Tony wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
AOPA and POA. The first being that they appear U.S. centric. The
second that the layout is actually a backward step in user
friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded
newsreaders, it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only"
(non-Usenet) forum might help a little toward addressing the two
main issues (that I'm aware of, anyway.) This is Google's info on
creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as
the PIC of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because
of ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In
my opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people
attacks regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that
if someone like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called
out on it. If MX says something, he should get called out on it. If
Dudley says something great he should be praised for it. If MX says
something good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its
done here. No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what
Dudley says, he'll get praised. If you have a group of people
officially annointed as group moderators, this effect will only be
magnified and the discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then
strut around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer
put any effort into their postings because why bother when you are
already automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some
reason you aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their
messages or ban them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special"
on this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You
simply pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your
own amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've
been posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and
come up with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and
present it here for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very
interested to read what that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.


He doesn't do Gambits. He just flails around like a goldfish on the
floor.

Pretty much just like he flies.


Bertie