AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Piloting (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   VFR Flight Following -- What's going on here? (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=29233)

Jay Honeck June 23rd 05 09:52 PM

Perhaps that was my problem -- I didn't consider the lack of planning
(i.e.: Poor radio coverage in the Rantoul area) on Chicago's part to be
an emergency on my part.


Only you would consider the results of an unannounced descent into poor
reception a lack of planning on the part of ATC.


I *knew* someone would misinterpret my feeble joke (note the smiley
face?) -- but I didn't expect it to be YOU, George!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Larry Dighera June 24th 05 02:09 AM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:13:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.


For better or worse, there is a lot of behavior on Usenet that was generally
frowned upon historically, but which is now accepted practice.


It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it. Granted, that ever
since the 'September that never ended' there has been an influx of
less than netiquette aware Usenet participants. But that's no reason
to accept their disregard for netiquette. I'm sure, that even you
wouldn't condone accepting the posting of spam articles on Usenet just
because it occurs.

IMHO, the main person anonymity hurts is the person being anonymous.
Without a real name, there's less credibility.


I would characterize the issue of anonymity as being more about
accountability than credibility, although they go hand in hand.

I agree that using assumed or partial names is foolish, and perhaps it is
even a sign of cowardice. But each person has their own reasons, and I
think it's poor policy for other individuals to ignore those reasons,
however foolish or cowardly they might be, without good cause (ie there's
some very important reason the identity of the person needs to be known).


We disagree. I think it's poor policy to permit anonymous Usenet
posting. I would even assert that it tends to degrade the
signal-to-noise ratio of Usenet.

Usenet is inherently anonymous.


Virtually all TCP/IP traffic is traceable.

I see no good reason to harass (and I use that word carelessly)


There was no intent to harass anyone; I posted publicly available
information (adequately anonymized), and asked a question.

those who choose to extend that anonymity a little bit by choosing to not
use a full name to post.


We disagree about Usenet anonymity.


There's some information about the controversial issue of munging
e-mail addresses he

http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

ct: 4. Actions

4a. Why should I mung my address?

- It is an effective way to avoid junk email.

Junk emailers "harvest" email addresses from Usenet posts.
Most address harvesting software used by junk emailers does not
discriminate; anything with an '@' sign is considered an
address.
By changing what appears in the From: and/or Reply-To: headers
of Usenet posts, the amount of unsolicited bulk/commercial
email (UBE/UCE) received drops considerably.

- It is easy to do compared to other methods of avoiding UBE/UCE.

- It lowers the percentage of good addresses harvested by the
address thieves.

4b. Why should I NOT mung my address?

- It breaks the automated 'reply by email' feature found in most
newsreaders, forcing people to manually de-mung the address in
order to email topical replies to your posts.

- If you use the same software for Usenet and email, you will
have to change the address regularly, to avoid sending regular
email with a munged address.

- It violates RFCs, the rules upon which Usenet is built.

(It should also be noted that munging does not automatically
cause messages to bounce back to junk emailers; if you are
considering munging for this reason, you would not accomplish
your goal. Also, depending on what and where you post, a
junkster *may* take the time to manually de-mung your address,
just for spite.)


Peter R. June 24th 05 03:26 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.


Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take it
to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting newsgroup
and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Blanche June 24th 05 03:42 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
[...]
There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.


For better or worse, there is a lot of behavior on Usenet that was generally
frowned upon historically, but which is now accepted practice.


That's because computers are being sold in grocery stores to people
that are using it as incredibly expensive scratch pads and surfing
the web. In other words, it's another television.



Jay Honeck June 24th 05 03:59 AM

It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.

Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take
it
to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting newsgroup
and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.


Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity on the
piloting newsgroups if NOT here?

As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If anonymity
was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve, as posters
would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Peter R. June 24th 05 04:28 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity
on the piloting newsgroups if NOT here?


Based on my interpretation of his incessant whining, Larry was
discussing Usenet anonymity and the decline of Usenet in general,
not its specific impact on this particular group.

And, coming from the very man who was on a crusade several months back to
stop the OT posting going on here, I find it humorous that Larry continues
to post this group's charter, yet rant off topic when it fits his agenda.

So, to answer your question, discuss the decline of Usenet he

alt.fan.Janeane-Garofalo



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Montblack June 24th 05 06:17 AM

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If
anonymity was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve,
as posters would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.



I disagree 'almost' 100% with Larry (and you) on this issue. Cowards??
Goodness gracious!

I worked for years at the Brewery with guys named Red, Whitey, Tex, Butch,
Swanee, Bud, Slim, etc. That's how I knew them. In these newsgroups, as long
as you can match a moniker to a posting history, that's all that really
matters, IMHO.

I'm not even buying that signal to noise reasoning since (aside from the
occasional outside nonsensical spam) many of the "low" s2n threads around
here are propagated by folks using their real names.


Montblack


Jay Honeck June 24th 05 02:07 PM

I disagree 'almost' 100% with Larry (and you) on this issue. Cowards??
Goodness gracious!

I worked for years at the Brewery with guys named Red, Whitey, Tex, Butch,
Swanee, Bud, Slim, etc. That's how I knew them. In these newsgroups, as
long as you can match a moniker to a posting history, that's all that
really matters, IMHO.


There are always exceptions, of course. You, Newps, and Maule Driver all
come to mind as good, solid Usenet citizens, even though you choose to
remain (somewhat) anonymous.

Unfortunately, for every example of good, I can name three anonymous
evil-doers (I *love* that word!) -- or, worse, guys who appear to be using
their real names, but are actually using a real-LOOKING pen name -- who are
really nasty, and contribute little to the conversation.

Luckily, these aviation groups are the least polluted. Go over to the Ford
Mustang group, or any political group, and you'll see how bad it can get.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Newps June 24th 05 03:54 PM



Matt Barrow wrote:




Will he know who you are?


Yep, he did all the work at the shop. He recently quit and now is the
manager at RPX.



Matt Barrow June 24th 05 05:50 PM


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s71...
It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.


Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take
it
to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting

newsgroup
and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.


Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity on the
piloting newsgroups if NOT here?

As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If

anonymity
was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve, as

posters
would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.


In this day of stalkers, identity thieves, etc., anyone who posts all their
personal info has got to be nuts.

Besides, what damn difference does it make if someone posts under their
birth name or as "Joe Blow"? Does it give their arguments one more gram of
credibility or one less?

Damn it, learn to judge the argument by it's logic and factual basis, not
the wrapper it comes in.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com