Why is Soaring declining

ADP wrote:
I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.

Thanks,

Allan


"nafod40" wrote in message
...
ADP wrote:
I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.

I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.

Allan


See below:

"The Lion's Grove: Ramblings: Top Posting: The Source Of All Evil?

'Kay, so I'm reading the newsgroups. Yeah, I know. I generally dislike
them because they seem to be only good for flamewars, but I've been
extremely bored lately, and it's something to pass the time.

In the rare instances that legitimate topics are actually discussed,
there will come along a person who wants to contribute to the conversation
and will post the information at the top of the message, known as
"top-posting." And of course, this person will be jumped on, ridiculed,
humiliated, beat about the head and shoulders with a salami, and generally
be made to feel very unwelcome.

I've just read another of these threads. One person top-posted and
there followed a coupla dozen posts saying how it is poor netiquette, how it
is generally accepted practice not to do so, and one giving a link to a list
of FAQs explaining how it has been decided this should be so. There were
messages saying that the top-posting person "violated the social morays[sic]
of the group" and should basically conform to their standards because it is
somehow more polite. There was also much unnecessary name-calling and
insults directed at people who are different.

[*Note: I'm really having to fight the urge to go off on a rant about
how "morays" should be spelled "mores" and the fact that if people aren't
familiar with a word and its use, they shouldn't be throwing the damn thing
around. A "moray" is, in fact, an eel and of course should never be
violated. "Mores" are social norms taken so seriously that laws tend to be
created based on them. Oh wait...]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I actually like it when
people top-post. Reading through hundreds of messages goes by much faster
when I can see at a glance what's being said without having to constantly
scroll through the entire message. I don't get all huffy and insult the
person. I move on to the next message and continue with my reading. Why is
it so difficult for others to do the same?

Went and found a site that gives some admittedly good reasons why
folks should not top-post. I'm going to use these from
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm cuz they're a lot shorter and to
the point than most other sites.

"First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which
they reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."

This I can understand. But it is the lack of snippage that should be
addressed.

"Second, and connected, is that you do not know with top posting
whether someone has written something else later on, so do you waste your
time going through it?"

Is this really a problem? Isn't it usually pretty obvious that the
poster has said all he has intended to say? if he hasn't attached his
top-posted comments directly to a portion of the previous post, what makes
you think he's going to do it further along in the message? And is it really
that big a deal to scroll down and check? You're going to scroll through
other messages anyway. But I guess a top-poster's messages are a waste of
time...

"Third, it is much easier to read things in order, and you can see
with good Netiquette how easily it flows."

This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which,
incidentally, could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she
wrote:, bob wrote:, god wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that
simple, at least from what I've seen. It's usually more along the lines of:

[obscene amount of header crap left on so someone can show off their
"witty"
personalization]
[more header crap]
[still more header crap]
[and even more header crap]
Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm new to the group. I just wanted to
share that I just read
this great book on pasta, it's called "The Joy of Pasta." You
should really check it
out.
[no longer crossposted as this person finally got a clue]
I read that book and really like it too. I love the recipes!
[crossposted to a dozen other completely unrelated newsgroups]
i'll show ya pasta baybeeee
[followed by a signature, usually trying to show how "l33t" the
poster is]
[also posted to the dozen other groups because the poster forgot to
take them off of
the To: field]
If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at
all.
Oh, get off your high horse. By responding to them you're only
encouraging them. Get
over it.
[yada yada]
I look forward to being a part of the group!
[followed by long irritating signature]
Welcome to the group!
[followed by a signature]
Hope you like it here!
[followed by more signature]

Throw in some bad spelling, some obscenities from a troll, and some
bad formatting, and you've got a rather difficult message to read. Which
leads me to a) if you can understand that mess, a person posting at the top
shouldn't throw you off that much, and b) if you can't understand that mess,
what does it matter where the next person puts their message? You're not
gonna get it anyway. The main issue here is snippage. If people would just
learn to cut out all the irrelevent and unnecessary crap, there wouldn't be
any problems understanding where the message is going.

I think what it really comes down to is that people don't like when
someone comes in and disrupts their structured little world. Top-posting
isn't going to cause California to fall off into the ocean [yes, this would
be a bad thing, at least to the Californians], so why act like it will?"


..
2nd source:

"BUT not snipping is a far worse disease. If you read a five screen article,
and you like it, it is the height of selfishness to leave the whole five
screens while you add a single line to say how much you like it - and it
does not matter which end you put it, it is still very unfair on others and
shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters. You should leave in a
paragraph or two, not more, unless you are specifically referring to bits.
Then you leave in the bits to which you refer, and reply just after them.

So, please snip, that is vital, please do not top post, but that is not so
important."

ADP wrote:
Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in the
same category.
I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that anyone
replying to Lennie not quote
his post in your reply.

and:

And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
will have to read him and that I will not do.

and:

I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

Perhaps it's a good thing I don't post on many other groups.

Allan


Allen:

In the course of your newsgroup etiquette research, you might also look
into requests that the world-at-large censor their discussion to
correspond to one individual's taste. While not disagreeing about the
value of Lennie's contribution (he's in my killfile also), the
suggestion that all other group participants should filter their
conversation to suit comes off a bit myopic, at best.

Dave

Admit it - you have to be a little mental to wear strange hats, and spend hours
making circles in the sky going nowhere, landing out , getting sunburned and
dehydrated - eventually dragging your exhausted body home long after dark - and
claim this is recreation, and fun.

Works for me, but I know any number who are convinced we are all barking mad...

Liam Finley wrote:
Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring. Quite to the
contrary, without them who would buy all the second hand PW-5's and
Russia's? No, it's just the one's who are also sociopaths that I
think we could do without.


(Liam Finley) wrote in message . com...

Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
rambling thoughts are pure gold.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:46:05 -0700, "ADP"
wrote:

I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.


Good examples. As to the rambling sigs,

- its usually considered bad form to use more than a four line sig

- you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

"I agree," he said , peering about myopically.

Enough.

Allan


"Dave Houlton" wrote in message
...
Allen:

In the course of your newsgroup etiquette research, you might also look
into requests that the world-at-large censor their discussion to
correspond to one individual's taste. While not disagreeing about the
value of Lennie's contribution (he's in my killfile also), the suggestion
that all other group participants should filter their conversation to suit
comes off a bit myopic, at best.

Dave

endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru
the use of computer flight simulators. I tried one out at the
Convention that was very realistic (you really need a set of rudder
peddles). I think it would help out if used in conjunction with
instructor feedback.

Costs could be significantly reduced if we used winches more for
training. You will need between 50 and 100 launches to get a license.
This costs $1,500-3,000 for aerotow costs alone. Winching would drop
this to $250-500. If you reduce this cost then you will attract more
students, which will reduce the fixed costs (depreciation, insurance,
maintenance, advertising, etc.). Also, it is imperative that the
training location be reasonably close to major population centers.
Clubs need to have a $25 intro flight.

In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to


Tom Seim
Richland, WA


The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
lift sites could take quite a few launches.
All this refers to US FARs

With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
be done with 13 flights. All this, Of course, has to be cleverly
arranged, to fit into the rest of the framework, dual and soloflights
required. AND those are minima. Some students learn fast, very few
never get it.

Dieter B 1408997CFI Life Member SSA

PS A well organized school with paid instructors, the corect modern
equipment. It could be done, quite fast, reasonable and enjoyable.

Martin Gregorie wrote

Pilots like them because they're fun to fly. Light on the controls,
turns tight, thermals on a fart. Won't penetrate worth a damn, but if
the winds are light or you're going downwind it's a hoot. Think Ka-8,
only the wings are shorter (and consequently the glide ratio is lower)
and the control feel not quite as good.

I've got to say that our L-13 doesn't cost a whole lot more, but
provides a second seat. If it was only EASY to take apart
and trailer, it'd be hands down better than a 1-26 :P
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
lift sites could take quite a few launches.
All this refers to US FARs

With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
be done with 13 flights. All this, Of course, has to be cleverly
arranged, to fit into the rest of the framework, dual and soloflights
required. AND those are minima. Some students learn fast, very few
never get it.


Yeah, and the Tooth Fairy is alive and well.

You might do well interviewing actual students and see what their
experience has been. The legal minimums is a fairy tale. If you want
to play in fairy land, go ahead. The reality of training REAL STUDENTS
in a REAL ENVIRONMENT is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Real students have interruptions in their training (seasons,
financial, etc.) and are forced to re-learn material already covered.
Some are A LOT SLOWER than others. This is reality. You are living in
a fairy tale world: it's thinking like yours that is driving the sport
into the ground.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA