Moderated List

"Denny" wrote in message
...
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

denny

If you look, you can probably a lot of aviation groups that are already
moderated, hence the problem with this group. We get all the problem
children not allowed elsewhere.

The problem is finding one with a moderator that is either unusually fair
and gifted. Very few people possess the attitude to make a good moderator.

You need someone with at least 10 years experience in the topic of the
group, and 10 years experience running a day care center.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5a49e900a0c791

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Okay...

I took the trouble to review that thread up to a point, and could find
no ad-hominem attacks against you in the first 107 posts (in the order
given in that link). Some posters who I would loosely categorize as
"does not suffer fools gladly" such as perhaps Bertie, actually posted
useful followups (4, 9, 20, and 86, among others). There were attacks
against Mxsmanic, but that's an ongoing thing unrelated to your initial
post.

You didn't start getting personal nits until your post at 91 of that
thread in which you state "Let's face it. A large pecentage of people
walking this planet think there is a "suction" force."

That was essentially an attack on "a large percentage of people." If I
had been a co-moderator of a moderated piloting group with that thread,
I'd probably have approved your post 91 and Bertie's followup post at 92
because his "lost cause" statement was basically a statement about why
he'd not be trying to answer any further. But I might have included a
moderator warning of some sort.

The first real insult against you appears to be at post 108 by Bertie.
But it is response to post 107 by you in which you basically engaged in
a personal attack against two unnamed CFIs. Post 107 of yours was
borderline inflammatory - had you named names I'd have rejected it.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic, I saw lots of reasoned posts
directed in response to your post and from you in at least the first
100+ posts. People appear to have put a lot of effort into their
responses but you insisted on both claiming in need of some intuitive
understanding on one hand but on the other hand claimed to already
know all the physics and intuitively knew what was going on.
(A confusing mix of hubris and humility.)

Basically you appear to have been claiming knowledge and understanding
on one hand but claiming you needed help in gaining that very same
knowledge and understanding on the other. That in summary is possibly
why you were eventually pegged a troll and then personally attacked.

On Fri, 02 May 2008 18:54:53 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers left,
fer gawdsake.

Amusing. On the off chance you are serious...

No government of any sort is involved or proposed. Indeed, if they can't
tax it they'll want nothing to do with Usenet moderation.

Don't be such a dope, Logajan. I'm using the term metaphorically.



It's usenet, Denny: make your own moderation. Wussies who can't hack
it can go elsewhere.

The creation of a moderated group will in no way infringe on your right to
make a fool of yourself on this group. There already exist hundreds of
moderated groups and so far not one of them has stopped you from making
your absurd post. One more moderated group wont affect you.

No one is going to peel back your eyelids ala "A Clockwork Orange" and
force you to read a moderated group.


What's got into you?

Are you on pain medication or something?

On Fri, 2 May 2008 23:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Dan Luke wrote in
:

On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers left,
fer gawdsake.


Well, that's you out.

Bertie

Eh?

Dan Luke wrote in
:

On Fri, 2 May 2008 23:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Dan Luke wrote in
m:

On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Denny wrote:

We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Eh?

I'm surprised to hear a crotchety ol' conservative like you wishing
for more government! This is one of the last lawless frontiers
left,
fer gawdsake.


Well, that's you out.

Bertie

Eh?


Of the new moderated group.

Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Denny" wrote in message
news:1fc904ff-528a-4ba3-9b0b-
.
..
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

denny

If you look, you can probably a lot of aviation groups that are
already moderated, hence the problem with this group. We get all the
problem children not allowed elsewhere.


I'm allowed anywhere. and in fact poast frequently in some of them.


The problem is finding one with a moderator that is either unusually
fair and gifted. Very few people possess the attitude to make a good
moderator.

You need someone with at least 10 years experience in the topic of the
group, and 10 years experience running a day care center.


Snort!


Bertie

gregvk wrote in news:Xns9A936A705F761E817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvh4j3$58c$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvgc20$4ai$2
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvg64t$jdv$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvft57$jpe$4
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

"Bill Denton" wrote in
:

"author's full name, residential address, telephone number,
and
IP address"

I'm sure there is a spammer's database out there somewhere.

Why don't you just go ahead and send them all of that
information so they won't have to waste time crawling
newsgroups
to get it?





Now that's thinking outside the box.


Bertie

Rule #3 - Nobody may question, challenge or discuss the rules.
Anyone who does will be banned and may be prosecuted for
obstructing justice and/or disturbing the peace.

Rule #4 - Nobody may question, challenge or discuss the
authority
of the Moderator or the Moderator's decisions and actions.
Anyone
who does will be banned and may be prosecuted for obstructing
justice and/or disturbing the peace.


I'm liking the idea of this moderated group with me in charge
better al the time. Today rec.aviation.*.mod tomorrow the soc.*
hirarchy!


Bertie

Rule #5 - You unconditionally agree that anything and everything
you
post or try to post, even if not approved by the Moderator,
becomes
the exclusive personal property of the Moderator for use in any
way
he chooses.


Well, that just goes without saying.


Bertie

Rule #6 - If you have any post approved, the medieval concept of
"right of the first night" applies to all the virgins in your
extended
family, applicable as soon as they reach the age of consent.


What about their beer?


Bertie

Oh yeah, you might need "beer goggles" for the ugly ones. But let's
generalize the rule to allow for wine, whiskey, bourbon, etc.

Rule #6a - You must supply commerically prepared, legally acquired
beverages containing not less than 5% alcohol by volume to the
Moderator
if any such virgin is physically unattractive, mentally unstable, foul
smelling, or otherwise unappealing. The Moderator reserves the right
to
specify the type and quantity of the beverages.


Thenkew.


You've just gaurunteed yourself a slot in my cabinet when I rule the
world.


Bertie

On May 3, 1:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

One of my first posts to this group was essentially a re-examination
of whether backwash causes lift.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...owse_frm/threa...

There were numerous subsequent ad-hominem attacks by many licensed
pilots in this group, which, by definition, makes that post
inflammatory.

Okay...

I took the trouble to review that thread up to a point, and could find
no ad-hominem attacks against you in the first 107 posts (in the order
given in that link). Some posters who I would loosely categorize as
"does not suffer fools gladly" such as perhaps Bertie, actually posted
useful followups (4, 9, 20, and 86, among others). There were attacks
against Mxsmanic, but that's an ongoing thing unrelated to your initial
post.

We must be looking at different threads. I see numerous personal
attacks.

You didn't start getting personal nits until your post at 91 of that
thread in which you state "Let's face it. A large pecentage of people
walking this planet think there is a "suction" force."

This is true. It is not meant as an insult, and many of the people
who think there is a suction force do not see what the big deal is
until after they have learned, not from me, but from someone whose
opinion they trust, that indeed, there is no suction force, so it can
hardly be seen as a personal attack against them, because they do not
yet know that what they think is incorrect. In any case, it is not
meant to be a personal attack, but simply an illustration that what
people perceive is not necessarily what is actually happening.

That was essentially an attack on "a large percentage of people." If I
had been a co-moderator of a moderated piloting group with that thread,
I'd probably have approved your post 91 and Bertie's followup post at 92
because his "lost cause" statement was basically a statement about why
he'd not be trying to answer any further. But I might have included a
moderator warning of some sort.

We obviously have a difference in opinion here. I see multiple attacks
from multiple people early in the discussion.

The first real insult against you appears to be at post 108 by Bertie.
But it is response to post 107 by you in which you basically engaged in
a personal attack against two unnamed CFIs. Post 107 of yours was
borderline inflammatory - had you named names I'd have rejected it.

Those were not attacks against the CFI's. Those CFI's never read this
group. Secondly, stating that at CFI does not know the physical basis
of 29.92 is not necessarily a personal attack. What does it mean to
not know? It simply means that that CFI does not know.

When I grade exams in computer science, and I give someone a sub-par
grade because it is apparent that they do not understand, is that a
personal attack? Should I write, "You're getting a C-. Please don't
take it personally....I'm not attacking you, it's just that it is
clear that you do not understand...." on every exam?

I think a bit of objectivity is in order. Calling someone names using
expletives, or calling them dumb, or saying, "No way in hell are you
an engineer..." those are personal attacks. Stating that a CFI does
not know the physical significance of 29.92, who, by the way, readily
and voluntarily admitted that he did not know, is not personal attack
at all, IMO. It's a simple fact. Since you broached the subject, I
actually had more respect for him after he admitted not knowing than I
would have had for someone pretending to know.

Under the rules you write above, would that post have been accepted or
rejected in a moderate group?

Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic, I saw lots of reasoned posts
directed in response to your post and from you in at least the first
100+ posts. People appear to have put a lot of effort into their
responses but you insisted on both claiming in need of some intuitive
understanding on one hand but on the other hand claimed to already
know all the physics and intuitively knew what was going on.
(A confusing mix of hubris and humility.)

I saw a few reasoned responses, and many ad hominem attacks, more of
the latter than the former, the entire thread considered. For example,
you mention, "Other than the attacks on Mxsmanic"...but if you read
the thread, you will see numerous claims that Mxsmanic and I were
being declared to the the same person, with insults directed at both
of us.

Basically you appear to have been claiming knowledge and understanding
on one hand but claiming you needed help in gaining that very same
knowledge and understanding on the other. That in summary is possibly
why you were eventually pegged a troll and then personally attacked.

So...you are saying I was attacked or not? It cannot be both.

Also, I viewed that thread as a discussion, not a request for
knowledge. Wikipedia is ominpresent. I have CFI's available. I have
my Jepp books. I have FAA web site. There are university online
resources. I have the bookstore. Sources of knowledge is readily
available.

What I expressed was my own opinion about backwash and lift, which
conflicted, at the very least, with the idea that the basics of lift
were already well-understood by pilots.

I think that the people who attacked me were unnerved by the idea that
something that they were supposed to have learned and understood was
being revisited by someone not possessing a pilot's license.

In any case, if the discussion had pertained to things I do know
about, like electronics, chemistry, or computers...the last thing I
would have done was personally attack the poster.

I do not think that is necessary. For any reason.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...


You've just gaurunteed yourself a slot in my cabinet when I rule the
world.


Bertie

Yeah air head, that's on topic.

Well, I have been busy and in my absence the usual thread drift has
happened on schedule as expected...

Anyway, I was not thinking of the moderator doing anything special but
blocking the spammers - the porn ads, the fake rolex's, etc...
As far as the 3 year olds on here throwing spit balls at each other, I
ignore that...

denny