A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

Only God, but I hear that she has been too busy lately to take on the job.
Until then, you will find me right here on rap.


--
Vaughn


Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.


Will poofread for food.

On Aug 14, 6:53*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.

BTW, I did find the NTSB report on John Jr available on line. I think
your questions about instructor advice is well addressed there. He had
310 hours TT, of which about 75 were without a CFI or CFII aboard.

Tony wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.
While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html
The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?
That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.
I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.
You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.


I fear your positive post will be taken as an En Passant by our pal
Buttman :-))
You are right of course and I'll usually let it pass for the exact
reasons you gave. I just don't feel like taking it today. Bad day. The
cat's misbehaving!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others.

Well ... you appear to have the same hairline I do, so on that aspect I
feel at least a certain affinity. ;-)

Dudley Henriques writes:

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.

Go **** yourself!

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others.

Well ... you appear to have the same hairline I do, so on that aspect I
feel at least a certain affinity. ;-)

When I tell my wife I'm going to get a haircut she says, "Why don't you
get them both cut?"

--
Dudley Henriques