Posting idea??

With all of these nonsense posts/threads ...I have an idea:

If someone (or many of us at one time) would reply to these threads, but
remove rec.aviation - would the thread then follow that post - with rec
aviation removed? Throw the hounds off our scent so to speak. Could it work?

Regardless if it will work or not, if people want to post to (outside group)
nonsense threads, would it be too much to ask you to remove rec.aviation
from your reply? Thanks.

Go play in their sandbox if that sounds fun, but come back here - alone. We
really don't want those other newsgroups playing in our sandbox. They smell.


Montblack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/
They Live (1988)

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
If someone (or many of us at one time) would reply to these threads, but
remove rec.aviation - would the thread then follow that post - with rec
aviation removed? Throw the hounds off our scent so to speak. Could it
work?

Only for the replies to posts made by people who remove this newsgroup.
Other posts (generally, those from people outside this newsgroup) would
continue to show up here, because no one else will bother to remove this
newsgroup.

Regardless if it will work or not, if people want to post to (outside
group) nonsense threads, would it be too much to ask you to remove
rec.aviation from your reply? Thanks.

IMHO, that's essentially the same suggestion. And I do agree that if
anyone here really wants to get suckered into responding to one of these
threads, they certainly should not leave this newsgroup in the list. But
since (one hopes) most of the replies are from people outside this
newsgroup, doing so isn't going to decrease the traffic from those threads
very much.

I find junking the entire thread to be very effective (not just marking it
as read). I use Outlook Express's "Ignore Conversation" command, along with
a message view that hides all ignored messages to get them out of my
awareness entirely. The only hint that they continue is the unread message
count for the newsgroup.

Pete

On 02/23/06 13:41, Montblack wrote:
With all of these nonsense posts/threads ...I have an idea:

If someone (or many of us at one time) would reply to these threads, but
remove rec.aviation - would the thread then follow that post - with rec
aviation removed? Throw the hounds off our scent so to speak. Could it work?

Except for those that just respond to the original article, and replies to
that, etc.


Regardless if it will work or not, if people want to post to (outside group)
nonsense threads, would it be too much to ask you to remove rec.aviation
from your reply? Thanks.

This is the real answer. Really, the nutballs should just be ignored. However,
I guess that is just asking too much ;-\

I rarely respond to the OT posts (I don't think I ever have, but I hate to
say 'never'), but for those that must, it sure sounds like a solution, except
that some newsgroup has to be left in the list - which group should be punished?


Go play in their sandbox if that sounds fun, but come back here - alone. We
really don't want those other newsgroups playing in our sandbox. They smell.

I just [sigh...] don't think it will work, but it sure sounds nice, doesn't it?

Personally, I've never understood the desire some have to engage in those
threads. In most cases, they seem to be trying to prove to the nutball that
he/she is a nutball. Do they really think this is possible?

.... but now I'm getting off topic ;-)



Montblack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/
They Live (1988)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

How about just ignoring them altogether and let them die. Do not be
tempted to reply.

Ross

Montblack wrote:

With all of these nonsense posts/threads ...I have an idea:

If someone (or many of us at one time) would reply to these threads, but
remove rec.aviation - would the thread then follow that post - with rec
aviation removed? Throw the hounds off our scent so to speak. Could it
work?

Regardless if it will work or not, if people want to post to (outside
group) nonsense threads, would it be too much to ask you to remove
rec.aviation from your reply? Thanks.

Go play in their sandbox if that sounds fun, but come back here - alone.
We really don't want those other newsgroups playing in our sandbox. They
smell.


Montblack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/
They Live (1988)

"Montblack" wrote in
:

With all of these nonsense posts/threads ...I have an idea:
Snipola

Another idea, taken from some other groups I follow, is to
have a keyword in the subject line. Like, begin all subject
lines with "[piloting]". Then, just make one filter that
only lets in messages with that keyword and block all others.
This will greatly reduce crossposts from other groups. But
it will require all the regulars here to agree to this,
otherwise it won't work.

Probably not the best solution, but tendered nonetheless.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On 02/23/06 15:38, Skywise wrote:
"Montblack" wrote in
:

With all of these nonsense posts/threads ...I have an idea:
Snipola

Another idea, taken from some other groups I follow, is to
have a keyword in the subject line. Like, begin all subject
lines with "[piloting]". Then, just make one filter that
only lets in messages with that keyword and block all others.
This will greatly reduce crossposts from other groups. But
it will require all the regulars here to agree to this,
otherwise it won't work.

Actually, it would also require that any newcomers adhere to
it as well (even when they may not be aware of it - which will
make it pretty hard for them), or their posts would be ignored
by all the participating regulars.

.... just an observation, not trying to be critical ;-)


Probably not the best solution, but tendered nonetheless.

Brian


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:41:16 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

I have an idea:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/soft...tkeeping-seal/
Posting software SHOULD prevent the user from excessive
cross-posting, or at least warn against it. If posting to a very
large number of groups, the user SHOULD either be forced or
strongly suggested to set a "Followup-To" header.

Mark Hansen wrote in news:11vsig6llc9vdd9
@corp.supernews.com:

Snipola
Actually, it would also require that any newcomers adhere to
it as well (even when they may not be aware of it - which will
make it pretty hard for them), or their posts would be ignored
by all the participating regulars.

... just an observation, not trying to be critical ;-)

In the groups that I know that do this, there are a few people
that happen to not run with that filter and when they see a
ligit newcommer, they tell them about the filter.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

If it works, count me in.

The Monk

Jose wrote in news:BasLf.16793$tb3.7350
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

begin all subject
lines with "[piloting]"

It would also require spammers to not catch on.

Jose

Spammers are interested in hitting as many groups as possible in
one go. They aren't going to take the time to check charters, or
lurk in a group to see what the 'rules' are, etc... Outsiders,
such as those who decide to crosspost their drivel from other
groups aren't going to know either.

Yes, there may be the occasional asshole who does take the time
to infiltrate the group, but since most don't it makes the few
exceptions much easier to deal with.

Of course, we could also go the communistic dictator censorship
route and complain to our news providers and let them decide what
we should or should not see. Sorry, just a jab at Supernews.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?