Proposal For A New Rec.Aviation Newsgroup. (WAS: McCain in '08)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
wrote:


Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate


I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired


My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation? If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:44:34 -0700, Sam Spade wrote in
6j6ug.782$_M.147@fed1read04:

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation?

Yes.

The rec.* newsgroups are one of the Big-8. Here are
the eight hierarchies:

comp.* Computer topics, both hardware and software.
news.* Administration of the Big 8, as well as about Usenet and
Netnews in general, and related topics.
sci.* Science and technology.
humanities.* The humanities.
rec.* Recreational topics, including music, sports, games,
outdoor recreation, hobbies, crafts, ...
soc.* Socializing, society, and social issues.
talk.* Endless discussion, largely about politics.
misc.* A mixture of newsgroups that don’t fit the other
7 hierarchies. Many are about the practical aspects of everyday life.

If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

Heh heh. There's a lot of "regulatory combat" going on in news.groups
right now. :-O

Be that as it may, I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
the charter of a newsgroup.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

I was reading , made
by the entity known as Henrietta K Thomas, that requests spam to be
sent to and I became inspired,

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

I like this.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

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