Proposal For A New Rec.Aviation Newsgroup. (WAS: McCain in '08)

Larry Dighera writes:

How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/so...cripts/faqpost
That's what I use.

I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles?

It is not; but all of the moderated groups that I run require PGP
signatures for anything that's posted to them, as anything that's *not*
appropriately PGP-signed is automatically cancelled (and filtered through
NoCeM as well). So I put in the effort to make sure that my own FAQs are
safe. You can probably ignore that part unless you start doing
complicated things.

There is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other
message header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

A quick Google search came up with this:

http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/writing/#writing

These aren't requirements, they're just the rules for submitting
things through to news.answers. (There's problems with news.answers at the
moment, too, so that might not be that helpful; but it's a good
introduction.)

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage FISH *

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.


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

Those exist on nearly every group I've seen. Whether they have an
agenda, or they are trolling the effect is the same.


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

Agreed. I think we have more than enough groups with enough topics
already and one more would just dilute the existing ones leaving us
with a higher signal to noise ratio. There will always be a signal to
noise ratio that rises and falls on any non-moderated group and some
moderated ones. They come and go. Ignore 'em and sooner of later they
finally get tired or Darwinism cleans the gene pool. Admittedly some
come from the shallow end of the pool and will post for the sake of
posting whether ignored or not. However those posters tend to follow
the groups. Normally a subject line says it all. One look and I know
if I want to read it, ignore it, kill file the thread, or killfile the
poster.

Of all options, new news groups, complaining, arguing with the poster,
or the delete key, delete is the easiest, and by far the least
stressful.

To me another aviation group is just a waste of time and computing
resources.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

"Jim Riley" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

I thought about proposing soc.military.missile.pilot but we ran out of
posters

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:50:56 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).

Pretty much the same in Rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, and
rec.photo.zlr. zlr only gets a token posting, while dslr and digital
are almost carbon copies of each other (with a few exceptions)

The question to ask is why is a new group or groups being proposed?
If it's due to OT posts, political rants which are OT posts, people
who cant get along, or just a plain high signal to noise they want to
avoid, none of these are valid reasons or will they work.

OTOH if there are enough people to make another newsgroup active and
viable, that is a topic not now adequately covered it's worth a try,
but there are a lot of dead news groups that sounded like a good idea
to people at the time. "In general" for most topics we already have
too many news groups and another one just dilutes the content on those
already in existence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com