A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you had
to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.

I had not been taught what to do, and in one case the surf would have made it
difficult to just lie back and float (and unnecessary, since the water was
only a few feet deep).

How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
of water?

And THAT is what this discussion was about, i.e. you almost drowning
several times.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
final experiment.

No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator?

That is a question I would ask of anyone else if they created a
moderated group. So no offense taken at all. I believe the intro I
posted here provides an (admittedly slanted) background of myself:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec_a...a3b88c8a?hl=en

I don't even
know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does nothing
to give me confidence.

I concur with your reasoning - I think anyone willing to nominate
themselves as a discussion group moderator is suspect. But on the matter
of consistent application of such reasoning: do you (or did many of the
members of this group who migrated) apply that same reasoning with
regard to the people who set up and run the AOPA forums or Pilots of
America? (Not sure if you are a member of either group.) Likewise, did
you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should use
AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of Service you
must abide by even on Usenet postings)?

Consider this: anyone can create a group - that is what would presumably
keep me (or anyone else) "honest" and fair. Competition always lurks. It
is not like you or anyone is forever doomed by joining. It costs nothing
(except time) to check out a new group. Heavy handed moderation would be
counterproductive to the whole point of the endeavor.

Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
draft? I already have identified one person that I'd like to see as a
moderator of an aviation group:

Vaughn Simon

(Yes, I'm serious.)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you
had to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.

I had not been taught what to do, and in one case the surf would have
made it difficult to just lie back and float (and unnecessary, since
the water was only a few feet deep).










God I love usenet.


Bertie

On Aug 18, 1:07 am, wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Ken S. Tucker writes:
Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?

No.

Well you must try it.
Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.

Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
opposite direction and you're still heading into the
wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
sail to max the energy out of the wind.
Regards
Ken
PS: Read about it.

On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.

As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
boom.

With all that technical data I can see him lining up for the next
Americas Cup :-)

writes:

How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
of water?

By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
(Not sure if you are a member of either group.)

I am an AOPA member, but not a member of any of their forums.

But also did
you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should use
AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of Service you
must abide by even on Usenet postings)?

Bad comparison. I am a customer of AT&T. They please me on a day-to-day
basis or I fire them and move on to the next ISP.

Consider this: anyone can create a group

Exactly, that is why there are way too many groups. The world does not need
any more Google groups.

Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
draft?

I already have made a suggestion; God. Until then, we are better off without
a hall monitor. Learn to use filters. I use them all the time and they work
fine.


--
Vaughn


Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.


Will poofread for food.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
of water?

By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.


Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhah!

No wonder you're afraid of going for a walk. Probably afraid youre going to
be attacked by a pile of blowing leaves.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
of water?

By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.

Right.

Since adults can go about 3 minutes without air, in other words, you
paniced and were thrasing around like a flounder instead of relaxing,
letting the surf pass, and simply standing up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 17, 6:07 am, wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Ken S. Tucker writes:
Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?

No.

Well you must try it.
Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.

Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
opposite direction and you're still heading into the
wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
sail to max the energy out of the wind.
Regards
Ken
PS: Read about it.

On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.

As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
boom.

I have no problem with the boom, I have a thick skull :-).
Best time, we had was in a 10-20 knot wind, I was on
trapeze, fairly small lake with white caps, 2 maybe 3
person boat, hot day with a stiff breeze, getting soaked
with splash, and slippery with wet shoes. I slipped a bit
but with sober adrenaline I recovered fast, whata rush.
Cheers
Ken

"Vaughn Simon" wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
But also did
you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should
use AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of
Service you must abide by even on Usenet postings)?

Bad comparison. I am a customer of AT&T. They please me on a
day-to-day basis or I fire them and move on to the next ISP.

Well that's the point I was trying to make. Hmmm. Guess I did a bad job
communicating.

Consider this: anyone can create a group

Exactly, that is why there are way too many groups. The world does
not need any more Google groups.

Ah, but you can't filter out or stop the creation of new forums. And not
all forums are identical in nature - that's the great thing about having a
choice.

Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
draft?

I already have made a suggestion; God.

But I'm an atheist. :-)

Until then, we are better off without
a hall monitor. Learn to use filters. I use them all the time and
they work fine.

If filters were as effective as you believe then we wouldn't be having this
discussion.

I don't use filters and have no problems ignoring or disregarding posts -
but I do have a problem when this group's membership declines because other
people have problems with the naked and uncontrollable animosities. They
are moving to other groups (or simply leaving all online forums)
irrespective of our own mechanisms. I've simply decided to go out of my way
a bit and expend some effort trying to help people who might like an
alternative. It isn't meant to be perfect - just hopefully better.

I still think you should be the moderator of an alternative group - none is
so effective as the one who is most skeptical.