Moderated List

Denny schrieb:
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

for a start don't use google-groups (but a real newsreader connecting to
a real newsserver) and filter out any postings coming from there.

denny

#m

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Denny schrieb:
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

for a start don't use google-groups (but a real newsreader connecting to a
real newsserver) and filter out any postings coming from there.

Agreed. Google groups is a place I avoid, and only go as a last resort.
--
Jim in NC

Denny wrote:
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Creating a moderated group such as rec.aviation.piloting.moderated or even
just rec.aviation.moderated does have some advantages and problems:

Advantages
1) The unmoderated groups would continue to exist for those who dislike or
object to their posts being vetted. They can't cry censorship simply
because they still have the same old groups.

2) If the moderated group dies or never gains traffic, the unmoderated
group still exists and again, no harm, no foul.

I'd be willing to help with the technical details and act as a co-moderator
should enough qualified co-moderators volunteer. I've written moderation
software that is currently being used for 5 moderated groups and is
designed to handle multiple co-moderators. It does require installing the
Python programming language onto a machine (either Linux or Windows) and
installing a GUI application onto the machines of the co-moderators.

There are essentially no technical problems to overcome. But...

Problems:

1) Decent coverage would require moderators to check in several times a
day, every day, for the life of the group. No time off for good behavior.

2) Finding decent moderators. Ones with the right mix of diplomatic skills
and the proper amount of humility. The ones who would approve a topical,
non-inflammatory post that they otherwise strongly disagree with and who
would reject a non-topical or inflammatory post they strongly agree with.

One aid to objectivity is having a way to limbo a post so it can be vetted
by multiple co-moderators. The software I wrote allows just that.

On May 2, 6:30*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
2) Finding decent moderators. Ones with the right mix of diplomatic skills
and the proper amount of humility. The ones who would approve a topical,
non-inflammatory post that they otherwise strongly disagree with and who
would reject a non-topical or inflammatory post they strongly agree with.

One aid to objectivity is having a way to limbo a post so it can be vetted
by multiple co-moderators. The software I wrote allows just that.

Hmm...

One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5a49e900a0c791

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...se_frm/thread/
b85a49e900a0c791

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

It would depend on the group charter. For example, if you had asked how to
perform finite-element-analysis of landing gear on a moderated group
chartered for discussion of piloting, it would have been rejected as off
topic with suggestions on a more appropriate group. Asking questions
relating to backwash on lift - borderline. Would have approved as "hangar
talk".

And ad-hominem's would be rejected too. That's standard operating procedure
for moderated groups - unless the moderator(s) are trying to kill the
group. Or such things are chartered as on topic!

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5a49e900a0c791

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Okay...

I took the trouble to review that thread up to a point, and could find
no ad-hominem attacks against you in the first 107 posts (in the order
given in that link). Some posters who I would loosely categorize as
"does not suffer fools gladly" such as perhaps Bertie, actually posted
useful followups (4, 9, 20, and 86, among others). There were attacks
against Mxsmanic, but that's an ongoing thing unrelated to your initial
post.

You didn't start getting personal nits until your post at 91 of that
thread in which you state "Let's face it. A large pecentage of people
walking this planet think there is a "suction" force."

That was essentially an attack on "a large percentage of people." If I
had been a co-moderator of a moderated piloting group with that thread,
I'd probably have approved your post 91 and Bertie's followup post at 92
because his "lost cause" statement was basically a statement about why
he'd not be trying to answer any further. But I might have included a
moderator warning of some sort.

The first real insult against you appears to be at post 108 by Bertie.
But it is response to post 107 by you in which you basically engaged in
a personal attack against two unnamed CFIs. Post 107 of yours was
borderline inflammatory - had you named names I'd have rejected it.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic, I saw lots of reasoned posts
directed in response to your post and from you in at least the first
100+ posts. People appear to have put a lot of effort into their
responses but you insisted on both claiming in need of some intuitive
understanding on one hand but on the other hand claimed to already
know all the physics and intuitively knew what was going on.
(A confusing mix of hubris and humility.)

Basically you appear to have been claiming knowledge and understanding
on one hand but claiming you needed help in gaining that very same
knowledge and understanding on the other. That in summary is possibly
why you were eventually pegged a troll and then personally attacked.

On May 3, 1:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...owse_frm/threa...

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Okay...

I took the trouble to review that thread up to a point, and could find
no ad-hominem attacks against you in the first 107 posts (in the order
given in that link). Some posters who I would loosely categorize as
"does not suffer fools gladly" such as perhaps Bertie, actually posted
useful followups (4, 9, 20, and 86, among others). There were attacks
against Mxsmanic, but that's an ongoing thing unrelated to your initial
post.

We must be looking at different threads. I see numerous personal
attacks.

You didn't start getting personal nits until your post at 91 of that
thread in which you state "Let's face it. A large pecentage of people
walking this planet think there is a "suction" force."

This is true. It is not meant as an insult, and many of the people
who think there is a suction force do not see what the big deal is
until after they have learned, not from me, but from someone whose
opinion they trust, that indeed, there is no suction force, so it can
hardly be seen as a personal attack against them, because they do not
yet know that what they think is incorrect. In any case, it is not
meant to be a personal attack, but simply an illustration that what
people perceive is not necessarily what is actually happening.

That was essentially an attack on "a large percentage of people." If I
had been a co-moderator of a moderated piloting group with that thread,
I'd probably have approved your post 91 and Bertie's followup post at 92
because his "lost cause" statement was basically a statement about why
he'd not be trying to answer any further. But I might have included a
moderator warning of some sort.

We obviously have a difference in opinion here. I see multiple attacks
from multiple people early in the discussion.

The first real insult against you appears to be at post 108 by Bertie.
But it is response to post 107 by you in which you basically engaged in
a personal attack against two unnamed CFIs. Post 107 of yours was
borderline inflammatory - had you named names I'd have rejected it.

Those were not attacks against the CFI's. Those CFI's never read this
group. Secondly, stating that at CFI does not know the physical basis
of 29.92 is not necessarily a personal attack. What does it mean to
not know? It simply means that that CFI does not know.

When I grade exams in computer science, and I give someone a sub-par
grade because it is apparent that they do not understand, is that a
personal attack? Should I write, "You're getting a C-. Please don't
take it personally....I'm not attacking you, it's just that it is
clear that you do not understand...." on every exam?

I think a bit of objectivity is in order. Calling someone names using
expletives, or calling them dumb, or saying, "No way in hell are you
an engineer..." those are personal attacks. Stating that a CFI does
not know the physical significance of 29.92, who, by the way, readily
and voluntarily admitted that he did not know, is not personal attack
at all, IMO. It's a simple fact. Since you broached the subject, I
actually had more respect for him after he admitted not knowing than I
would have had for someone pretending to know.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic, I saw lots of reasoned posts
directed in response to your post and from you in at least the first
100+ posts. People appear to have put a lot of effort into their
responses but you insisted on both claiming in need of some intuitive
understanding on one hand but on the other hand claimed to already
know all the physics and intuitively knew what was going on.
(A confusing mix of hubris and humility.)

I saw a few reasoned responses, and many ad hominem attacks, more of
the latter than the former, the entire thread considered. For example,
you mention, "Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic"...but if you read
the thread, you will see numerous claims that Mxsmanic and I were
being declared to the the same person, with insults directed at both
of us.

Basically you appear to have been claiming knowledge and understanding
on one hand but claiming you needed help in gaining that very same
knowledge and understanding on the other. That in summary is possibly
why you were eventually pegged a troll and then personally attacked.

So...you are saying I was attacked or not? It cannot be both.

Also, I viewed that thread as a discussion, not a request for
knowledge. Wikipedia is ominpresent. I have CFI's available. I have
my Jepp books. I have FAA web site. There are university online
resources. I have the bookstore. Sources of knowledge is readily
available.

What I expressed was my own opinion about backwash and lift, which
conflicted, at the very least, with the idea that the basics of lift
were already well-understood by pilots.

I think that the people who attacked me were unnerved by the idea that
something that they were supposed to have learned and understood was
being revisited by someone not possessing a pilot's license.

In any case, if the discussion had pertained to things I do know
about, like electronics, chemistry, or computers...the last thing I
would have done was personally attack the poster.

I do not think that is necessary. For any reason.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers left,
fer gawdsake.

It's usenet, Denny: make your own moderation. Wussies who can't hack
it can go elsewhere.

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

Dan Luke wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers left,
fer gawdsake.

Amusing. On the off chance you are serious...

No government of any sort is involved or proposed. Indeed, if they can't
tax it they'll want nothing to do with Usenet moderation.

It's usenet, Denny: make your own moderation. Wussies who can't hack
it can go elsewhere.

The creation of a moderated group will in no way infringe on your right to
make a fool of yourself on this group. There already exist hundreds of
moderated groups and so far not one of them has stopped you from making
your absurd post. One more moderated group wont affect you.

No one is going to peel back your eyelids ala "A Clockwork Orange" and
force you to read a moderated group.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Dan Luke wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers left,
fer gawdsake.

Amusing. On the off chance you are serious...

No government of any sort is involved or proposed. Indeed, if they
can't tax it they'll want nothing to do with Usenet moderation.

It's usenet, Denny: make your own moderation. Wussies who can't hack
it can go elsewhere.

The creation of a moderated group will in no way infringe on your
right to make a fool of yourself on this group. There already exist
hundreds of moderated groups and so far not one of them has stopped
you from making your absurd post. One more moderated group wont affect
you.

No one is going to peel back your eyelids ala "A Clockwork Orange" and
force you to read a moderated group.


But they would if they could.. They're everywhere doing everything.

Bertie