Lost stories here

"mad8" wrote in message
ps.com...

Danny Deger wrote:
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.

what's annoying is that rec.aviation.stories is (almost) completely
empty because of moderation...


It was empty for a long time for lack of a moderator. But, that problem has
been recently rectified. I was thinking myself that that is where this
thread should have been.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:13:36 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in
:

"mad8" wrote in message
ups.com...

Danny Deger wrote:
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.

what's annoying is that rec.aviation.stories is (almost) completely
empty because of moderation...


It was empty for a long time for lack of a moderator. But, that problem has
been recently rectified. I was thinking myself that that is where this
thread should have been.

The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

Here's some information about the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup as
written by the late Mr. Geoff Peck creator of the rec.aviation.*
newsgroup hierarchy:

CHARTER
-------
rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)
A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).

Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.

Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.

....

rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.

A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).

....

Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"

A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading
lists, since it will be low-volume and will contain short
articles. Readers will accord .stories a special place, since
they'll want to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few
articles which are posted to that group. And readers will want
to consult .answers when they have a particular question which
they may guess has been asked before -- or when they wish to
start exploring a new area.

Q: "Why aren't there more moderated groups?"

A: I believe that on the most part that we have a really good
group of individuals on the net, and trust them to post
appropriately. Sometimes, this doesn't happen, but this is
relatively rare. In my opinion, a group should be moderated only
when the group's charter inherently requires careful filtering of
content -- announcements (i.e., rec.aviation.events), automated
dissemination (rec.aviation.answers), editing
(rec.aviation.digest), or editorial style control
(rec.aviation.stories). Ideally, a moderated group would
should [sic] sufficiently low traffic that most readers are happy
to read it first -- before any unmoderated groups.

An alternative philosophy to group moderation is to use it as a
mechanism to reduce "noisy" posts. One caveat here is that one's
person signal may be another person's noise. If a group which is
created by this re-organization turns out to be "noisy", an
RFD/CFV can be done to convert that troup [sic] to moderated. I
suggest that it's preferable to try most groups as an unmoderated
group first and see if (a) moderation is _really_ necessary and
(b) a moderator volunteers.
....

Larry Dighera wrote:
The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
pretty much "own" the group.

The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
original moderator died. Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
them would have been appropriate to that group. IMHO I suspect the original
r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories should have been allowed as well
as follow-ups.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:31:32 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
pretty much "own" the group.

The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
original moderator died. Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
them would have been appropriate to that group. IMHO I suspect the original
r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories should have been allowed as well
as follow-ups.

Jim is a longtime Usenet moderator. He knows more
about this stuff than I do.

He's 100% right.

You're free to modify the policies of the group
as time goes on.

See what works.

A newsgroup with no news is no fun. (

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:31:32 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
pretty much "own" the group.

That's the way I understand it too. But I think I'll stick with the
original charter until a need to deviate presents itself.

The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
original moderator died.

I believe that was due to Mr. Peck's lack of performing moderation
duties during that period. I know I submitted stories, and they went
into a black hole without any response.

Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
them would have been appropriate to that group.

If anyone would like to publish their stories posted to this message
thread, they can do so by posting them to rec.aviation.stories. They
might even consider crossposting them to both newsgroups.

IMHO I suspect the original r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories
should have been allowed

What do you feel would be a reasonable lower limit? How many words,
lines or bytes?

as well as follow-ups.

I disagree with you here, with the possible exception of corrections.
Follow up discussion can take place in the appropriate rec.aviation.*
newsgroups. That will prevent the stories from being lost amongst the
clutter of extemporaneous chit chat.

In short, I believe the existence of an aviation newsgroup that is
devoid of contentious argument and inane blather is worth preserving.
There are plenty of other newsgroups that provide a forum for that
sort of content already.

Of course, I would prefer that the stories submitted to the
rec.aviation.stories newsgroup were well written, perfectly formatted,
grammatically correct, polished literary works that reflected
positively on the aviation community, but I'm a realist. As the
current acting moderator of the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup, I am
committed to approving any story submitted that falls within the
current charter guidelines.

So, sharpen your quill, gather your wits, and commit your interesting,
entertaining, informative and enlightening thoughts and experiences to
an article submission, be it non-fiction or fictional, and post it to
rec.aviation.stories.

CHARTER

rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)

A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).

Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.

Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.

....

rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.

A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).

....

Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"

A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading lists,
since it will be low-volume and will contain short articles.
Readers will accord .stories a special place, since they'll want
to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few articles which are
posted to that group.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
... Of course, I would prefer that the stories submitted to the
rec.aviation.stories newsgroup were well written, perfectly formatted,
grammatically correct, polished literary works that reflected
positively on the aviation community, but I'm a realist. As the
current acting moderator of the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup, I am
committed to approving any story submitted that falls within the
current charter guidelines.

So, sharpen your quill, gather your wits, and commit your interesting,
entertaining, informative and enlightening thoughts and experiences to
an article submission, be it non-fiction or fictional, and post it to
rec.aviation.stories.

CHARTER

rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)

A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).

How short is too short?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:02:53 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in
:

How short is too short?

One reader suggested that the stories published in this message should
qualify for rec.aviation.stories. They are generally a few paragraphs
in length. I would judge submissions more on their merit than their
length.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:35:44 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:02:53 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in
m:

How short is too short?
thread ---------|
V
One reader suggested that the stories published in this message should
qualify for rec.aviation.stories. They are generally a few paragraphs
in length. I would judge submissions more on their merit than their
length.