Another 10% for oversize photos. Less than 10% devoted to "how to"
articles[in my opinion, the most important part]. It really is a
glitzy rag[again my opinion]. Your mileage my vary, depending on
your interests.
))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((

Yes, not much better, if any, than the old version, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Take the way I read them. I use nntp.aioe.org. It has been 100% reliable,
> and free,

You can say the same about news.eternal-september.org. I actually have both
that and aioe set up just in case one goes down.

BTW: When AT&T dropped the Usenet, I finally dropped AT&T.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Take the way I read them. I use nntp.aioe.org. It has been 100%
>> reliable, and free,
>
> You can say the same about news.eternal-september.org. I actually have
> both that and aioe set up just in case one goes down.
>
> BTW: When AT&T dropped the Usenet, I finally dropped AT&T.
>
> Vaughn
>
Ditto.

Peter

[rich[_2_]]

Sport Aviation never really recovered from the retirement of Jack Cox.
I still get his Sportsman Pilot mag, which has articles like the old
Sport Aviation had. The new SA format just seems like a bunch of ads.
The old size was fine, they just needed better content. Changing the
shape just gave them more room for ads.
>>
>
>That all said, I did notice a lot more "how to" stuff which has been
>missing from Sport Av for a long time. Glad to see it coming back :)
>
>Scott

[Roger[_6_]]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:40:49 -0800, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.
Hi John,

Hey as long as it's boring, how about a schematic for an original
Telex ANR headset? They are the first ones Telex came out with. Weigh
a ton...at least after 4 or 5 hours in the air.<:-))

They work, just the ANR function is inop. It won't even turn on. I
haven't taken them apart to check the switch yet.

Gotta take the Deb up to TVC this week for the pitot static and
transponder checks, get the AI replaced and then do something about
the failing KNS-80 and the one com. If it'll go I think I'll replace
the AI with an electric, illuminated one, But I'm not sure what to do
about the #1Nav and #1 Com. IOW, no precision approaches and with
only one radio of each I'm staying out of the soup.


Roger (K8RI)
>
>BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
>before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.
>
>I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
>thinking and posting.
>
>His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
>push.
>
>With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
>or posts...
>
>Prove me wrong...
>
>John