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

"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.

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

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

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.

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

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

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.

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

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

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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

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

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote 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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

Peter J Ross wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote 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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.

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