Kennedy gets his own TFR

On May 24, 11:15 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:
I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
"position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
a point fraught with danger for the country.

There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States Congress.
If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs together would cover an
area about half the size of Louisiana (just over 20,000 square miles). Is
that really what you want?

Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius? And what
about boats?

There were my thoughts exactly.
There is no reason for TK to have any more attention than any other
senator.

Here in AZ, McCain is hosting several VIPs who might be VP nominees.
I don't recall seeing any TFR for that particular confab. (Apologies
if I missed it.)
There is too much gaga over Kennedys. (Kennedies?) (Kennedy's?) The
Kennedy clan.

Your a seniour what can you expect? Seniour moments!
on 5/25/2008, Dudley Henriques supposed :
I'll make an effort to remember to trim my responses. If I screw up again,
just remind me. I'm not as sharp remembering to do this as I should be.

clint wrote:
Your a seniour what can you expect? Seniour moments!
on 5/25/2008, Dudley Henriques supposed :

Not really. I'm simply extremely busy and haven't paid as much attention
to proper Usenet protocol as I might have done otherwise. Being busy, I
have a tendency to concentrate more on the content of what I'm saying as
opposed to the protocol on how it's presented.

The answer of course is a compromise. I'm simply reminded to make an
effort toward the more accepted standards concerned with Usenet.

Anyone believing me to be a dottering old man could easily be in for one
hell of a surprise. To anyone thinking of taking that approach with me,
I would respectfully suggest a serious rethinking of that incorrect
position:-)



--
Dudley Henriques

But Larry, all that was said about the degradation of social ettiquete.
(One could virtually substitute "social" for "usenet".

And yes social ettiquete was definded in books also. Such as sending a
thank you note after attending a dinner party. There was a rule for
everything.
Those who broke the rules were respected less and lost social standing.
If we tried to get by with our knowledge of ettiqute and manners in old
society, we would be social outcasts for sure.

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.


John
(low class usenet user)
=================
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:06:41 -0400, The Visitor
wrote in
:


Jay Maynard wrote:
....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.

When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
course change in usenet also.


There is an established formal method of changing Usenet policy via
RFCs.


Manners are not what they used to be. Such as table manners or
wearing hats in front of ladies.


That may be the case where you reside, but it has no bearing on
Usenet.

Usenet conventions are the result of thoughtful debate, and careful
design.


Is ettiquete defined by popular standards of society?


Usenet netiquette is defined he
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/ze...toc.html#SEC44

Please also see: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_6.html


Should it flex with time as it has?


Usenet is made possible through the generosity of those computer
system owners who provide the resources upon which it depends. Usenet
is intended to be an exercise in self-governance. Those Usenet
participants who are not evolved enough to be capable of
self-governance are easily distinguished from responsible netizins.


I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
something.


Top-posting in follow up articles fractures the chronology of the
thoughts expressed in proceeding articles, thus making it exceedingly
difficult for future researchers of the GoogleGroups (nee dejavu)
Usenet archive to follow the message thread.


But here I am.

I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
ettiquete.


While I truly respect individualism, failure to follow netiquette
conventions will not earn you respect among its participants.

The Visitor wrote:

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
necessary.



--
Dudley Henriques

In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
here.





On May 26, 12:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
The Visitor wrote:
My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
necessary.

--
Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
In communication, it's content over format. Content can be
enhanced by prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to
get the author's idea into the reader's brain in an understandable
way. Except, maybe, here.

Some confuse "rules" with etiquette/netiquette. Etiquette/Netiquette is
an accepted guideline, not a *requirement*, and it's each person's
decision to follow it or not. Thank God, as *some* etiquette is just
plain silly.

I appreciate prudent trimming -- I hate having to scroll through miles
of already quoted and no longer pertinent s to get to the new
stuff, especially when it's only a one-line quip or insult! But I'm with
you re content over format ... and you *do* get to know, in short order,
which authors are worth scrolling through all the superfluous quotes for
and which are not.

My newsgroup reader -- the often put down Google one -- is happy to
list theads by date or by reply. If I'm following a particular sub
topic there's little reason to reread the prior messages. Carrying
forward the earlier text, uncut, might be useful for someone coming in
cold on the subtopic.

Most often, my posts are a reply to someone, and that thread to the
two of us I hope makes sense. Others may eavesdrop as they like.

It's all fun, though, isn't it?

Tina wrote:
In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
here.


This is true, especially on Usenet. It can get extremely confusing as
threads increase in size on a forum dealing with technical and or
scientific information such as aviation.

This really can get confusing when a reply to a posting involving
something highly technical, especially where a correction is involved,
might require a multiple reference to information posted by separate
individuals running a range of posts involving several different posters
in order for an answer to convey what the author intends.



--
Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
My newsgroup reader -- the often put down Google one -- is happy to
list theads by date or by reply. If I'm following a particular sub
topic there's little reason to reread the prior messages. Carrying
forward the earlier text, uncut, might be useful for someone coming in
cold on the subtopic.

Most often, my posts are a reply to someone, and that thread to the
two of us I hope makes sense. Others may eavesdrop as they like.

It's all fun, though, isn't it?

;-) That, it is.
I meant to mention, in my prior post, that I *do* consider Dudley to be
one of the authors that *is* worth scrolling down to the bottom of a
mile of untrimmed quotes for ... though I'm thankful for a little
editing of the stuff that's no longer pertinent.