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

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

I think he means that it would =not= mitigate the issue, in fact it may
make it worse (due to crossposting and multple posting).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I was reading , made by the
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
and I became inspired,

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:47:32 +0200, "2Rowdy"
wrote in ::

I was reading , made by the
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
and I became inspired,

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set

So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
possibility. Thanks.

I was reading , made
by the entity known as Larry Dighera, that requests spam to be sent to
and I became inspired,

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:47:32 +0200, "2Rowdy"
wrote in ::

I was reading , made by
the entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
and I became inspired,

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to
say "now you have a group to post that in, go there" is
frustrating to say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to
work is to have the people posting "offtopic" *want* to form
their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a
new ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if
that's invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set

So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
possibility. Thanks.

That's not an option. You need at least three ontopic newsgroups to
make it work.
So you need
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic.on-topic and
rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic.on-topic.on-topic

To make room for the opposition you need to do the same,
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic.off-topic
rec.aviation.piloting.off-topic.off-topic.off-topic

Or you could use a filter, a killfile, or ignore oftopic posters.
Or leave Usenet and find a quiet webforum.

f-up back.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

They killed the Credo. Viva el Credo!

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:36:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in
::

I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
the charter of a newsgroup.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

If the problem with your engine is a bad magneto, doing
an oil change won't fix the problem.

In my view, the problem with off-topic posting is caused
by human nature, such as it is.

Creating a new newsgroup won't change human nature.
Some people go off-topic because they feel comfortable
with their friends; others want to have an audience for their
performance art. I don't think either personality type can
be siphoned off into a new newsgroup.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting.

Yes, at least to the extent that politics affects aviation, which is
quite a bit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

So, the creation of rec.aviation.piloting.on-topic is yet another
possibility.

.... and what do we do when -that- one gets too political.
rec.aviation.piloting.really-on-topic?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.

B/

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:30:54 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::



So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.

I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:

POL: bla bla bla, ect

That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.

What say ye all?

Okeydoke. That's a creative solution. At least someone is thinking.

Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.

I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:

POL: bla bla bla, ect

That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.

What say ye all?
--
Jim in NC