McCain in '08

In a previous article, said:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:48:34 -0400, zatatime wrote in
:

... I would like to see the political conversations in their own group as
well.

In an unmoderated group like r.a.p., it is virtually impossible to stop
thread drift.

But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You are all but subwidgets in a composite container whose logical tab
group I have registered the traversal order of. I can merely point at you
and your popup dialogue will be unmapped unless XmNautoUnmanage is False."

by (Paul Tomblin) Jul 13, 2006 at 02:33 PM



But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.




This thread did NOT start as a political statement. Someone from the
Angry, Loony Left immediately turned it into such, reflexively engaging in
character assassination.

"Skylune" wrote:

by (Paul Tomblin) Jul 13, 2006 at 02:33 PM



But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.




This thread did NOT start as a political statement. Someone from the
Angry, Loony Left immediately turned it into such, reflexively engaging in
character assassination.

You are claiming that a thread titled "McCain in '08" was not a
political statement? Incredible!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote in :

In a previous article, said:

In an unmoderated group like r.a.p., it is virtually impossible to stop
thread drift.

But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.

I classify OT posting as "thread drift." I understand that this is
an enlargement of the concept. shrug Stuff happens, especially
when dealing with humans.

That said, if anyone is serious about pursuing a new group for
whatever reasons, a description of the newsgroup creation
process for the Big-8 is available at http://www.big-8.org.

If the whole thread was a joke, then I grin, a bit. )

Marty

"Skylune" wrote in message
I agree with Gatt, except that Kerry HIMSELF opened up his war record for
inspection when he ran a "I'm not W, and I am a Vietnam war veteran"
campaign. Remember the DNC?: "John Kerry: reporting for duty" was his
opening line.

In that case I'd say it's fair so long as the interpretation of those
records is truthful by all parties, which is to say, the people claiming
he's a hero and the people claiming he's a fraud. If you make the claim, it
should be subject to review and verification.

You never hear McCain bragging about being a war-hero.

It frequently takes Ex-POWs three or four decades to begin talking much
about their experience at all; many never do. In my experience with old
warriors I've come to the opinion that the harder they struggled, the less
inclined they are to discuss it.

-c

("alexy" wrote)
You are claiming that a thread titled "McCain in '08" was not a political
statement? Incredible!


I went back and reread De Loon De Loon's OP.

1. It was ALL about GA.

2. It was refreshing to see DL DL not quote the entire previous post - for a
change. (DL DL, we talked about this!) ...it helped that it was a fresh
thread. g

3. Owing to DL DL's consistent views on all things Boyer, the subject line:
McCain in '08 was hilarious.

4. McCain is a US Senator. AOPA "President" Boyer deals with politicians,
daily. Of course it was a political post - relating to GA.


Montblack

OK the title was political. The attached commentary was GA related. I
should have titled it McCain vs. the Destroyer.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:48:26 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

It was serious.

Then here's all you have to do:


http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...icies:creation

Overview
Each of these steps is described in more detail below.

1. (optional) The proponent may start an informal discussion in
news.groups and in related groups about the proposed group.

2. The proponent submits a Request For Discussion (RFD) to
news.announce.newgroups.

3. Discussion of the RFD takes place primarily in news.groups.

4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

5. The board votes on the proposal.

6. If the proposal passes, it is implemented.


It sure look simple. To begin the process, start a message thread
with the subject: RFD rec.aviation.politics, and cross post it to
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr, and new.groups.


Or, go right to it:

2. Request for Discussion (RFD)
The proponent submits his/her proposal to the newsgroup
news.announce.newgroups by posting to the group or by emailing the
proposal to . This
submission is known as a Request For Discussion, or RFD.

The RFD should be cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers might
be interested in or affected by the proposed group. It should also
be cross-posted to news.groups, and followups should be directed
there. (If you do not know how to set followups in your
newsreader, we will help you figure it out. The line that needs to
be included in the RFD header field is “Followup-to:
news.groups”.)

Some information is required in the RFD:

newsgroup name
Checkgroups file entry
whether the newsgroup will be moderated or unmoderated
if moderated, who the initial moderator(s) will be, including
their contact addresses

Some information is not required, but is strongly encouraged:

rationale
charter
moderation policy, if moderated

Other information which supports the creation of the newsgroup may
be included. For example, this could include:

traffic analysis
moderation site and software
Each of these items is discussed in greater detail here.

As discussion of the RFD progresses in news.groups, the proponent
should submit revised RFDs to news.announce.newgroups et al.

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote

I doubt that the proposal is serious. Even if it was, I doubt that an
aviation/politics group would change human nature and prevent
thread drift in r.a.p.

It was serious. In the current North Korea thread (thanks Jay, ya big
butthead) it was started as a political discussion, from the beginning.
That could have just as easily started over there. I think it has finally
died, thankfully.
--
Jim in NC

It frequently takes Ex-POWs three or four decades to begin talking much
about their experience at all; many never do. In my experience with old
warriors I've come to the opinion that the harder they struggled, the
less

inclined they are to discuss it.

-c



Yes, or never. My dad was a vet, and briefly a POW in WWII. He died a
few years ago, and only once or twice did he ever discuss his war
experiences with me. He would not watch war films which he said glorified
combat and did not capture the horror. The only stories I heard were from
my mom, who would recall what little he told her.

When "Saving Private Ryan" came out a few years back, I got him to go see
it with me. He left within the first three minutes and said something to
the effect that there was no good reason to watch this film.

My guess is that McCain will not want to discuss his POW experiences ever.
If he starts to use them for political advantage (ala Kerry), I would
certainly not support the man.

Take care, Skylune out.