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.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in
::

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.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

Larry Dighera wrote:

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard" because
it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

B/

I was reading , made by the
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
and I became inspired,

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard" because
it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

B/

I see.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting.

Yes, at least to the extent that politics affects aviation, which is
quite a bit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.

B/

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

I think he means that it would =not= mitigate the issue, in fact it may
make it worse (due to crossposting and multple posting).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.