McCain in '08

[I'm posting from news.groups]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:53:58 -0700, Bob Fry
wrote:

"LD" == Larry Dighera writes:

LD 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

LD 5. The board votes on the proposal.

What board is this?

The Big 8 Management Board (aka B8MB).

About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
people reading and voting on the proposal?

In October 2002, a trio consisting of Russ Allbery, Todd McComb, and
Piranha too over from David C. Lawrence (aka Tale) as moderators of
news.announce.newgroups (aka nan). In that role, they continued to
oversee the process that you had participated in 15 years ago. Brian
Edmonds later joined the 2002 group.

Last fall, they decided that the process simply wasn't working any
longer. Groups such as yours simply weren't able to get enough votes.
Other groups got enough votes only through ballot stuffing, which
produced groups with no one using them.

After some discussion, they (the moderators of nan) turned[*] the
entire group creation process to a group of persons who have desiganted
themselves the Big 8 Management Board, who have devised a new process to
create new groups.

It is similar to the old process in that it begins with a discussion. It
differs in that the final decision is not made by a public vote, but by
the members of the B8MB.

The intent of the "vote" in the old process was to demonstrate that
there was enough interest in discussing the topic of the proposed group
such that the group would be successful. The B8MB most likely would
expect a level of interest in using the new group.

I just read back through the thread in the rec.aviation.* groups. I
question whether a rec.aviation.politics group would be successful
unless those persons who engaged in such discussion actually moved to
the new group. It may be that they simply want to discuss politics with
other pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. Pilots and enthusiasts who
are interested primarily in flying, but sometimes respond in the
political threads, might not be inclined to subscribe to a new group
devoted to political discussion.

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.
--
Jim Riley

gatt wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:JCdtg.7776
I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.


But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
wasn't political at all.

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
publicizing on the national stage. (Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
representing his constituents.

"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

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.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim Riley

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

In news.groups Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Bob Fry said:
"LD" == Larry Dighera writes:

LD 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

LD 5. The board votes on the proposal.

What board is this?

About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
people reading and voting on the proposal?

The methodology changed after Tale retired.

The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
deserved.

No, the small group of jerks who took tale's place lied about the
system being "fundamentally flawed" as an excuse to abolish voting,
abandon their posts and turn over control to a larger group of jerks,
who now call themselves "the Board."

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
| if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

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

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

Owen Hiller wrote:
gatt wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:JCdtg.7776
I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.


But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
wasn't political at all.

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
publicizing on the national stage.

He bragged about his service? Really? I must have missed that.

Many others were there? Where would that be -- Vietnam?

Their side of what story?

Doug Reese

(Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
representing his constituents.

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it
in
this very thread. See

Ted Guy has been dead for over seven years. He was a PoW in Vietnam, and
did
not use his experience to boost his own political career. Are you saying
that
the late Ted Guy, is a liar?

I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. That's my point.

Ted Guy may have been a POW, and so his observations on the matter -IF
TRUTHFUL- have value. But everybody who used them for political purposes
(whether challenging directly or just 'letting people read for themselves')
is of questionable political integrity as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I'm not sure how "his own political career" has anything to do with
it. Conceivably he could have been working for somebody else. Not all
veterans are saints.

-c

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Kerry realized that he didn't have an anthills' worth of accomplishments
in 20
years of being a US Senator plus being a state lieutenant governor etc.
The
only thing he could come up with was to play up his four (4) months in
Vietnam.

I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.

-c