Where do posters go?

I'll second Dan's observation. I've learned more about aviation on Usenet
than in all my years of hanging out at airports. And the chance to discuss
(debate?) issues of the day with such an intelligent crowd is simply
outstanding.


I'll third Jay's observation. These boards have been and continue to
be a tremendous help. In fact, I take this opportunity to thank
everybody who's provided input to my brilliantly soporific inquiries
since 2001.

I don't hang out at the airport any longer than I have too since I
work there. Besides, it's easier to flame and be flamed without
immediate physical repercussions on Usenet.

Alex

On 1 Dec 2003 04:59:06 -0800, (Koopas Ly)
wrote in Message-Id:
:

These boards have been and continue to
be a tremendous help. In fact, I take this opportunity to thank
everybody who's provided input to my brilliantly soporific inquiries
since 2001.

I find it interesting that you have frequented usenet for two years
and still failed to learn that it contains no bulletin BOARDS. The
discussion groups are formally referred to as 'newsgroups:'
http://bianca.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/.../b.html#bboard
http://bianca.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/...html#newsgroup

it contains no bulletin BOARDS. The
discussion groups are formally referred to as 'newsgroups:'


But if you're not in a tux, is it ok to call them boards?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 01 Dec 2003 15:29:00 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: :

But if you're not in a tux, is it ok to call them boards?

It's okay to call them anything you choose; it just displays your
ignorance publicly. One would think an airman would strive to use the
correct terms given the fact that aviation is rife with such
specifics.

My objection to referring to usenet newsgroups as bulletin boards is
that, that epithet conveys a sense of informal posting not intended
when usenet was conceived. Anyone who fails to appreciate the
difference does the usenet community a disservice IMNSHO.

Heres a quote for you:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
(Note that the correct term is "newsgroups"; they are not called
areas, bases, boards, bboards, conferences, round tables, SIGs,
echoes, rooms or usergroups! Nor, as noted above, are they part
of the Internet, though they may reach your site over it.
Furthermore, the people who run the news systems are called news
administrators, not sysops. If you want to be understood, be
accurate.)

You can educate yourself about usenet he
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/


But were just trolling....

I agree the distinction is important (my pet peeve is the misuse of the word
"crossposting", as both crossposting and doubleposting have their uses, but
doing one instead of the other is usually bad). However I am amused by the
juxtaposition of "informal" and "not intended" and "usenet"


conveys a sense of informal posting not intended
when usenet was conceived.


Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

YES. No use being pedantic.

Whoa, whoa WHOA! This is a FAMILY board! If you insist on this deviant
sex talk please take it somewhere else!

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

YES. No use being pedantic.

Whoa, whoa WHOA! This is a FAMILY board! If you insist on this deviant
sex talk please take it somewhere else!

What's your problem? It's not like he said "necrotic" or anything. Now
*that* would have been awful.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:09:14 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

YES. No use being pedantic.

Whoa, whoa WHOA! This is a FAMILY board! If you insist on this deviant
sex talk please take it somewhere else!

What's your problem? It's not like he said "necrotic" or anything. Now
*that* would have been awful.

Uh... right.

Rob

Peter Duniho wrote:

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

YES. No use being pedantic.

Whoa, whoa WHOA! This is a FAMILY board! If you insist on this deviant
sex talk please take it somewhere else!

What's your problem? It's not like he said "necrotic" or anything.

Or "niggardly".

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

They posters who stopped either:
a) graduated from high school
b) ran out of training money
c) crashed either their hard drive or their plane.


"James Blakely" wrote in
message ...
I've noticed something interesting about the aviation newsgroups: posters
tend to disappear. I don't mean the posts getting lost, I mean that
certain
people will post for a while and then just stop.

The way I see it, these groups have 3 types of inhabitants: the prolific
posters, the lurk mostly but post sometimes (who I feel I am a part), and
then people who post for a while and then disappear.

For example, a year or so ago, someone by the name of Tracey was asking
about questions about the medical. It seemed that she was on some sort of
medication that may have been a problem. She posted for a good 3 or 6
months and then nothing.

Another example: When I first started lurking this group, there are a
gentleman who worked as a professor of aerospace. He kept yelling at us
for
discussing aviation accidents before the NTSB reports were completed.
After
a while, gone.

I could go on and on reciting examples, but you know what I'm talking
about.

Do these people decide to get out of aviation? I know that nobody here
knows for sure (unless you know the person some other way) so I guess this
is more of a general wondering than anything else. (I would be really
shocked if someone posted what happened to everyone how ever posted here
but
then stopped.)

I guess what got me thinking about this was that I was wondering how many
(what percentage) of people get into aviation only to leave it. I think
it
happens more than most think. (And, no, I'm not talking about the
percentage who fly until they cannot pass the medical due to advanced age.
I'm talking about the people who start flying and then, months or years
later, quit.) If all these people who have stopped posting are any
indication, then the number must be quite large.