Is this newsgroup dying?

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 05 Feb 2004 20:02:57 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

ubject: Is this newsgroup dying?
From: vzlion
Date: 2/5/04 10:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If so it shioyld be changed to rec.politics. This is suppose to be
about aviation, not politics. If it's to survive it needs a monitor to
scan out tyhe non-aviation subjects. If I want to read about politics
I'll go to another newsdroup or watch the news or read the paper.


Walt

Actually, the group is rec.aviation.military, and the purpose for
military aviation is to fight wars and war is politics carried on by
"other means". The linkage between politics and war is too tight to
break.


I think this tought sums up the issue in a nutshell. If it weren't for
politics failing (or was that diplomacy?) There wouldn't be wars to
re-analyze 50 years later. %^#^**(^!@#@! politicians...

--
Dana Miller

ArtKramr wrote:
The guys who are pumping in the most about politics are those with least or
no military flying experience. They don't have much else to talk about. Some
years back we had loads of B-17, B-24 and P51 pilots here as well as
navigators and gunners. They are all are gone now driven off by the
wannabees. I'm the only one left and it will be a cold day in hell before
I'll be driven off by these snot-nosed, loud mouthed wannabees.


Pardon me for interjecting, but you're mistaken. You are not the only WWII
person here, nor are you or were you a pilot. I know of one Army Air Corps
pilot personally in this group, and he's been pulliing chains left and right in
here lately. I'd say he's earned the right.

If his WWII service isn't enough for you, he also flew in Korea during our
festivities there, and for Air Rescue during the early days of the Viet Nam
conflict.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

I've been hanging around here for right at 6 years & it's always been
full of OT BS. Sometimes it just ain't worth dropping in. Dying? It's
either one slow death or it's been dead for years.

Subject: Is this newsgroup dying?
From:
Date: 2/5/04 5:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I've been hanging around here for right at 6 years & it's always been
full of OT BS. Sometimes it just ain't worth dropping in. Dying? It's
either one slow death or it's been dead for years.



It hasn't been dead for years. It has just been in a Coma.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:20:23 -0600 (CST), wrote in
Message-Id: :

I've been hanging around here for right at 6 years & it's always been
full of OT BS. Sometimes it just ain't worth dropping in. Dying? It's
either one slow death or it's been dead for years.

Perhaps, if one of the regulars of rec.aviation.military took it upon
himself to post the newsgroup charter periodically, the articles might
be a bit more on topic. At least new subscribers would be aware of
what subjects are considered on-topic.

It seems that Mr. Peck has ceased posting this:


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: (Geoff Peck)
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.military
Message-ID:
Expires: 16 Feb 2002
Organization: The rec.aviation auto-poster


[This message is posted automatically every month.]

The charter of rec.aviation.military is:

************************************************** **************************
* Postings related to military aircraft, both historical, present,
* and rumored; military aircraft technology; military aircraft
* actions and incidents. Not intended to compete with sci.military,
* this group simply provides a legitimate home for the many military
* postings which already exist on rec.aviation.
************************************************** **************************

There are now many separate subgroups on rec.aviation; if the charter
above doesn't match the content of the article you're posting (or
you're following up), please consider one of the other groups as a
more appropriate forum:

rec.aviation.aerobatics Aerobatics and unusual attitude flying
* rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation
community
* rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about
aviation
rec.aviation.hang-gliding Hang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched
flight
rec.aviation.homebuilt Selecting, designing, building, and
restoring aircraft
rec.aviation.ifr Flying under Instrument Flight Rules
rec.aviation.marketplace Aviation classifieds
rec.aviation.military Military aircraft of the past, present
and future
rec.aviation.military.naval Discussion of Naval Aviation subjects
rec.aviation.misc Miscellaneous topics in aviation
rec.aviation.owning Information on owning airplanes
rec.aviation.piloting General discussion for aviators
rec.aviation.products Reviews and discussion of products for
pilots
rec.aviation.restoration Forum for debate on aircraft restoration
rec.aviation.rotorcraft Helicopters and other rotary wing
aircraft
rec.aviation.simulators Flight simulation on all levels
rec.aviation.soaring All aspects of sailplanes and
hang-gliders
* rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences
rec.aviation.student Learning to fly
rec.aviation.ultralight Light aircraft in general, all topics
rec.aviation.balloon Hot air and gas balloons and airships
rec.aviation.powerchutes Safety and operation of powered
parachutes

[newsgroups marked by * are moderated groups]

A common question is "what should I do if an article spans the
charters of two or more groups?" The answer is cross-posting. If you
have an article which clearly crosses the boundaries of several
groups, you should post a **single** copy of the article to **all** of
the relevant groups. Don't post separate copies to each group. Most
modern newsreaders will display the article exactly once to the reader
-- in the first group in which it is encountered and read.

If you feel that the replies should be directed to a subset of the
groups to which you are submitting your post, be sure to include a
line of the form "Followup-to: groupname" in the header of your
message. See the header of this message for an example.

If you are replying to a cross-posted article and your reply is
germane to only a subset of the original groups, please ensure that
you check the Newsgroups: line to remove unnecessary groups. If the
reply is germane to all the groups in which the article was originally
posted, try to ensure that all the groups are listed in the
Newsgroups: line. Some older newsreaders cause a reply to go only to
the group which is currently being read.

Use cross-posting sparingly. If an article "90% belongs" in one group
and "10% belongs" in another, post it only to the first group.

Geoff

vzlion wrote:

If so it shioyld be changed to rec.politics. This is suppose to be
about aviation, not politics. If it's to survive it needs a monitor to

I have a few tricks to cut down wasted time in newsgroups. They work
in Netscape, and I assume other software has these capabilities.

Use a narrow Subject column in your message list. That lets you scan
it quicker. I follow more than 60 newsgroups and don't have time for
long-winded subject lines.

Configure the newsreader to display threads in "collapsed" form. I.e.,
no matter how many messages in the thread, it occupies one line in the
message list. This tremendously declutters your screen. Click the +
sign on the left side of the subject line to expand any thread that
looks interesting. When the thread's expanded you can see all its
messages.

Use the Ignore Thread command on the useless threads. In Netscape,
when viewing the message list, select a thread and hit the k key.
You'll never see that thread again. (There is an command to make all
threads, including ignored, visible.) The highlight automatically
jumps down to the next thread containing an unread message, whereupon
you hit k again. You can take advantage of this by holding k down so
it repeats, "machine gunning" all remaining threads. It will hit any
thread with an unread message, so if you skip some replies (I do that
if there are a great many), do the Mark Thread Read command to shield
that thread from the machine gun.

Working this way I can get through r.a.m. in less than 10 seconds and
move on to the next group. Of course it takes longer on those
occasions when there's something here worth reading!

--

Paul Hirose
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

I'm not the greatest contributor, but I have been reading here for at
least 8 years or so. I think the problem is the number of personal attacks
and flames. As Ed said, politics is related to war, as are many other
things (e.g., psychology in the pilot wouldn't fly thread). If folks could
be a little more polite (or simply ignore baiting posts) and focus on
discussing facts with a reasonably open and tolerable mind, this would be a
much nicer place.
Now I'll thank you for your time, and apologize if my soap-box speech
crossed too far into preaching. Regards,

Tony Volk

"vzlion" wrote in message
...
If so it shioyld be changed to rec.politics. This is suppose to be
about aviation, not politics. If it's to survive it needs a monitor to
scan out tyhe non-aviation subjects. If I want to read about politics
I'll go to another newsdroup or watch the news or read the paper.


Walt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Tony Volk" wrote in message
...
I'm not the greatest contributor, but I have been reading here for at
least 8 years or so. I think the problem is the number of personal
attacks
and flames. As Ed said, politics is related to war, as are many other
things (e.g., psychology in the pilot wouldn't fly thread). If folks
could
be a little more polite (or simply ignore baiting posts) and focus on
discussing facts with a reasonably open and tolerable mind, this would be
a
much nicer place.
Now I'll thank you for your time, and apologize if my soap-box speech
crossed too far into preaching. Regards,

Just me stopping trolls from making every third thread be about me has
improved ram. It was the least I could do in support of raising the level
of discussion here.

"vzlion" wrote in message
...
If so it shioyld be changed to rec.politics. This is suppose to be
about aviation, not politics. If it's to survive it needs a monitor to
scan out tyhe non-aviation subjects. If I want to read about politics
I'll go to another newsdroup or watch the news or read the paper.


Walt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , vzlion
wrote:

If so it shioyld be changed to rec.politics. This is suppose to be
about aviation, not politics. If it's to survive it needs a monitor to
scan out tyhe non-aviation subjects. If I want to read about politics
I'll go to another newsdroup or watch the news or read the paper.


it is not the newsgroup that has changed, it is the fact that this is
wartime and you are comparing it to the newsgroup as it existed in
peacetime.

i have seen rec.aviation.military become political before, during times
of brief u.s. military activity such as the kosovo war in 1999.

then afterwards, the newsgroup would revert back to on-topic aviation.
the difference is that there is no afterwards this time, the u.s. has
been at war 2 1/2 years with no end in sight.

so don't expect the politics to subside until it ends, whenever that
may be.