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

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

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/

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. :-)

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

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.)

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/

"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.

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 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. ;-)

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.