has anyone else noticed???

Anyolmouse wrote:

A lot of folks have went to moderated forums to avoid the spam, I think.

The spam and the trolls. Rec.aviation.piloting saw a mass exodus when a
couple of trolls started near-continuous postings.

To quote Wikipedia, "A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of
provoking other users into an emotional response."

The trouble is, spam is pretty obvious, but whether a given poster is a
troll or not depends on your personal relationship of the poster. They
may claim it's "all in fun," but not everyone takes it that way. To a
newcomer, who doesn't know the relationships, it just plain looks ugly
so they go away.


Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

The spam and the trolls. Rec.aviation.piloting saw a mass exodus when a
couple of trolls started near-continuous postings.

To quote Wikipedia, "A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of
provoking other users into an emotional response."

The trouble is, spam is pretty obvious, but whether a given poster is a
troll or not depends on your personal relationship of the poster. They may
claim it's "all in fun," but not everyone takes it that way. To a
newcomer, who doesn't know the relationships, it just plain looks ugly so
they go away.

You hit the nail on the head, Ron. The trolls used to be dealt with by
shunning, like good ole' Bass Wars days. Now, someone always has to play
with the troll, and it ****ed off anyone that had something to say, so they
left.

Vicious Circle, describes it. Troll wins, everyone is gone. Once in a
while, there has been a little real discussion start up here, then the
neurotic troll joins in and quickly kills it. Everyone leaves again, and
after that happens a few times, they don't come back.

I think Usenet still could be big. It fits today's style of not talking
directly to anyone. Ampeater, why don't you be the life of our party? I
have a feeling that you have plenty of stories yet to tell. Then when a
troll joins in, blast him with both barrels, and a little 3 phase high
tension line voltage, and drive him off. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

On Jan 24, 10:40*pm, John Ammeter
wrote:
RAH has become BORING... *no one with any interesting posts or questions.

BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
thinking and posting.

His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
push.

With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
or posts...

Prove me wrong...

John

Can't prove you wrong when you are SOOOOOO Right! I won't claim that
the Campbell, BWB, Chuck, and other (let them remain nameless) wars
were all that great but they sure as hell were NOT BORING! I often
defended some of the off-topic discussions because they were, love
them or hate them, stimulation for keeping a lot of people active in
the forum. Those same people were also the ones who would answer the
questions and pose new topics of discussion that enlightened and
sometimes amused. Clearly, that is gone now and so are those who
contributed so much.

The "Good old days" are never quite a good as we would like them to
have been nor were they as bad as some would have us believe. They
were what they were and there are many friendships that resulted from
them and have endured despite them.

On Jan 25, 8:28*am, BobR wrote:
On Jan 24, 10:40*pm, John Ammeter
wrote:





RAH has become BORING... *no one with any interesting posts or questions.

BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
thinking and posting.

His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
push.

With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
or posts...

Prove me wrong...

John

Can't prove you wrong when you are SOOOOOO Right! *I won't claim that
the Campbell, BWB, Chuck, and other (let them remain nameless) wars
were all that great but they sure as hell were NOT BORING! *I often
defended some of the off-topic discussions because they were, love
them or hate them, stimulation for keeping a lot of people active in
the forum. *Those same people were also the ones who would answer the
questions and pose new topics of discussion that enlightened and
sometimes amused. *Clearly, that is gone now and so are those who
contributed so much.

The "Good old days" are never quite a good as we would like them to
have been nor were they as bad as some would have us believe. *They
were what they were and there are many friendships that resulted from
them and have endured despite them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The concept of this arena was to share building experiences for
homebuilt aircraft. The topics were of great help in the beginning but
then egos weaseled their way into the conversations. What would start
as ' how best to skin a rudder' would drift into , my rot gut
moonshine is better then your booze. Building an experimental is a
dynamic and always evolving process. God help the guys who would
propose a new idea only to be flamed by a few very vocal "experts' who
heard from a friends cousins hairdressers stepchild that no way that
could that work. Most questions started out as someone thinking out
loud and instantly the "group' would start their, my dicks bigger
then yours, my guns are bigger then yours, my motorcycle is faster
then yours, my explosions are louder then yours, etc etc etc. Too bad
they didn't have a usenet group for REC, bragging and bull****ting. A
few guys drove the hardcore builders away and now ask , what the ****
happened.??????

Off my soapbox now and off to go fly my experimental with a ( god
forbid) auto engine conversion in it. GGGG

Ben, i dont need a flame suit just a delete key, Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

John Ammeter wrote:
RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.

BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
thinking and posting.

His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
push.

With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas
or posts...

Prove me wrong...

John

Newgroups are suffering an illness.
It may be terminal.
Look at rec.aviation.piloting for example.
The problem is not so much R.A. H
as the fraction of posters who have relevant insights on the
aviation groups.
Airplanes are getting almost out of reach for so many now.

I know of one aviation newsgroup that is vital and active,
but I fear to mention it, for fear of despoilers....

Brian W

Between the economic issues keeping many from starting a build and the
gradual withering away of use net as a communication tool most groups are
suffering.
Online forums tend to be easier to use and have the advantage of (or
disadvantage of) moderation. There is also the advantage of no cross posting
to unrelated groups and the lunatics trying to rant like king jerky america,
belmont weath@r, and the musl3m troll can't get in the door. A lot of forums
have been over run by old school trolls and just destroyed. It's hard to do
that on an active web forum.

That being said the fact that use still exists means it can be used. And yes
it does need a spark

How about this:

EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c

"John Ammeter" wrote in message
...
RAH has become BORING... no one with any interesting posts or questions.

BWB has been gone for well over a year and hadn't posted for a long time
before that but NO ONE has stepped up and filled the gap.

I know Billy had ****ed off a lot of people but at least he got people
thinking and posting.

His forte was the ability to "read" people and know the right buttons to
push.

With no one to do that RAH now lacks anyone with any interesting ideas or
posts...

Prove me wrong...

John

tom c wrote:
snip
EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c
snip
I doubt that it's cheaper than printing 8 1/2 x 11. Also the pages are
really thin - thin paper is expensive if it's also opaque. They probably
are saving money by not printing separate magazines for each EAA
section. Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't
handle well, especially in the reading room (read head).

I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
the glitz factor. What about AirVenture as a name? This may have been a
copyright issue, although simply referring to the convention as Oshkosh
served well for many years.

"jim ham" wrote in message
...
tom c wrote:
snip
EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c
snip
...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
especially in the reading room (read head).

I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by the
glitz factor.

The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old one!
In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference. I do
prefer the old size.

What about AirVenture as a name?

I don't know what they were thinking. It will always be "Oshkosh" to me.

Vaughn

"vaughn" wrote in message
...

"jim ham" wrote in message
...
tom c wrote:
snip
EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c
snip
...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
especially in the reading room (read head).

I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
the glitz factor.

The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old
one! In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.
I do prefer the old size.

What about AirVenture as a name?

I don't know what they were thinking. It will always be "Oshkosh" to
me.

Vaughn

I agree or both issues. The old size was a better fit with my other
magazines as well.

Peter

On Jan 28, 2:45*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"vaughn" wrote in message

...





"jim ham" wrote in message
...
tom c wrote:
snip
EAA's new revamped Sport Aviation isn't new at all. It's just a cheaper
printer!

Tom c
snip
...Personally I don't like the large format. It just doesn't handle well,
especially in the reading room (read head).

I suspect that our new EAA management (i.e. Tom) is really impressed by
the glitz factor.

* * The "new" Sport Aviation is a very nice magazine, but so was the old
one! In spite of the hype, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.
I do prefer the old size.

What about AirVenture as a name?

* *I don't know what they were thinking. *It will always be "Oshkosh" to
me.

Vaughn

I agree or both issues. *The old size was a better fit with my other
magazines as well.

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the hell were they thinking with the new size? None of the other
magazines use that size and it doesn't do a thing to enhance the
magazine.