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