The good old/bad old days in R.A.P.

[a[_3_]]

New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about

and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
this group actually had some aviation content. Such content still
exists on the 'net, just not here. Now we have people whose postings
might be used in the DSM appendix as characteristic of a new disorder,
or new manifestations of an older one.

For the idiots posting, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is used
by mental health professionals to reduce a constellation of symptoms
to a number for referral and billing purposes. Too bad the number 0 is
not available, and negative numbers are not used. But if ever there
was an argument for them. . .

QED

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 12:08*pm, a > wrote:
> New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>
> and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
> this group actually had some aviation content.

This one appreciates you taking the time marking the threads non
aviation. Helps glean out the wheat from the chaff. Thanks!

[a[_3_]]

On Apr 4, 11:07*am, " > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:08*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>
> > and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
> > this group actually had some aviation content.
>
> This one appreciates you taking the time marking the threads non
> aviation. *Helps glean out the wheat from the chaff. *Thanks!

Join in the effort!

[Jim Logajan]

a > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:07*am, " > wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 12:08*pm, a > wrote:
>>
>> > New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>>
>> > and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
>> > this group actually had some aviation content.
>>
>> This one appreciates you taking the time marking the threads non
>> aviation. *Helps glean out the wheat from the chaff. *Thanks!
>
> Join in the effort!

Disagree. I have yet to see a post that isn't obviously off-topic by simple
inspection of the contents of either the "subject" header or the "from"
header.

So I believe your efforts are, at best, redundant. At worst they may simply
feed into the psychological problems of the perp. He's been posting under
multiple handles from the same x-privat.org account and holding
conversations with himself. That's not exactly the sign of mental stability
or any sort of grip on rational thinking.

Also, I don't see the point of quoting the entire posts.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 4:17*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Disagree. I have yet to see a post that isn't obviously off-topic by simple
> inspection of the contents of either the "subject" header or the "from"
> header.

Actually Jim for those that use Google Groups, changing the subject
line does help filter out the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately,
when one replies to a sub message within the thread, it changes the
subject line back.

In another medical group I am participating in, I have been changing
the subject line to spam and with the concerted effort of other
regulars in the group, the troll in that group is now spitting in his
own spam threads. Turning out to be a win win situation as now his
stuff is munged with spammers, we have less initiated threads by him
and he can't get the readership from new visitors that he wants and
needs.via the subject line displayed in Google groups. Without a kill
filter in Google Groups, this effort from other group participants
really has made a huge difference and we really can do a self
moderated filtering system ourselves. We don't even read what the
troll posts, it could be the cried wolf syndrome and be on topic, we
just nail him with changing the subject line and move on with
participation of on topic issues.

> Also, I don't see the point of quoting the entire posts.

Agree, in a couple of threads I just did myself, I change the subject
line to non aviation and only left the first line of the poster
posting off topic material. I removed all other cross posted groups
and replied only to this group.

Google groups has it's inherited problems specifically with the
subject line because it's not so obvious with the edit subject link
and also the reply to feature. So existing threads are pretty
difficult to manage especially when they start on topic and then drift
off topic, but new threads that are off topic from get go, very easy
to get control of that subject line.

For this to work, it will take the concerted effort of many to get rid
of the few :-) and it will be a cat and mouse game. With my other
group, the majority has turned the tide. I know this because I looked
on his profile and his postings have reduced by 1/3 in one month we
started and his responses now show frustration. And it will take
persistence as you already indirectly pointed out for this to work.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 3:37*pm, a > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:07*am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:08*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>
> > > and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
> > > this group actually had some aviation content.
>
> > This one appreciates you taking the time marking the threads non
> > aviation. *Helps glean out the wheat from the chaff. *Thanks!
>
> Join in the effort!

Gladly and I did a couple just before responding to Jim! There are
some tricky situations we as a group would need to do for this to work
and not add to the problem (responding to off topics via cross posting
and existing threads)

See my response to Jim Logajan.

[a[_3_]]

On Apr 4, 6:53*pm, " > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:37*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 11:07*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 12:08*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>
> > > > and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
> > > > this group actually had some aviation content.
>
> > > This one appreciates you taking the time marking the threads non
> > > aviation. *Helps glean out the wheat from the chaff. *Thanks!
>
> > Join in the effort!
>
> Gladly and I did a couple just before responding to Jim! *There are
> some tricky situations we as a group would need to do for this to work
> and not add to the problem (responding to off topics via cross posting
> and existing threads)
>
> See my response to Jim Logajan.

Be sure to strip out the cross posting if you want to take part in the
effort. If nothing else it's going to annoy the jerks since their ever
so clever attempts will not be distinguished by a unique subject.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 6:06*pm, a > wrote:

> Be sure to strip out the cross posting if you want to take part in the
> effort. If nothing else it's going to annoy the jerks since their ever
> so clever attempts will not be distinguished by a unique subject.

Yep I am being conciencious of doing this. What you say above is the
key for us getting our group back :-)

I will only do this to "initiated and already known off topic threads"
that are not aviation related. It only takes a second and as you will
see, I just leave the one line showing who posted the off topic
material. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to work with thread
drift as I encountered in my other group.

Persistence will be the key to success but it will be as I said
earlier a cat and mouse game. If my experience in the other group
trues out here, they will get tired of the "majority" if we can get
others to join in in our revolt to get back this group.

In the beginning it will seem to be a non aviation topic fray, but
when you think about it, by having them focus in their attempts to re
control old threads, they are not posting new threads. So, on short
term, post count may go up, but new thread count will go down.

At least this was my experience in the other group.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 05.04.2010 00:50, schrieb :

> Google groups has it's inherited problems specifically with the
> subject line because it's not so obvious with the edit subject link
> and also the reply to feature.

So use a real usenet account. :-)
I offered more than once a free usenet account on our newsserver here
(only to regulars, non-spammers, etc.). There is almost no good reason
to use google for anything else than their search engine (and even
bing.com brings similar search results)

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[Bob Noel[_6_]]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:


> So use a real usenet account. :-)
> I offered more than once a free usenet account on our newsserver here

Once again, thanks for the account.

Bob

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yep I am being conciencious of doing this. What you say above is the
> key for us getting our group back :-)
>
> I will only do this to "initiated and already known off topic threads"
> that are not aviation related. It only takes a second and as you will
> see, I just leave the one line showing who posted the off topic
> material. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to work with thread
> drift as I encountered in my other group.

I hope you aren't actually trying to change thread subject lines. You realize
that that doesn't work on USENET, don't you?

Refer to RFC 1036 for details on the protocol. Keep in mind that the way
Google handles newsgroups is rather specific to Google. Changing something to
get it to look different on Google has no effect on the rest of USENET.

This reminds me of a story I heard once about a fifth-grade teacher who wanted
to rearrange the keys on a computer keyboard. She pried the keycaps off and
move them around, ignoring the strident objections of a nine-year-old student
who insisted that the key layout could not be changed that way. It wasn't
until an IT technician told her that the nine-year-old was right that she was
willing to believe him (although the fact that moving the keycaps had no
visible effect was probably persuasive as well).

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 05.04.2010 11:21, schrieb Bob Noel:
> In >,
> Martin > wrote:
>> So use a real usenet account. :-)
>> I offered more than once a free usenet account on our newsserver here
>
> Once again, thanks for the account.

not a problem at all, you're welcome. :-)

we try our best to keep the service up and running (it is really low
usage and financially speaking one has to stop the newsfeed, but being a
community guy ...)

and as a next step the access will be IPv6 enabled (native, of course).

> Bob

search the archives what to do and how to contact me for a free account.

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 5:30*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> I hope you aren't actually trying to change thread subject lines. You realize
> that that doesn't work on USENET, don't you?

Since I use Google Groups, call it not my problem.

If it was illegal, then the edit subject wouldn't be there.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 2:25*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:

> So use a real usenet account. :-)

I wish I could but on some computers I use, I can't install third
party software :-)

With the advent of Gmail and Google groups, I have gotten out of the
specialized programs such as Outlook and newsgroup readers and gone
into cloud computing to some degree.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> New visitors, or older group members, might enjoy clicking on
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>
> and then click on a month in 2006 or 2007, to look back on a time when
> this group actually had some aviation content. Such content still
> exists on the 'net, just not here. Now we have people whose postings
> might be used in the DSM appendix as characteristic of a new disorder,
> or new manifestations of an older one.
>
> For the idiots posting, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is used
> by mental health professionals to reduce a constellation of symptoms
> to a number for referral and billing purposes. Too bad the number 0 is
> not available, and negative numbers are not used. But if ever there
> was an argument for them. . .
>
> QED

I've never desired to participate in RAP; circular arguments with
known trolls may be what *you* call aviation related, I call it
aviation waste.

The red and blue forums are much superior groups for discussion and
education.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> With the advent of Gmail and Google groups, I have gotten out of the
> specialized programs such as Outlook and newsgroup readers and gone
> into cloud computing to some degree.

You're very trusting. Never put anything into the cloud that you wouldn't want
to see on the front page of the New York Times.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If it was illegal, then the edit subject wouldn't be there.

It's not illegal, it just doesn't work. I suppose it might affect something on
Google Groups (which I don't use), but on the rest of USENET, it has no
effect. You just end up creating new threads with your subject.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 05:43:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 5, 5:30*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> I hope you aren't actually trying to change thread subject lines. You realize
>> that that doesn't work on USENET, don't you?
>
> Since I use Google Groups, call it not my problem.

As long as it pleases you...

> If it was illegal, then the edit subject wouldn't be there.

Illegal? Impractical but, heh, as long as you and "a" are having a
blast...

It's your Usenet, (ab)use it as you wish.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 9:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You're very trusting. Never put anything into the cloud that you wouldn't want
> to see on the front page of the New York Times.

With your thought, please pull the plug to your USENET access and turn
your computer off.

Hackers lurk and whatever is on your computer that is accessing to the
internet that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York
Times could be seen.

DUH, what an IDIOT you are.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 10:20*am, Ari > wrote:

> It's your Usenet, (ab)use it as you wish.

Any other thoughts on improving it always most welcomed :-)

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 5, 9:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> You're very trusting. Never put anything into the cloud that you wouldn't want
>> to see on the front page of the New York Times.
>
> With your thought, please pull the plug to your USENET access and turn
> your computer off.
>
> Hackers lurk and whatever is on your computer that is accessing to the
> internet that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York
> Times could be seen.
>
> DUH, what an IDIOT you are.

The issues of data security in cloud environments are well documented
including the latest campaign by the former head of the NSA regarding
such.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 5, 10:20*am, Ari > wrote:
>
>> It's your Usenet, (ab)use it as you wish.
>
> Any other thoughts on improving it always most welcomed :-)
>
> Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

Doing something often accomplishes something of less value thaan
nothing. This would be the case here.

I don't suppose you could simply ignore...naw, that that's doing
nothing accomplishing something.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Hackers lurk and whatever is on your computer that is accessing to the
> internet that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York
> Times could be seen.

Not really. I'm not putting my confidential data on someone else's computers
and trusting them to keep it confidential. That would be very naive.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 1:19*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>Not really. I'm not putting my confidential data on someone else's computers
> and trusting them to keep it confidential. That would be very naive.

It would be very naive to think your computer accessible to the
internet is keeping your data confidential. You really are
disconnected from reality.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 1:02*pm, Ari > wrote:

> I don't suppose you could simply ignore...naw, that that's doing
> nothing accomplishing something.

Ignore a tooth ache and let me know if that accomplishes anything.

Same principle.....

Though thus far, sure looks like A and I have accomplished a little as
I haven't seen that much come through Google groups off topic today.

Day is young here though...

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> It would be very naive to think your computer accessible to the
> internet is keeping your data confidential. You really are
> disconnected from reality.

Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
agencies.

These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 1:38*pm, Ari > wrote:

> Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
> aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
> agencies.

The operative word is except.....

> These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
> encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.

Encryption is a good thing as it is an extra layer of protection, but
nothing is unbreakable. After all WEP encryption was supposedly not
decryptable and it was in it's hey day. I wouldn't put my faith into
that security today. If data is that sensitive, then it shouldn't be
put on any network accessible by the internet.

There are your cheap locks, and there are your more expensive locks,
but they all can be picked. You happen to have a more expensive and
several locks, The layers you have bulit in just slows down the
person intent.

I most certainly wouldn't take Mx's information for any worth with
regards to computer security just based on this thread alone.

And of course I figure you already know the weakest link to computer
securty sits in front of the keyboard :-)

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:57:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 5, 1:38*pm, Ari > wrote:
>
>> Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
>> aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
>> agencies.
>
> The operative word is except.....
>
>> These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
>> encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.
>
> Encryption is a good thing as it is an extra layer of protection, but
> nothing is unbreakable. After all WEP encryption was supposedly not
> decryptable and it was in it's hey day. I wouldn't put my faith into
> that security today. If data is that sensitive, then it shouldn't be
> put on any network accessible by the internet.

I beg your pardon. There are encryption techniques that are useable by
the hardly capable User which are for all /practical/ purposes
unbreakable i.e. the OTP. It would take supercomputers chained
together overseen by an aggressive, highly proficient central
authority hundreds of years to break the algorithm hence/practical/

Now if a moron-user uses his birthday as the password, or Post-It
Note's it to his screen, then all bets are off. As is insecure key
distribution.

point. It's the cpability of the user(s) not the inherent technology
that is at fault.

Btw, WEP was crap from the get-go and anyone who works wireless data
knew it.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 2:21*pm, Ari > wrote:

> I beg your pardon. There are encryption techniques that are useable by
> the hardly capable User which are for all /practical/ purposes
> unbreakable i.e. the OTP. It would take supercomputers chained
> together overseen by an aggressive, highly proficient central
> authority hundreds of years to break the algorithm hence/practical/

Since you don't know the persons ability that may have intent so you
can beg my pardon, I would not be so comfortable with what you say
above.

But again, it's not my computer and not my data so I'm not worried on
what I say or what you feel about what I say. Any sensitive data I
have (which really is not much) is not stored on a computer with
internet access. It is stored on a computer that is a stand alone off
the network, printed using a cabled printer and mailed certified or
equivelent.

I would be quite nervous having you as my security person with what
you say above being so complacent as technology AND methology changes
literally by the minute.

Yes, you are keeping out the casual inquirer / snooper / hacker just
like a lock does for a burglar looking for an easy job. Lock to hard
to pick??? They will move on to another lock easier to pick. You
just happened to have a quality lock so the casual hacker will move
on, but again, what you have is not unbreakable to a hacker intent
including decryption.

You show too much complacency in my opinion with your existing
security as you don't know what your foes are equipped with. Do
you??

Of course hackers are for big game sites, not the individual casual
user such as yourself unless of course you run something not above
board that others such as computer forensic specialists may have
interest (NOT SAYING you do, but a scenario).

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 2:21*pm, Ari > wrote:

> point. It's the cpability of the user(s) not the inherent technology
> that is at fault.

I really think we are on the same page :-)

I call it intent of the user. You called it above the capability of
the user.

No matter what we call it the technology is to protect is but it is
not informidable that it can't be compromised especially when we don't
know what the foe's capability is in the first place.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It would be very naive to think your computer accessible to the
> internet is keeping your data confidential.

It is.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Encryption is a good thing as it is an extra layer of protection, but
> nothing is unbreakable.

There are currently a number of unbreakable algorithms, in the sense that no
conceivable amount of computing power would be able to compromise them in any
known way. The increase in computer power over the years has made encryption
more secure, not less, because the gap between the power required for
legitimate encryption and decryption and the power required to compromise an
algorithm has grown exponentially as computer power has increased.

> After all WEP encryption was supposedly not decryptable and it was
> in it's hey day.

WEP was never secure, and pales in comparison to the strongest ciphers.

> I wouldn't put my faith into
> that security today. If data is that sensitive, then it shouldn't be
> put on any network accessible by the internet.

The military follows this philosophy with classified data, but it's not
practical with most other types of data.

> I most certainly wouldn't take Mx's information for any worth with
> regards to computer security just based on this thread alone.

I know whereof I speak, but I agree that you should always look things up on
your own.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 2:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I know whereof I speak, but I agree that you should always look things up on
> your own.

Really, you don't show it here.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:47:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2:21*pm, Ari > wrote:
>
>> I beg your pardon. There are encryption techniques that are useable by
>> the hardly capable User which are for all /practical/ purposes
>> unbreakable i.e. the OTP. It would take supercomputers chained
>> together overseen by an aggressive, highly proficient central
>> authority hundreds of years to break the algorithm hence/practical/
>
> Since you don't know the persons ability that may have intent so you
> can beg my pardon, I would not be so comfortable with what you say
> above.

Asked and answered.

Btw, this is one of the IT fields my company codes softweare and
offers services in.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Really, you don't show it here.

This is an aviation group, not an IT group.

[george]

On Apr 6, 8:42*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Really, you don't show it here.
>
> This is an aviation group, not an IT group.

That's never worried you before !

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> That's never worried you before !

I didn't say anything about worry.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 5, 3:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Really, you don't show it here.
>
> This is an aviation group, not an IT group.

So, why did you even respond in the thread at all? To show your
lack of knowledge?

You don't show your aviation knowledge here EITHER.

True disconnect with reality you do demonstrate your best. That I
will give you credit for.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So, why did you even respond in the thread at all?

The subject contained "R.A.P.": rec.AVIATION.PILOTING.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 6, 8:07*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > So, why did you even respond in the thread at all?
>
> The subject contained "R.A.P.": rec.AVIATION.PILOTING.

Oh, but the text contained IT material so apparently you only verify
what I said in the first place that you have a serious comprehension
problem.

I ASKED A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION THAT YOU STILL FAIL TO ANSWER.

WHY DID YOU RESPOND IF IT WAS OFF TOPIC and you were concerned it was
off topic???

Can you answer a very simple and direct question?