POLL: Would you participate in a rec.aviation.piloting.moderated newsgroup?

[Jim Logajan]

While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.

But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most lenient
judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
moderator.)

Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.

The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of the
moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:48:22 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.

It already exists. POA.

See you there!
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Sep 19, 11:48*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
> say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
> capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most lenient
> judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
> moderator.)
>
> Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
> forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
> be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.
>
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
> reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of the
> moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
> moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
> moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

It's a totally reasonable idea Jim, and for the little I remain
involved with Usenet, I would naturally support your effort.
The problem as I see it anyway, is the usual Usenet issue; that being
most Usenet users don't seem to mind the trolling and obvious posting
by the same individuals using different posting personae so they can
argue with themselves believing or not caring that anyone with a room
temperature IQ knows they are the same people :-)
Personally, my guess is that the result of such an effort will be a
modicum of people for such a forum and a majority content to leave
things the way they are and simply avoiding the idiots and morons the
Usenet venue seems to attract.
You will notice that the exact reason you are suggesting a moderated
group is in play here now and has been for some
time. :-)))))))))))))))))
Anyway, as I said, it's a reasonable idea and a shame it probably
won't get the support you need to make it work.
I could be wrong, but my experience tells me I'm guessing pretty close
to right on this.....................but the best of luck with it and
I hope you manage to get something going, as what's happened here is a
real shame.
Dudley

[george]

On Sep 20, 3:48*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
> say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
> capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most lenient
> judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
> moderator.)
>
> Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
> forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
> be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.
>
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
> reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of the
> moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
> moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
> moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

Good idea but you'd have to keep links to it in here otherwise no-one
would know where the sensible went

[Bob Noel[_6_]]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness.

yes

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 11:48*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
> say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
> capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most lenient
> judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
> moderator.)
>
> Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
> forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
> be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.
>
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
> reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of the
> moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
> moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
> moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

I am currently in a moderated forum. My last topic was responded
to by 38 different people who intelligently and methodically gave
input, cites, and personal knowledge which covered my subject.
There were no disparaging comments. Trolls never obtain
membership in the first place, and knuckleheads get ejected.
It darn near meets the definition of perfection.

In this group I push the envelope of concepts. While this may
bring inflammatory responses, I find that to be part of the "art"
of exploration. The troll and his sockpuppets don't count. That
is just a middle-aged psychopath in need of "enlightenment".
Based on past experience I generally find that subsequently,
my detractors, over time, are always wrong 99% of the time.
Unfortunately by the time this happens the dust has settled
and the parties are long gone.

Moderated groups usually fail due to lack of foot-traffic. You
end up with 7 people who run out of things to say. The exception
to this is an advertised and specialized category. In that case
you may become the defacto source for specialized information.
This group doesn't fit that category.

The solution you are seeking is...facebook.

I am not a member.

---
Mark

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I am currently in a moderated forum. My last topic was responded
> to by 3809 different people who intelligently and methodically gave
> input, cites, and personal knowledge which covered my subject.

> I sat back and puffed on me pipey watching in amazement at the fools
> trying to best me.

> There were no superior comments. Trolls never obtain membership in
> the first place, and knuckleheads get ejected. I don't have to
> spend eons of my precious time defending myself and my very
> important usenet reputation.It darn near meets the definition of
> perfection. They have renamed it "Mark's World" because of that.

Then why don't you stay the **** there?
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Mxsmanic]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> In this group I push the electric envelope of make believe concepts.
> While this may bring inflammatory responses, I find that to be part
> of the "art" and I have an art school named for me. of exploration.
> The Jew troll and his sockpuppets don't count. I can count to ten.

> As you can see, I ignore them.


> This group is just middle-aged psychopaths in need of
> "enlightenment". I suplly that to this stale, half-dead group.
> Based on past experience I generally find that subsequently, my
> detractors, over time, are always wrong 99% of the time. I teach,
> theylisten. It is who I am. Mark. Unfortunately by the time this
> happens the dust has settled and the parties are long gone.

> I wonder if I will ever get laid.

No.

You won't.
--
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of
journalists is to destroy the truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn
at the feet of mammon, and to sell this country and this race for
their daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind
the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we
dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ~ John
Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times and the "Dean of
his Profession"

[AL HILL]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Moderated groups usually fail due to lack of foot-traffic. You end
> up with 7 people who run out of things to say. This is where I step
> in with my brilliance.

> The exception to this is an advertised and specialized category. In
> that case you may become the defacto source for specialized
> information. This group doesn't fit that category. I prefer
> pedo****ing and Viagra groups.
>
> The solution you are seeking is...mySpace.

> www.gayincarolina.com
>
> I am not a member. But my member is.
>
> ---
> Mark Gay, Brilliant Ad Superior To All

What a ****tard you are. A reject, when your hopefully dead Mother saw
you coming out, she screamed horribly in the greatest anguish. "Kill
this violation of nature!".

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they
> are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
> judgement of the moderators.

Scratch all that!

It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a one-time
registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and NSP
are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail address is not
published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the user
posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked against the
record list and the post is approved if a record is found.

Pros:
No delay in postings.
No extra work for moderators.
No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.

Cons:
De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 11:30*am, Bear Bottoms > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > I am currently in a moderated forum. My last topic was responded
> > to by 3809 different people who intelligently and methodically gave
> > input, cites, and personal knowledge which covered my subject.
> > I sat back and puffed on me pipey watching in amazement at the fools
> > trying to best me.
> > There were no superior comments. Trolls never obtain membership in
> > the first place, and knuckleheads get ejected. I don't have to
> > spend eons of my precious time defending myself and my very
> > important usenet reputation.It darn near meets the definition of
> > perfection. They have renamed it "Mark's World" because of that.
>
> Then why don't you stay the **** there?
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> Private Attorney General

Cautious Joe wrote:

> I have collected over 10 in my message filters so far.. it's sort of
> amusing to watch them squirm around like little bity ants.


"Don't feed the trolls, especially this "Ari" one, he's got allot of
time
on his hands to waste while he gets his social assistance. Either
that
or he's a pretty sad excuse for a TLA, regards ..."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.computer.security/browse_thread/thread/c80921aa541a6f60/5ae851b51e003de2?lnk=gst&q=ari+silverstein+is+a+troll#5ae851b51e003de2

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they
> > are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
> > judgement of the moderators.
>
> Scratch all that!
>
> It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a one-time
> registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and NSP
> are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail address is not
> published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
> approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the user
> posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked against the
> record list and the post is approved if a record is found.
>
> Pros:
> No delay in postings.
> No extra work for moderators.
> No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.
>
> Cons:
> De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
criteria for acceptable posts?

---
Mark

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of
> users for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on
> conversations on such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be
> delayed) please post a reply to this message so stating your
> willingness.

Yes. I would give it a try. There's nothing to lose. The rest of this group has been virtually useless for the
last several years.

Mike

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> > The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as
>> > they are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
>> > judgement of the moderators.
>>
>> Scratch all that!
>>
>> It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a
>> one-tim
> e
>> registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and
>> NSP are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail
>> address is no
> t
>> published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
>> approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the
>> user posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked
>> against the record list and the post is approved if a record is
>> found.
>>
>> Pros:
>> No delay in postings.
>> No extra work for moderators.
>> No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.
>>
>> Cons:
>> De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.
>
> Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
> criteria for acceptable posts?

The above proposal doesn't screen posts - merely requires registration in
order for posters to post. Since performing any sort of "due process" prior
to unregistering a poster is a hassle, a poster would have to engage in
some egregious behavior to find themselves unregistered.

In your case, the person who is currently posting using multiple 'nyms from
multiple NSPs would be unable to do that under the proposed scheme. And
would have been unregistered by me had their posts appeared in such a
moderated group. So you'd benefit there.

On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
So you'd have a reason not to join.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 1:19*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> > The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as
> >> > they are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
> >> > judgement of the moderators.
>
> >> Scratch all that!
>
> >> It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a
> >> one-tim
> > e
> >> registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and
> >> NSP are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail
> >> address is no
> > t
> >> published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
> >> approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the
> >> user posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked
> >> against the record list and the post is approved if a record is
> >> found.
>
> >> Pros:
> >> No delay in postings.
> >> No extra work for moderators.
> >> No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.
>
> >> Cons:
> >> De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.
>
> > Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
> > criteria for acceptable posts?
>
> The above proposal doesn't screen posts - merely requires registration in
> order for posters to post. Since performing any sort of "due process" prior
> to unregistering a poster is a hassle, a poster would have to engage in
> some egregious behavior to find themselves unregistered.

Actually you may be on to something here with this idea. It's
sounding do-able.

> In your case, the person who is currently posting using multiple 'nyms from
> multiple NSPs would be unable to do that under the proposed scheme. And
> would have been unregistered by me had their posts appeared in such a
> moderated group. So you'd benefit there.

I'll join.

> On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
> the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
> would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
> So you'd have a reason not to join.

Not only do I very much regret that, just thinking about it
is probably hurting me far more than it may, or may not
have annoyed him. He didn't deserve it. Live and learn.

---
Mark

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
> say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
> capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most
> lenient
> judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
> moderator.)
>
> Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
> forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
> be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.
>
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
> reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of
> the
> moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
> moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
> moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

It's well worth a try, and I will be glad to read and occasionally
contribute.

Peter

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:19:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

>> Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
>> criteria for acceptable posts?

> On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
> the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
> would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
> So you'd have a reason not to join.

*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ryan White]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I'll join. I so need friends, I'll do anything for attention. To
> have all of you like me, reaaaaaaly like me. Like they did on
> alt.religion.kibology and misc.writing. That is until everyone
> killfiled me.

______________
/ \
| WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
\__ _________/
/ ,'
_.~._ /,'
,~'.~@~.`~.
/ : _..._ : \
{ :,"''\\`".: }
`C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
( ) @ ( ) `.
`-.-_-.-' \
,' \ / ,` ;`-._,-.
,' ,'/ ,' `---t.,-. \_
,--.,',' ,'----.__\ _( \----'
'///,`,--.,' `-.__.--' `. )
'///,' `-`
--
http://www.noob.us/pictures/consider-the-seat-color-when-buying-a-new-bicycle/

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.

Moderated newsgroups are typically ghost towns.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 4:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> > perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> > of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> Moderated newsgroups are typically ghost towns.

Usenet itself began to die out in large numbers
with the advent of Facebook. The groups that
still flourish usually have a group of friends that want
to stay together, and/or people who can stomach the
occasional and infrequent troll passing through.

---
Mark

[John E. Carty]

?

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
> for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
> such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
> reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
> say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
> capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most
> lenient
> judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
> moderator.)
>
> Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
> forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
> be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.
>
> The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
> reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of
> the
> moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
> moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
> moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

Sounds great :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Usenet itself began to die out in large numbers with the advent of
> Facebook.

Usenet has been on the decline for years, ever since alternative discussion
venues have become available, most of which do not require a special
interface. I haven't seen any acceleration in the decline because of Facebook,
though. Facebook itself may turn out to be a flash in the pan.

Moderated groups on Usenet have always been very quiet compared to unmoderated
groups. There's plenty of censorship elsewhere on the Net. An attraction of
Usenet is that it's still a bastion of free speech (relatively speaking).

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:51Â*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>> > While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
>> > perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
>> > of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>>
>> Moderated newsgroups are typically ghost towns.
>
> Usenet itself began to die out in large numbers
> with the advent of Facebook. The groups that
> still flourish usually have a group of friends that want
> to stay together, and/or people who can stomach the
> occasional and infrequent troll passing through.

USENET and Facebook serve two entirely different purposes.

Back when USENET was distributed over 2400 baud modems at night with UUCP to
save cost and you had to be "somebody" to get connected even as a leaf node,
there were virtually no trolls or the gibbering, drooling mental patients
that infest USENET now.

Once USENET went TCP/IP connected and any moron with a credit card could
access the "Internet", USENET turned to crap.

What I see happening is the mental patients abandoning USENET for the more
graphical stuff, in part because a lot of them are challenged by anything
that isn't point and click.

Hopefully the trend will continue and USENET will go back to be being a
place for serious discussion.

Quantity is not the same thing as quality.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 12:13*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
> > Usenet itself began to die out in large numbers with the advent of
> > Facebook.
>
> Usenet has been on the decline for years, ever since alternative discussion
> venues have become available, most of which do not require a special
> interface. I haven't seen any acceleration in the decline because of Facebook,
> though.

Well I certainly have. How do I know this? Because I've
been in groups and the key members said, "Hey folks,
we're all going to face book. Then they did."

> Facebook itself may turn out to be a flash in the pan.

I'd think the five hundred million people membership alone
would squelch any pan flashes.

> Moderated groups on Usenet have always been very quiet compared to unmoderated
> groups.

That's true. They commonly end up with just Fred and Joe.
Or, and this is interesting, I know of moderated groups that
became actual cults, where the leader gathers a flock,
dissenting or controversial opinions aren't tolerated, and
the moderator (a man) weeds out all the males and keeps
only a group of women he can manipulate.

>There's plenty of censorship elsewhere on the Net. An attraction of
> Usenet is that it's still a bastion of free speech (relatively speaking).

That's why nutcases like ari make it their personal toilet.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 4:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
> > perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
> > of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.
>
> Moderated newsgroups are typically ghost towns.

Crickets and tumbleweed. The half-broken saloon
door creaks as dust laden wind blows. One lonely,
dirty, old unshaven pilot walks the weathered town
planks and crys out, "What about FAR 91.215?",
and it echos off the canyon walls, "two one five,
two one five". But there is no answer.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 12:10*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:

< snip>

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

"WARNING: Using a fake name, Ari's premise is..."

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 3:32*pm, Ryan White > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > I'll join. I so need friends, I'll do anything for attention. To
> > have all of you like me, reaaaaaaly like me. Like they did on
> > alt.religion.kibology and misc.writing. That is until everyone
> > killfiled me.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *______________
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ * * * * * * *\
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\__ * _________/
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ ,'
> * * * * * * * * * * * * _.~._ * * /,'
> * * * * * * * * * * *,~'.~@~.`~.
> * * * * * * * * * * / : _..._ : \
> * * * * * * * * * *{ :,"''\\`".: }
> * * * * * * * * * * `C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
> * * * * * * * * * * *( *) @ ( *) * * * * * * `.
> * * * * * * * * * * * `-.-_-.-' * * * * * * * *\
> * * * * * * * * * * * ,' \ / * *,` * * * * * * ;`-._,-.
> * * * * * * * * * * ,' *,'/ * ,' * * * * * `---t.,-. * \_
> * * * * * * * * * ,--.,',' *,'----.__\ * * * * _( * \----'
> * * * * * * * * '///,`,--.,' * * * * *`-.__.--' *`. *)
> * * * * * * * * * * '///,' * * * * * * * * * * * * `-`
> --http://www.noob.us/pictures/consider-the-seat-color-when-buying-a-new...

Responding to Ari Silverstein, author of this garbage

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[Bill Penrose[_2_]]

On Sep 20, 12:32*pm, Ryan White > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > I'll join. I so need friends, I'll do anything for attention. To
> > have all of you like me, reaaaaaaly like me. Like they did on
> > alt.religion.kibology and misc.writing. That is until everyone
> > killfiled me.

It might work, but don't count on it. Here at MW, the subject of a
moderated newsgroup came up during troll attacks. Eventually such a
group, misc.writing.moderated , was formed, but it never got more than
a couple of posts a week. Everyone stayed in the sick circus that MW
eventually became.

DB

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:28*pm, Bill Penrose > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:32*pm, Ryan White > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > > I'll join. I so need friends, I'll do anything for attention. To
> > > have all of you like me, reaaaaaaly like me. Like they did on
> > > alt.religion.kibology and misc.writing. That is until everyone
> > > killfiled me.
>
> It might work, but don't count on it. Here at MW, the subject of a
> moderated newsgroup came up during troll attacks. Eventually such a
> group, misc.writing.moderated , was formed, but it never got more than
> a couple of posts a week.

Well shiver me timbers! If it isn't the most highly distinguished
author/genius/inventor/scientist that I've ever know. All I can say
is DB has spoken...and there is no further need for study.

> Everyone stayed in the sick circus that MW
> eventually became.

Oh, now you tell me, *after* I checked into a room at the MW
motel! I'm still afraid to take a shower.

http://hitchcock.tv/mov/psycho/images/psycho3.gif

---
Mark


> DB

[Bill Penrose[_2_]]

On Sep 21, 1:59*pm, Mark > wrote:
> Oh, now you tell me, *after* I checked into a room at the MW
> motel! *I'm still afraid to take a shower.

Look around you. It's bedbugs.

DB

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 11:14*pm, Bill Penrose > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:59*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > Oh, now you tell me, *after* I checked into a room at the MW
> > motel! *I'm still afraid to take a shower.
>
> Look around you. It's bedbugs.
>
> DB

But, but, this is usenet...and bedbugs are tiny, little
lecherous, bloodsucking parasites.

<thinking>

Ooooh.

---
Mark

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Well I certainly have. How do I know this? Because I've
> been in groups and the key members said, "Hey folks,
> we're all going to face book. Then they did."

I haven't seen that in any of the groups I frequent.

> I'd think the five hundred million people membership alone
> would squelch any pan flashes.

The number of subscribers does not limit the speed with which they can all
move to something else.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 3:03*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
> > Well I certainly have. How do I know this? *Because I've
> > been in groups and the key members said, "Hey folks,
> > we're all going to face book. Then they did."
>
> I haven't seen that in any of the groups I frequent.

In most categories of interest, my understanding of
Facebook is that you will find these same categories
there, but with a larger number of participants.

> > I'd think the five hundred million people membership alone
> > would squelch any pan flashes.
>
> The number of subscribers does not limit the speed with which they can all
> move to something else.

Actually it does.

---
Mark

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Actually it does.

Everyone on Facebook could cancel his account tomorrow with no problem at all.
Do not underestimate the speed with which things can change in cyberspace.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 7:23*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
> > Actually it does.
>
> Everyone on Facebook could cancel his account tomorrow with no problem at all.

Well...

One billion, seventy three million,
seven hundred fourty one thousand, eight hundred
twenty four bytes of information, multiplied
by four...transfer capacity... 4gig.

Electricity:

Electron transfer, 190 milli seconds.
(One milli second-1/1000th second)

Other:

There very likely would be a network crash
at Facebook. And, that many people wouldn't
decide to do that in a panflash. I don't keep
up with Facebook, but I think they're near
600,000,000 people.

People are creatures of habit.

Similar Example:

Facebook reports that although they opened
the new layout months ago, 80% of their
members have yet to change over. There have
been mutterings of dissatisfaction over the
new layout. (even resulting in a "cyber riot"
to make Facebook modify unpleasantries)
Ultimately they just want to stay where they
are and get what they want.

Facebook will give it to them. They will stay.

But again, 80% of the crowd is just entrentched
in habit. Isn't that why data-mining works?
In months only 20% migrated, now they report
satisfaction.

Lastly, half of them are women. They can't
get ready and move anywhere in a "panflash". <g>

> Do not underestimate the speed with which things can change in cyberspace..

I don't think I am since we're talking about
Facebook, a stand-alone pheneomenon.

---
Mark

[Jim Logajan]

Because a large number of former r.a.p users had migrated to POA
(http://www.pilotsofamerica.com) I also posted the poll there too.

By my count, there were 11 people (including myself) who explicitly stated
here, on POA, or via private e-mail that they would be willing to give such
a group a try. Posters that weren't explicit or clear in their intent, or
merely provided commentary, weren't counted.

The count is under my own set goal of 12. And I would have preferred more
than 20.

So I will not be initiating any efforts to create a r.a.p.m. If anyone else
wishes to try, I would be willing to provide support but I will not lead
such an effort.

Thanks to everyone who supported the idea.

[Mark]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:35:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Because a large number of former r.a.p users had migrated to POA
> (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com) I also posted the poll there too.
>
> By my count, there were 11 people (including myself) who explicitly stated
> here, on POA, or via private e-mail that they would be willing to give such
> a group a try. Posters that weren't explicit or clear in their intent, or
> merely provided commentary, weren't counted.
>
> The count is under my own set goal of 12. And I would have preferred more
> than 20.
>
> So I will not be initiating any efforts to create a r.a.p.m. If anyone else
> wishes to try, I would be willing to provide support but I will not lead
> such an effort.
>
> Thanks to everyone who supported the idea.

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark