McCain in '08

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:05:38 -0500, (Tim
Skirvin) wrote in ::

Larry Dighera writes:

How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/so...cripts/faqpost

That's what I use.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Many thinks, Mr. Skirvin. I had overlooked the necessity to generate
a unique Expires: header for each instance of posting, and some other
items.

I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles? There
is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other message
header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

Owen Hiller wrote:
gatt wrote:

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
they only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
Kerry who brought up Vietnam

Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
boat frauds?

What "frauds" are you referring to? Please describe. And who was using said frauds
you allege to obtain higher office?




A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,

A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReport...20060113a.html

"Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"

Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor...-_b_24751.html

If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.

It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.

Hey, I wasn't the one who couldn't figure out why the swift boat veterans would want
to rebut claims AFTER they were made Ann Coulter makes a living by making
outrageous statements, so what? Huffington is a liberal axe-grinder, hardly an
unbiased source either. And as for your moderate voice article, you did note the
word "apoligize," right?

The bottom line is that the SBV"t" attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam
in a manner that could be described as dishonest. The fact is that the
overwhelming majority of guys who were with Kerry (on his boat) or near
Kerry (on other boats) in combat, have no problem with Kerry's medals
and/or service in Vietnam.

The SBV"t" misrepresented the facts. They omitted facts when it suited
then, and they spun wildly.

Actually, describing it as dishonest would be an understatement.

Doug Reese

:-)

Larry Dighera writes:

How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/so...cripts/faqpost
That's what I use.

I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles?

It is not; but all of the moderated groups that I run require PGP
signatures for anything that's posted to them, as anything that's *not*
appropriately PGP-signed is automatically cancelled (and filtered through
NoCeM as well). So I put in the effort to make sure that my own FAQs are
safe. You can probably ignore that part unless you start doing
complicated things.

There is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other
message header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

A quick Google search came up with this:

http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/writing/#writing

These aren't requirements, they're just the rules for submitting
things through to news.answers. (There's problems with news.answers at the
moment, too, so that might not be that helpful; but it's a good
introduction.)

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *

wrote:
Owen Hiller wrote:

gatt wrote:


"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...


If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
they only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
Kerry who brought up Vietnam

Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
boat frauds?

What "frauds" are you referring to? Please describe. And who was using said frauds
you allege to obtain higher office?




A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,

A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReport...20060113a.html

"Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"

Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor...-_b_24751.html


If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.

It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.

Hey, I wasn't the one who couldn't figure out why the swift boat veterans would want
to rebut claims AFTER they were made Ann Coulter makes a living by making
outrageous statements, so what? Huffington is a liberal axe-grinder, hardly an
unbiased source either. And as for your moderate voice article, you did note the
word "apoligize," right?


The bottom line is that the SBV"t" attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam
in a manner that could be described as dishonest. The fact is that the
overwhelming majority of guys who were with Kerry (on his boat) or near
Kerry (on other boats) in combat, have no problem with Kerry's medals
and/or service in Vietnam.

The SBV"t" misrepresented the facts. They omitted facts when it suited
then, and they spun wildly.

Actually, describing it as dishonest would be an understatement.

Agreed. Describing Kerry as dishonest would be a huge understatement.

Matt

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.


Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Those exist on nearly every group I've seen. Whether they have an
agenda, or they are trolling the effect is the same.


Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!

Agreed. I think we have more than enough groups with enough topics
already and one more would just dilute the existing ones leaving us
with a higher signal to noise ratio. There will always be a signal to
noise ratio that rises and falls on any non-moderated group and some
moderated ones. They come and go. Ignore 'em and sooner of later they
finally get tired or Darwinism cleans the gene pool. Admittedly some
come from the shallow end of the pool and will post for the sake of
posting whether ignored or not. However those posters tend to follow
the groups. Normally a subject line says it all. One look and I know
if I want to read it, ignore it, kill file the thread, or killfile the
poster.

Of all options, new news groups, complaining, arguing with the poster,
or the delete key, delete is the easiest, and by far the least
stressful.

To me another aviation group is just a waste of time and computing
resources.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

"Jim Riley" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

I thought about proposing soc.military.missile.pilot but we ran out of
posters

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:50:56 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).

Pretty much the same in Rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, and
rec.photo.zlr. zlr only gets a token posting, while dslr and digital
are almost carbon copies of each other (with a few exceptions)

The question to ask is why is a new group or groups being proposed?
If it's due to OT posts, political rants which are OT posts, people
who cant get along, or just a plain high signal to noise they want to
avoid, none of these are valid reasons or will they work.

OTOH if there are enough people to make another newsgroup active and
viable, that is a topic not now adequately covered it's worth a try,
but there are a lot of dead news groups that sounded like a good idea
to people at the time. "In general" for most topics we already have
too many news groups and another one just dilutes the content on those
already in existence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com