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

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

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.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

Peter J Ross wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

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.*

Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
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/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, 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

I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, 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


I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired


My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation? If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:44:34 -0700, Sam Spade wrote in
6j6ug.782$_M.147@fed1read04:

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation?

Yes.

The rec.* newsgroups are one of the Big-8. Here are
the eight hierarchies:

comp.* Computer topics, both hardware and software.
news.* Administration of the Big 8, as well as about Usenet and
Netnews in general, and related topics.
sci.* Science and technology.
humanities.* The humanities.
rec.* Recreational topics, including music, sports, games,
outdoor recreation, hobbies, crafts, ...
soc.* Socializing, society, and social issues.
talk.* Endless discussion, largely about politics.
misc.* A mixture of newsgroups that don’t fit the other
7 hierarchies. Many are about the practical aspects of everyday life.

If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

Heh heh. There's a lot of "regulatory combat" going on in news.groups
right now. :-O

Be that as it may, 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.

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.

I was reading , made
by the entity known as Henrietta K Thomas, that requests spam to be
sent to and I became inspired,

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

I like this.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

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?

Larry Dighera wrote:

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?

In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.

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.

B/