Checkride Checklist Question

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
It seems to me you may not understand how cross-posting works.

I believe I do. However, newsreaders often don't.

Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

Some newsreaders (I've been stuck with them sometimes) will only post to
the newsgroup from which the reply was made, and ignore the rest of the
crossposting.

I have never heard of such a thing. Please name a couple of newsreaders
that, by default, reply only to the newsgroup that the user of that
newsreader is currently viewing, rather than respecting the entire
Newsgroups: field.

Not that it would be relevant to your point, but I have still never heard of
such a thing. You claim to have been "stuck with them", so not only do you
believe one such newsreader exists, you apparently believe there is more
than one and that you have even used more than one.

In any case, again: this particular assertion of yours simply claims that
some newsreaders are out there doing the same bad thing that you do
manually. I fail to see how you emulating a bad newsreader is supposed to
be a good thing.

Some newsreaders will present crossposted messages as new, even if they
have been read in a different thread.

This would be irrelevant to your behavior. Just because someone else's
newsreader isn't respecting the message ID (assuming there is such a
newsreader in common use), that's no reason for you to change the
Newsgroups: field.

But even so, please name two such newsreaders. The whole point of
cross-posting is to avoid this problem, and I have never heard of a
newsreader that exhibits that problem. You claim "some" exist...please let
us know which ones.

Some newsreaders can be set to send replies to places other than the
originating newsgroup, and other newsreaders are unable to detect this and
defend against it.

"Defend against it"? You say that like it's some sort of attack or
something. Any user can of course edit the message headers prior to
posting, to change where the post goes. And of course, using the
"Followup-To:" field a person can change the default for where a post goes.
But this isn't default behavior, and in any case has nothing to do with
whether you leave the cross-posting fields intact or not.

I don't know what newsreader any individual will be using.

So what? The point isn't what other people's newsreaders do, it's whether
it makes any sense whatsoever for you to prune the Newsgroups: field. The
only valid reason to do so is when one or more of the cross-posted
newsgroups is off-topic for the post. Doing so just because you don't read
the other newsgroup(s) makes no sense at all.

When you're asking a question, it's especially dumb since the person to whom
you are directing the question may not be reading the same newsgroup you
are, but even if you're contributing new information, you are hurting the
entire community of the relevant newsgroups by artificially restricting the
free flow of on-topic information.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

This certainly doesn't directly support Jose's claim, but 40tude's Dialog
(http://www.40tude.com/dialog/), which is what I use these days, responds
with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose wrote:

Ok. The way it was reffered to, it seemed like a checklist mnemonic in
itself.

It probably is, but the guy who knows what it means won't see your question,
since you stripped out rec.aviation.student.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

Some newsreaders (I've been stuck with them sometimes) will only post to
the newsgroup from which the reply was made, and ignore the rest of the
crossposting.


I have never heard of such a thing. Please name a couple of newsreaders
that, by default, reply only to the newsgroup that the user of that
newsreader is currently viewing, rather than respecting the entire
Newsgroups: field.

FWIW the mozilla on my (not current) linux machine at home won't accept a
posting to a newsgroup to which I am not subscribed.

Dave

Errm... XNews strongly discourages cross-posting when replying, and
that's a pretty popular program. There are more newsreaders in heaven
and on earth then perhaps are dreamed of in your philosophy, Pete. : )

That said, I prefer to leave cross-post newsgroups intact unless it's
an obvious mismatch. For example, I've seen posts to space groups that
were cross-posted to alt.test or alt.sex.barney.duct-tape and whatnot
or even *.callahans, where people are just trying to flood a newsgroup
with traffic.

A well judged pruning of x-post newsgroups is fine, it's the wholesale
clearcutting that's the problem.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

I would reccommend pulling it out when he fails your engine. It's easy to
forget something with all the excitement and nervousness you're likely to
have on a checkride. Most other stuff is easy enough to remember.
Tecnically they are supposed to note that you use the appropriate checklist.
Alex

#1ACGuy wrote:
I would reccommend pulling it out when he fails your engine. It's easy to
forget something with all the excitement and nervousness you're likely to
have on a checkride. Most other stuff is easy enough to remember.
Tecnically they are supposed to note that you use the appropriate checklist.
Alex

Good call. Normally I use a printed checklist on preflight, startup,
run-up, after landing, and shutting down. I refer to it in other
phases of flight when there is extra time, if I feel like I might have
forgotten something, or maybe to brief myself if I'm doing something a
little out of the ordinary like a short or soft field landing. For any
emergency, if there's time, I'll use a separately printed (on
differently colored paper) emergency checklist. "Emergency Checklist -
AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE" is a standard preflight checklist item. For
an engine failure, my primary training was "A, B, C": Airspeed, Best
place to land, Checklist. I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
about my using the printed checklists in this way.

-R

"Rob" wrote:
I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
about my using the printed checklists in this way.

When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
.... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
raising eyebrow!

unicate wrote:

He interrupted me, pushed my
hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"

How high above ground were you? That would be the correct attitude at, say,
500'AGL, but not so good at 5,000' AGL. Of course, if a piston comes through the
cowling, it really doesn't matter how high you are, but it would be a shame to
crash a plane because you failed to switch tanks when you had several minutes to
try it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
oups.com...
Errm... XNews strongly discourages cross-posting when replying, and
that's a pretty popular program. There are more newsreaders in heaven
and on earth then perhaps are dreamed of in your philosophy, Pete. : )

Okay, thank you. I guess since it's been many years since I last used a
wide variety of newsreaders, I have missed developments in the technology.
Still, "strongly discourages" does not sound to me as though the newsreader
prevents one from cross-posting, and even the behavior Dave mentions on the
part of Mozilla is not the same as what Jose claims (though it's probably
what he's actually running into, in spite of his vague descriptions
otherwise).

I will say that the Mozilla behavior is just dumb. Requiring a person to be
subscribed to a newsgroup to which they are cross-posting makes as little
sense as removing a cross-post newsgroup just because you don't read that
newsgroup (and for the same reason). However, it does shed light onto
Jose's problem: he's using Mozilla.

It's funny, for all the religious conversion going on to try to get people
to switch to Mozilla Firefox, you'd think it'd be a better program. I use
the browser component, as a stop-gap way for getting RSS feeds (until I have
time to explore other options), and the browser has WAY more problems in
day-to-day use than I ever have with IE (mostly render errors and
performance problems). Now I learn the newsreader is also broken. And
people call this an improvement? Right.

That said, I prefer to leave cross-post newsgroups intact unless it's
an obvious mismatch. [...]

I as well. Cross-posting certainly is abused, and I think it's well and
good to try to minimize it. But forcing a user to not cross-post makes
about as much as sense as, well...kicking all general aviation aircraft out
of 2000 square miles of airspace just because some airline jets got run into
some buildings.

A well judged pruning of x-post newsgroups is fine, it's the wholesale
clearcutting that's the problem.

Agreed. That's my point.

Pete