N.Y. on high alert? Pilot buzzes Statue of Liberty

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

Ah, gee, Larry!
Why don't you just create a catchall
rec.aviation.piloting.hangarflying.alcoholics group and be done with
it?

In article , Larry Dighera says...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:20:18 +0100, "Michael Nouak"
wrote in Message-Id: :

You also didn't read Larry's recent comments regarding the charter -
either. FYI he wants to ban hangar talk, because it's not allowed by
the charter (he says).

You didn't read and comprehend my articles either. I'm suggesting
that a new 'hangar-flying' newsgroup be created just for those
rec.aviation.* participants who wish to indulge in such in an attempt
to restore rec.aviation.piloting to its chartered purpose.

Here's another copy for you. The bit about a new newsgroup is at the
end.

From: Larry Dighera
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Message-ID:


The "founder" of this rec.aviation.piloting usenet newsgroup,
Jeoff Peck, seems to have discontinued periodically posting its
charter. In the hope that knowledge of the charter will improve
the newsgroup's ever declining signal-to-noise ratio, I post it
he

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


: ************************************************** *****************
: * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
: * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
: * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
: * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
: * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
: * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
: * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
: * ground support facilities, etc.
: ************************************************** *****************


If members of the readership of rec.aviation.piloting feel that
the constraints of this duly enacted charter prevent them from
posting articles that might be classified as 'hangar flying'
topics (as opposed to 'piloting' topics) just say the word, and we
can start the process to have rec.aviation.hangar-flying
chartered, or they can post articles on those topics to
rec.aviation.misc.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/crea...sgroups/part1/


Discussion of the creation of new newsgroups is not allowed by the charter of
rec.aviation.piloting. Also, criticizing postings for being off topic is not
allowed by the charter of rec.aviation.piloting.

Really now, what is and isn't hanger flying? I sure has !@#$ don't
know.

Here's the charter posted earlier:
: * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation
aircraft
===== how is a pilot violating airspace & the story around it not
pertinent?

: * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
: * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited
to
: * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
===== the statue of liberty is definitely an intersting sight or
destination.

: * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
: * emergencies, working with air traffic control,
international
===== did the story not involve:
(a) an unusual situation ?
(b) working with ATC ?
: * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
: * ground support facilities, etc.


I really have to wonder - how many of my past posts to r.a.* have been
perfectly on topic? I try to (prior to this post) keep my comments
related to:
Stuff that matters to pilots of GA, and interested students etc...

I think the original article post was certainly on-topic for GA
pilots. It serves as a warning to others not to make the same mistake.
I don't want to have r.a.p split up into groups with less traffic and
less people to help someone when they have a serious question etc...

On 31 Dec 2003 11:45:31 -0800, wrote:

Discussion of the creation of new newsgroups is not allowed by the charter of
rec.aviation.piloting. Also, criticizing postings for being off topic is not
allowed by the charter of rec.aviation.piloting.

anonymous idiot. go away! NOW!

#m
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

On 31 Dec 2003 14:22:40 -0800, noah wrote:

I think the original article post was certainly on-topic for GA
pilots. It serves as a warning to others not to make the same mistake.
I don't want to have r.a.p split up into groups with less traffic and
less people to help someone when they have a serious question etc...

rec.aviation.misc exists. as long as there is no better fitting group it
belongs into the .misc group.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:44:50 GMT, EDR wrote:

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

Ah, gee, Larry!
Why don't you just create a catchall
rec.aviation.piloting.hangarflying.alcoholics group and be done with
it?

I've reread some of the followup articles in the threads related to
this subject, and it appears that what some folks really want is a
place to informally fraternize with other aviation-knowledgable peers
in a freeform social setting not unlike the conversations that might
occur in a public tavern or a hangar. Perhaps the name
rec.aviation.misc lacks the right nuance to attract those seeking such
intercourse.

A more fitting name for such a social newsgroup might be
rec.aviation.social, rec.aviation.public-house or rec.aviation.people.
Somehow, none of those names seems just right, but may be more
descriptive of the new newsgroup's intended content than
'hangar-flying'.


Here's a start at a Charter Draft:

rec.aviation.chatter

The rec.aviation.chatter newsgroup is for the purpose of polite
conversation among aviation knowledgable folks. The topics of the
subjects of articles posted to rec.aviation.chatter shall include
any topic not covered in the other rec.aviation.* newsgroups, and
shall particularly include, without being limited to, kibitzing,
coffee-klatch, rumor, speculation, computer-related support,
politics, religion, Boy Scouts, ... Profanity, vulgar remarks
and stories, flame fests, and like content shall be considered
unbecoming an Airman, and inappropriate for rec.aviation.chatter
as it is in all the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.


It's rough, but it is a start.