Lost stories here

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:13:36 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in
:

"mad8" wrote in message
ups.com...

Danny Deger wrote:
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.

what's annoying is that rec.aviation.stories is (almost) completely
empty because of moderation...


It was empty for a long time for lack of a moderator. But, that problem has
been recently rectified. I was thinking myself that that is where this
thread should have been.

The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

Here's some information about the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup as
written by the late Mr. Geoff Peck creator of the rec.aviation.*
newsgroup hierarchy:

CHARTER
-------
rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)
A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).

Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.

Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.

....

rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.

A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).

....

Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"

A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading
lists, since it will be low-volume and will contain short
articles. Readers will accord .stories a special place, since
they'll want to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few
articles which are posted to that group. And readers will want
to consult .answers when they have a particular question which
they may guess has been asked before -- or when they wish to
start exploring a new area.

Q: "Why aren't there more moderated groups?"

A: I believe that on the most part that we have a really good
group of individuals on the net, and trust them to post
appropriately. Sometimes, this doesn't happen, but this is
relatively rare. In my opinion, a group should be moderated only
when the group's charter inherently requires careful filtering of
content -- announcements (i.e., rec.aviation.events), automated
dissemination (rec.aviation.answers), editing
(rec.aviation.digest), or editorial style control
(rec.aviation.stories). Ideally, a moderated group would
should [sic] sufficiently low traffic that most readers are happy
to read it first -- before any unmoderated groups.

An alternative philosophy to group moderation is to use it as a
mechanism to reduce "noisy" posts. One caveat here is that one's
person signal may be another person's noise. If a group which is
created by this re-organization turns out to be "noisy", an
RFD/CFV can be done to convert that troup [sic] to moderated. I
suggest that it's preferable to try most groups as an unmoderated
group first and see if (a) moderation is _really_ necessary and
(b) a moderator volunteers.
....