Re: Proposal For A New Rec.Aviation Newsgroup. (WAS: Re: McCain in '08)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:48:26 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>It was serious.

Then here's all you have to do:


http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation

Overview
Each of these steps is described in more detail below.

1. (optional) The proponent may start an informal discussion in
news.groups and in related groups about the proposed group.

2. The proponent submits a Request For Discussion (RFD) to
news.announce.newgroups.

3. Discussion of the RFD takes place primarily in news.groups.

4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

5. The board votes on the proposal.

6. If the proposal passes, it is implemented.


It sure look simple. To begin the process, start a message thread
with the subject: RFD rec.aviation.politics, and cross post it to
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr, and new.groups.


Or, go right to it:

2. Request for Discussion (RFD)
The proponent submits his/her proposal to the newsgroup
news.announce.newgroups by posting to the group or by emailing the
proposal to . This
submission is known as a Request For Discussion, or RFD.

The RFD should be cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers might
be interested in or affected by the proposed group. It should also
be cross-posted to news.groups, and followups should be directed
there. (If you do not know how to set followups in your
newsreader, we will help you figure it out. The line that needs to
be included in the RFD header field is “Followup-to:
news.groups”.)

Some information is required in the RFD:

newsgroup name
Checkgroups file entry
whether the newsgroup will be moderated or unmoderated
if moderated, who the initial moderator(s) will be, including
their contact addresses

Some information is not required, but is strongly encouraged:

rationale
charter
moderation policy, if moderated

Other information which supports the creation of the newsgroup may
be included. For example, this could include:

traffic analysis
moderation site and software
Each of these items is discussed in greater detail here.

As discussion of the RFD progresses in news.groups, the proponent
should submit revised RFDs to news.announce.newgroups et al.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.

What board is this?

About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
people reading and voting on the proposal?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Fry > said:
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>
> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>
>What board is this?
>
>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>people reading and voting on the proposal?

The methodology changed after Tale retired.

The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
deserved.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I complained that finding a solution to problems with Microsoft software
would be impossible if profanity was blocked, as few people can discuss
Microsoft's programs without using profanity." DarrylJ on alt.folklore.urban

[Jim Riley]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:53:58 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:
[i]
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>
> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>
>What board is this?

The Big 8 Management Board (aka B8MB).

>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>people reading and voting on the proposal?

In October 2002, a trio consisting of Russ Allbery, Todd McComb, and
Piranha too over from David C. Lawrence (aka Tale) as moderators of
news.announce.newgroups (aka nan). In that role, they continued to
oversee the process that you had participated in 15 years ago. Brian
Edmonds later joined the 2002 group.

Last fall, they decided that the process simply wasn't working any
longer. Groups such as yours simply weren't able to get enough votes.
Other groups got enough votes only through ballot stuffing, which
produced groups with no one using them.

After some discussion, they (the moderators of nan) turned the
entire group creation process to a group of persons who have desiganted
themselves the Big 8 Management Board, who have devised a new process to
create new groups.

It is similar to the old process in that it begins with a discussion. It
differs in that the final decision is not made by a public vote, but by
the members of the B8MB.

The intent of the "vote" in the old process was to demonstrate that
there was enough interest in discussing the topic of the proposed group
such that the group would be successful. The B8MB most likely would
expect a level of interest in using the new group.

I just read back through the thread in the rec.aviation.* groups. I
question whether a rec.aviation.politics group would be successful
unless those persons who engaged in such discussion actually moved to
the new group. It may be that they simply want to discuss politics with
other pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. Pilots and enthusiasts who
are interested primarily in flying, but sometimes respond in the
political threads, might not be inclined to subscribe to a new group
devoted to political discussion.

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.
--
Jim Riley

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Riley" > wrote

> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
> more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Riley]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>
>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>> more focused group.
>
>Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
>enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

>Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim Riley

[Sam Spade]

Jim Riley wrote:

>
> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>
So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

[Wayne Brown]

In news.groups Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, Bob Fry > said:
>>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>>
>> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>>
>> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>>
>>What board is this?
>>
>>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>>people reading and voting on the proposal?
>
> The methodology changed after Tale retired.
>
> The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
> stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
> group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
> deserved.

No, the small group of jerks who took tale's place lied about the
system being "fundamentally flawed" as an excuse to abolish voting,
abandon their posts and turn over control to a larger group of jerks,
who now call themselves "the Board."

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
| if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

[Brian Mailman]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Jim Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>
> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in >::

>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
>Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

[Peter J Ross]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in news.groups:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
> Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

[Brian Mailman]

Peter J Ross wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> > wrote in news.groups:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to
>>>> aviation is inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm
>>>> not mistaken, the 'R' in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by
>>>> the FAA.
>>>>
>>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>>
>> Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
> Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

> You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
> enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

[Daryl Hunt]

"Brian Mailman" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
> Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
> B/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.

[Henrietta K Thomas]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
> wrote:

>Jim Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>
>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

[Henrietta K Thomas]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in >::
>
>>>>
>>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>>
>>Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
>So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
>rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
>military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

[Sam Spade]

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>>inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>>in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>>
>>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
>
> I would object to that on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.
>
> 2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.
>
> 3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.
>
> If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
> calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
> regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
> institution.
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired
>

My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation? If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:44:34 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote in
<6j6ug.782$_M.147@fed1read04>:

>>>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

>My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
>Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation?

Yes.

The rec.* newsgroups are one of the Big-8. Here are
the eight hierarchies:

comp.* Computer topics, both hardware and software.
news.* Administration of the Big 8, as well as about Usenet and
Netnews in general, and related topics.
sci.* Science and technology.
humanities.* The humanities.
rec.* Recreational topics, including music, sports, games,
outdoor recreation, hobbies, crafts, ...
soc.* Socializing, society, and social issues.
talk.* Endless discussion, largely about politics.
misc.* A mixture of newsgroups that don’t fit the other
7 hierarchies. Many are about the practical aspects of everyday life.

>If so, there is nothing
>recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

Heh heh. There's a lot of "regulatory combat" going on in news.groups
right now. :-O

Be that as it may, I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
the charter of a newsgroup.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[2Rowdy]

I was reading >, made
by the entity known as Henrietta K Thomas, that requests spam to be
sent to > and I became inspired,

> 1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

I like this.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
>protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
>their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
>the charter of a newsgroup.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

[Brian Mailman]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
> of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
> post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
> mitigate the issue?

In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard" because
it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

B/

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
> of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
> post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
> mitigate the issue?

I think he means that it would =not= mitigate the issue, in fact it may
make it worse (due to crossposting and multple posting).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[2Rowdy]

I was reading >, made by the
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
> and I became inspired,

> We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
> because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.
>
> Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
> "now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
> say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
> people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:47:32 +0200, "2Rowdy" >
wrote in >::

>I was reading >, made by the
>entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
> and I became inspired,
>
>> We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
>> because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.
>>
>> Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
>> "now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
>> say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
>> people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.
>
>If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
>ontopic newsgroup.
>So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
>could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
>invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
>Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.
>
>f-up set

So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
possibility. Thanks.

[2Rowdy]

I was reading >, made
by the entity known as Larry Dighera, that requests spam to be sent to
> and I became inspired,

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:47:32 +0200, "2Rowdy" >
> wrote in >::
>
>> I was reading >, made by
>> the entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
>> > and I became inspired,
>>
>>> We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
>>> because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.
>>>
>>> Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to
>>> say "now you have a group to post that in, go there" is
>>> frustrating to say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to
>>> work is to have the people posting "offtopic" *want* to form
>>> their own group.
>>
>> If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a
>> new ontopic newsgroup.
>> So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
>> could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if
>> that's invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
>> Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.
>>
>> f-up set
>
> So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
> possibility. Thanks.

That's not an option. You need at least three ontopic newsgroups to
make it work.
So you need
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic.on-topic and
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic.on-topic.on-topic

To make room for the opposition you need to do the same,
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic.off-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic.off-topic.off-topic

Or you could use a filter, a killfile, or ignore oftopic posters.
Or leave Usenet and find a quiet webforum.

f-up back.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

They killed the Credo. Viva el Credo!

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:36:52 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>>I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
>>protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
>>their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
>>the charter of a newsgroup.

>So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
>of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
>post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
>mitigate the issue?

If the problem with your engine is a bad magneto, doing
an oil change won't fix the problem.

In my view, the problem with off-topic posting is caused
by human nature, such as it is.

Creating a new newsgroup won't change human nature.
Some people go off-topic because they feel comfortable
with their friends; others want to have an audience for their
performance art. I don't think either personality type can
be siphoned off into a new newsgroup.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> in rec.aviation.piloting.

Yes, at least to the extent that politics affects aviation, which is
quite a bit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
> possibility.

.... and what do we do when -that- one gets too political.
rec.aviation.piloting.really-on-topic?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Brian Mailman]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
> > wrote in >::

>>Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
>>"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
>>the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
>>posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

> So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
> posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
> 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

> On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
> rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
> pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.

B/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:30:54 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>
>> > So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
>> > in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
>> > posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
>> > 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.
>>
>> You can ask them to do that, sure.
>>
>> > On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
>> > rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
>> > pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?
>>
>> Ask them? Run a straw poll.
>>
>> Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
>groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
>and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.
>
>I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:
>
>POL: bla bla bla, ect
>
>That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
>flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.
>
>What say ye all?

Okeydoke. That's a creative solution. At least someone is thinking.

Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> > in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
> > posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
> > 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.
>
> You can ask them to do that, sure.
>
> > On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
> > rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
> > pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?
>
> Ask them? Run a straw poll.
>
> Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.

I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:

POL: bla bla bla, ect

That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.

What say ye all?
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:
>
> POL: bla bla bla, ect

Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:27:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
>contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.

Would you start a new message thread like that even if the political
content were on-topic?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
>>contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.
>
> Would you start a new message thread like that even if the political
> content were on-topic?

Yes. I propose retaining the rest of the subject line. Of course it's
a judgement call as to how political it has to be to warrant POL, but
that's the way I'd start out... remember replies to that message may
well expound on the politital part rather than the aviation part; that's
proabaly the test to use.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?

Periodic notices, cheerleading, and good example.

There is no formal mechanism for changing group charters. The
one that goes on file at the time of the group's creation stays on
file.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:
>
>> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?
>
>Periodic notices,

How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

>cheerleading,

You're referring to the readership politely informing the author, of
the offending political article sans 'POL' prepended in the Subject
header, of the convention of flagging political content in
rec.aviation.piloting?

>and good example.

That can only be accomplished by the informed.

>There is no formal mechanism for changing group charters. The
>one that goes on file at the time of the group's creation stays on
>file.

Oh well...

[Jose[_1_]]

>>and good example.
>
>
> That can only be accomplished by the informed.
>
Well, we're all informed now. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:59:22 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>>Periodic notices,

>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

Create a FAQ.

Post it periodically.

It only has persuasive value. Anyone can create a FAQ.

Right now the automated FAQ services seem to be in
disarray. If you've got a unix guru to put it on a cron, great.
If not, just post it by hand.

>>cheerleading,

>You're referring to the readership politely informing the author, of
>the offending political article sans 'POL' prepended in the Subject
>header, of the convention of flagging political content in
>rec.aviation.piloting?

I don't think scolding does much good. Thank the folks who
use it and disregard--even killfile--the rest.

>>and good example.

>That can only be accomplished by the informed.

And the benevolent.

Many malevolent people are very well informed.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:10:38 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>>and good example.
>>
>>
>> That can only be accomplished by the informed.
>>
>Well, we're all informed now. :)
>

Actually, only those who have read the article are informed. That is
a small subset of the current readership of rec.aviation.piloting, and
completely overlooks those who have yet to subscribe to
rec.aviation.piloting in the future.

I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
beneficial.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Well, we're all informed now. :)
> Actually, only those who have read the article are informed.
>
> I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
> beneficial.

That's the "we" I was referring to. And it does not preclude periodic
posting of the FAQs, which would include this (and the other
abbreviations, some of which I was not aware.)

Maybe we should prepend "PED" for pedantry. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:02:33 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>> Well, we're all informed now. :)
>> Actually, only those who have read the article are informed.
>>
>> I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
>> beneficial.
>
>That's the "we" I was referring to.

Yes. But the fact that we have read it doesn't in any way inform
other readers, so it's not very meaningful.

>And it does not preclude periodic
>posting of the FAQs, which would include this (and the other
>abbreviations, some of which I was not aware.)

So who will make the periodic FAQ postings?

Who will create the FAQ?

(Sheesh, I feel like Henny Penny)

>Maybe we should prepend "PED" for pedantry. :)

Programmers who fail to learn the art of pedantry struggle with a
plethora of bugs. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:01:27 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>automated FAQ services

I wasn't able to find any such services.

What would the UNIX cron command look like?

0 0 1 * * inews -h < faq-file.txt

The faq-file.txt would contain the FAQ complete with Usenet message
headers.

inews man page:
http://www.int-evry.fr/s2ia/user/doutrele/news/man/inews.1.html

[Jose[_1_]]

>>That's the "we" I was referring to.
>
> Yes. But the fact that we have read it doesn't in any way inform
> other readers, so it's not very meaningful.

1: The "other readers" are not part of the "we", until they read it, at
which time they become part of the "we" and also become informed, at the
same time.

2: Actually, the fact that we have read it, if we act on it, =does=
inform other readers... people who see the POL prepend (if it happens
often enough) will make the connection even absent explicit direction.

> So who will make the periodic FAQ postings?

Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
doing it.

> Programmers who fail to learn the art of pedantry struggle with a
> plethora of bugs. :-)

Nah. Only their customers do. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:54:53 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
>doing it.

What an optimist.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
>>doing it.
>
> What an optimist.

Well, actually since we started discussing this, there has been a
significant decrease in the number of political postings.

Sometimes Murphey does fall asleep.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:43:00 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>>automated FAQ services

>I wasn't able to find any such services.

There was an automated FAQ server at MIT. Latest reports say that
it seems to be broken:

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/

I believe it was supposed to feed into the Internet FAQ Archives:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

>What would the UNIX cron command look like?
>
> 0 0 1 * * inews -h < faq-file.txt

>The faq-file.txt would contain the FAQ complete with Usenet message
>headers.

Looks good to me. I haven't set up anything like this myself.

>inews man page:
>http://www.int-evry.fr/s2ia/user/doutrele/news/man/inews.1.html

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:19:58 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>While I wasn't able to find a FAQ server at that URL, but I did find
>these documents in rec.aviation.answers (rec.aviation.piloting doesn't
>seem to exist on rtfm.mit.edu):

You found the FAQ server.

What you didn't find was a method of creating new FAQs or
updating old ones.

That's why people are saying it's broken.

Geoff Peck, who seems to have been a major player in
the rec.aviation.* hierarchy, seems to be MIA since
1999. That's the last time his web site was updated.

The last usenet post from seems to
have been in July of 2002.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Dave Ratcliffe]

In >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:
>>
>>> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>>>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?
>>
>>Periodic notices,
>
>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

Nah. 'cron' is your friend. 'at' is just the human front end for it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:57:15 -0400, Dave Ratcliffe
> wrote in
>::

>In >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>
>Nah. 'cron' is your friend. 'at' is just the human front end for it.

True, but the point is, who has a UNIX server with inews running on it
and is willing to provide the FAQ posting service? I'd even settle
for a mail-to-news gateway (in lieu of inews). I have cron access on
a UNIX server, but there's no inews on it.

[Tim Skirvin]

Larry Dighera > writes:

> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost

That's what I use.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:05:38 -0500, (Tim
Skirvin) wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera > writes:
>
>> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>
> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost
>
> That's what I use.
>
> - Tim Skirvin )
> Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Many thinks, Mr. Skirvin. I had overlooked the necessity to generate
a unique Expires: header for each instance of posting, and some other
items.

I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles? There
is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other message
header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

[Tim Skirvin]

Larry Dighera > writes:

>>> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>>> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost
>> That's what I use.

> I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
> PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles?

It is not; but all of the moderated groups that I run require PGP
signatures for anything that's posted to them, as anything that's *not*
appropriately PGP-signed is automatically cancelled (and filtered through
NoCeM as well). So I put in the effort to make sure that my own FAQs are
safe. You can probably ignore that part unless you start doing
complicated things.

> There is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other
> message header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
> documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

A quick Google search came up with this:

http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/writing/#writing

These aren't requirements, they're just the rules for submitting
things through to news.answers. (There's problems with news.answers at the
moment, too, so that might not be that helpful; but it's a good
introduction.)

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Roger[_3_]]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>
>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>> more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

>
>Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
>enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Those exist on nearly every group I've seen. Whether they have an
agenda, or they are trolling the effect is the same.

>
>Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!

Agreed. I think we have more than enough groups with enough topics
already and one more would just dilute the existing ones leaving us
with a higher signal to noise ratio. There will always be a signal to
noise ratio that rises and falls on any non-moderated group and some
moderated ones. They come and go. Ignore 'em and sooner of later they
finally get tired or Darwinism cleans the gene pool. Admittedly some
come from the shallow end of the pool and will post for the sake of
posting whether ignored or not. However those posters tend to follow
the groups. Normally a subject line says it all. One look and I know
if I want to read it, ignore it, kill file the thread, or killfile the
poster.

Of all options, new news groups, complaining, arguing with the poster,
or the <delete> key, <delete> is the easiest, and by far the least
stressful.

To me another aviation group is just a waste of time and computing
resources.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Riley]

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>
>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>> more focused group.
>
>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

[Daryl Hunt]

"Jim Riley" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>>
>>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>>> more focused group.
>>
>>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.
>
> Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
> groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
> --
> Jim Riley

I thought about proposing soc.military.missile.pilot but we ran out of
posters

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:50:56 GMT, Jim Riley >
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>>
>>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>>> more focused group.
>>
>>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.
>
>Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
>groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).

Pretty much the same in Rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, and
rec.photo.zlr. zlr only gets a token posting, while dslr and digital
are almost carbon copies of each other (with a few exceptions)

The question to ask is why is a new group or groups being proposed?
If it's due to OT posts, political rants which are OT posts, people
who cant get along, or just a plain high signal to noise they want to
avoid, none of these are valid reasons or will they work.

OTOH if there are enough people to make another newsgroup active and
viable, that is a topic not now adequately covered it's worth a try,
but there are a lot of dead news groups that sounded like a good idea
to people at the time. "In general" for most topics we already have
too many news groups and another one just dilutes the content on those
already in existence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com