Moderated r.a.h (was Re: Auto Conversions...Redux)

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <3413668d....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
David Munday <mund...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>bill...@ix.netcom.com (Badwater Bill) wrote:
>
>
>>Ron: Who is the moderator of this newsgroup?
>
>This group has no moderator. He's responding to a proposal to create
>a moderated newsgroup with a charter like this one. I gather he's
>against it, or at least doesn't think it would accomplish the goals
>envisioned for it.

Ah, my mistake... I should have made myself clearer.

1. I am *not* against a moderated group. I opposed the "flamers group"
proposals mostly because there was no way to FORCE the flamers to take
their beef to another group.

2. I *do* think a moderated group can accomplish the goals set out for
it...depending on what those goals are. If the goal is to return the
newsgroup what a Latin-spouting lawyer friend might call the "status quo
anti-bellum" (i.e., to the situation here PRIOR to the arrival of James
R. Campbell), that's easy to accomplish: The moderator just doesn't
post anything that has ANY mention of James R. Campbell...including
things Campbell wants posted.

If the goal is not quite so absolute, the moderator has a problem. If
he (or she) gets a submission from the Zoomer saying, "Many prominent
engineers question the structural integrity of Kitplane XXX, and we have
received numerous complaints about the company's business
practices"...how should the moderator respond? Keep in mind that, as
moderator, he or she is now legally responsible for the content of the
group. And there has already been one libel suit filed. *Filed* mind
you...not just threatened.

Here's something else to consider: Who guides the monitor? For
instance, there are a lot more anti-zoomers on this newsgroup than have
made public postings expressing their dislike. It's not far-fetched
that one of them might campaign for, and win, the moderator's slot. IF
that person starts posting anti-Zoom stuff to the moderated
newsgroup...how do you get him or her "unelected"? And what's to
prevent Zoom from using the same process if a scrupulously honest
moderator won't approve one of his postings?

Instead, let me propose a slightly modified plan:

Instead of trying to bring about a moderated rec.aviation.homebuilt.zoom-free
or r.a.h.zoom-flame-lite, work the newsgroup charter to address the
OTHER major desire of the complainers: the desire for more technical
discussion.

Start the process for a moderated newsgroup called "rec.aviation.homebuilt.tech"
or "r.a.h.shop-talk". Word the charter along the lines of "Strictly for
discussions relative to the actual construction of homebuilt aircraft".
That way, the moderator has ample cause to reject a posts that smear
particular companies' legal history or repeat the latest Zoom joke ("How
do you keep Zoom in suspense? I'll post the answer later.").

The moderator's job is easier, and the charter makes it clear what
*exactly* is considered appropriate material. It eliminates a lot over
overlap, and probably cuts the input to the moderator to the extent that
fifteen minutes a day or so should cover it.

You could even get Badwater Bill as the moderator. 'Bout time that'un
got hisself a responsible position....

Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

[Nigel Field]

Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
>
> Start the process for a moderated newsgroup called "rec.aviation.homebuilt.tech"
> or "r.a.h.shop-talk". Word the charter along the lines of "Strictly for
> discussions relative to the actual construction of homebuilt aircraft".

What an excellent idea. This would no doubt bring some of the
underground discussions to the surface to the benefit of real builders
everywhere. Sure gets my vote.

> You could even get Badwater Bill as the moderator. 'Bout time that'un
> got hisself a responsible position....

Now that would be interesting.... But I hear the pay is terrible.

Nigel Field

[Owen Davies]

Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:

(preliminaries clipped)

> 2. I *do* think a moderated group can accomplish the goals set out for
> it...depending on what those goals are. If the goal is to return the
> newsgroup what a Latin-spouting lawyer friend might call the "status quo
> anti-bellum" (i.e., to the situation here PRIOR to the arrival of James
> R. Campbell), that's easy to accomplish: The moderator just doesn't
> post anything that has ANY mention of James R. Campbell...including
> things Campbell wants posted.

(further substantial elision)

> Here's something else to consider: Who guides the monitor? For
> instance, there are a lot more anti-zoomers on this newsgroup than have
> made public postings expressing their dislike.

Eh? That's a pretty suspect assertion, Ron, and a tough one to prove.

(lesser snippage)

> Instead, let me propose a slightly modified plan:

> Instead of trying to bring about a moderated rec.aviation.homebuilt.zoom-free
> or r.a.h.zoom-flame-lite, work the newsgroup charter to address the
> OTHER major desire of the complainers: the desire for more technical
> discussion.

> Start the process for a moderated newsgroup called "rec.aviation.homebuilt.tech"

> or "r.a.h.shop-talk". Word the charter along the lines of "Strictly for
> discussions relative to the actual construction of homebuilt aircraft".

> That way, the moderator has ample cause to reject a posts that smear

> particular companies' legal history or repeat the latest Zoom joke.

(off-topic example of what's objectionable deleted)

> The moderator's job is easier, and the charter makes it clear what
> *exactly* is considered appropriate material. It eliminates a lot over
> overlap, and probably cuts the input to the moderator to the extent that
> fifteen minutes a day or so should cover it.

Hmmm. The idea of a moderated r.a.h. was not original with me, but
since
one of my posts seems to have triggered this discussion of it, maybe I
should
respond. (Or, at least, maybe I can be forgiven for succumbing to the
urge
to respond.)

For one thing, Ron, you are kind of contradicting yourself here. First
you
say that we'll get more technical discussion; then you say that there
won't
be much input to the moderator. My own hope is that some of the people
who
have switched to the mailing lists would trickle back when they
discovered
that they didn't have to wade through so much vicious B.S. Over time,
the
moderator's job would grow back to the level this newsgroup should have
enjoyed, and could have if garbage had not driven out the good stuff.

Aside from that, you just palmed a card there. "Let's forget about
dealing
with the Zoom-oriented crud and look at another subject"? I don't think
so.

r.a.h.shop-talk, or whatever, sounds reasonable enough, and I'd probably
read
such a newsgroup. But it would deprive folks of the good, but
non-technical,
posts that show up here (all too rarely.) Your own story of your
evening
flight in the Fly Baby is a classic example. No one should have to miss
out
on that. Neither should they have to put up with the flame war in order
to
find it. I really enjoyed your story. But I would have enjoyed it more
if
I hadn't been holding my nose when I ran across it.

If I were moderator, here's how I would handle things. No flames at
all.
Not about Campbell. Not from Campbell. Not from or at anyone, for any
reason. No "We've had a lot of complaints about company X," from
Campbell.
No responses to such postings on the unmoderated r.a.h.

There are some things I'd accept from Campbell. Two years or so ago,
one
of the anti-auto-engine fanatics (guess who!) attributed that crash of
that
Kitfox at Arlington to the failure of its Soob engine. Campbell, who
was
there, offered a polite correction. It struck me as a valuable
contribution,
and I'd take it without hesitation. I would also accept a polite
response
on the order of, "Gee, Jim. I know it looked that way, but I have just
been
talking with the folks at Skystar, and what they now say is ..."

A toughie: Campbell writes "A jury in Spokane has just found company X
liable
in a crash that the plaintiffs attributed to design flaws and defective
welding.
For details, see our next issue." But it's not all that difficult. The
self-
promotion gets edited out. Yet the news item itself is of interest to
the r.a.h community, and it can be verified from objective sources, such
as court
records. It stays. Of course, the author gets a veto on this; if he
prefers,
the whole post can be dropped, rather than being edited. In the
unlikely event
that Campbell made up a story that can so easily be checked, the
moderator
publishes a retraction and bans him from the list.

Another not-so-toughie: What if someone wants to post the news that
Campbell
has just gone bankrupt? Forget it. It has nothing to do with aviation,
homebuilt or otherwise. We stick to the core interests of building,
flying,
tinkering, and living with homebuilt airplanes. News of aviation
publishing
or the airplane community in non-flying roles is peripheral and invites
the
kind of pollution that has all but destroyed r.a.h. So it's out.

All this, with suitable examples, can go into the charter. I don't see
that
it is particularly difficult to codify these judgments and then exercise
them.
If something comes up that is in such a gray area, well, making those
decisions
is part of a moderator's job. It's why he gets the big bucks. 8-)

Somewhere in the material I deleted, Ron, you brought up the possibility
that one
side or the other in the flame war would pack the voting and turn the
moderated
newsgroup into a forum for their side. I view this as a red herring.
For one
thing, I thought you just said there was a vast, silent pool of people
who find
Campbell despicable but do not find it necessary to post their views.
If so,
they will probably keep the pro-Campbell hordes (whose theoretical
existence
you postulate) from turning r.a.h.moderated into r.a.h.zoom. And if the
anti-
Campbell forces take over r.a.h.moderated as they have taken over this
newsgroup,
well, at least we tried. We can always follow so many others over to
the
mailing lists if that's really what it takes.

The idea here isn't merely to have a forum for technical discussion.
It's to
make the newsgroup safe for people who want to enjoy all the valuable
things that
r.a.h. has to offer without wading through slime for the privilege. All
it would
take is some common courtesy on the part of the anti-Zoom community.
But since
they seem to be having too much fun venting their spleens to care what
the weak-
stomached among us think, we need to find some other way to eliminate as
much of
the pollution as possible.

That's what r.a.h.moderated would accomplish. Its charter should read,
"Strictly
for discussions relative to the actual construction, maintenance,
flying, and
enjoyment of homebuilt aircraft". (And I for one would wink at
occasional mentions
of folks like Bob Hoover, who may not build or fly homebuilts, but who
nonetheless
help to make the sport-aviation scene a generally good place to be.)
Anything
more restrictive than that just defeats the purpose.

(As an aside: You see, Ron, this is what's wrong with indulging in the
flame
war the way you do. When you post about flying, you're a joy to have
around.
If you limited yourself to that, I'd take your suggestion at face
value. But
because you are a card-carrying member of the Death-to-the-Zoomer
Brigade, I
wind up wondering whether you made it in hope of sidetracking the real
issue.
You undermine yourself at least as much as you do Campbell. I'm sorry
to see
it, and sorrier still to have my own view of you affected by it.)

> You could even get Badwater Bill as the moderator. 'Bout time that'un
> got hisself a responsible position....

Yeah. I'd back him as moderator. Good choice!

Owen Davies

[Homebuilder]

<SNIIIIIIIIIIIP>

two suggestions if I may.. take them how you feel it <I do not even
sit on the fence with regards to zooming debates or TonyP>

firstly to clean the ng realize it is up to YOU <yes you the one
reading this !>

1. stop flaming eachover in the ng, it only proves you are a
complete wanker and a dominant one at that as you feel the need to
force your opinions on us... sure we could ignore the thread but do we
really need to ?

if you have an argument or problem then email the person. it is
between you at them not you them and us!

2. with consideration of a moderated ng... I would be all for ppl
still being able to rat on scumbags in the industry... if someone
scored a raw deal from a vendor I would like to know as I may save
some cash.. or I can be fore warned.

keep in mind thou that the person who makes a bad comment is
accountable <so if the comment is fake and comes out......>
<I mention this so no flame wars start, see rule 1>

JMHO
please feel free to comment but if you must flame then the address you
can send your spam <sorri> opinion to is as above.

Homebuilder

ps I hope I didn’t offend to many ppl but I really enjoy the ng and
find it most helpful well at least most of the posts in this ng. :)

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <34072E...@davies.mv.com>,
Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:

>Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> Here's something else to consider: Who guides the monitor? For
>> instance, there are a lot more anti-zoomers on this newsgroup than have
>> made public postings expressing their dislike.
>
>Eh? That's a pretty suspect assertion, Ron, and a tough one to prove.

Suspect? How? All I'm saying is that not everyone who dislikes Zoom
(or for that matter, LIKES Zoom) has publically stated their opinion on
the matter. The consequences of publically expressing an opinion
against Campbell were well-illustrated in the MacKenzie case earlier
this year.

{regarding my suggestion for a technical-issues-only subgroup]

>For one thing, Ron, you are kind of contradicting yourself here. First you
>say that we'll get more technical discussion; then you say that there
>won't be much input to the moderator.

Rec.aviation.homebuilt now gets over 100 articles a day. I think the
input to an r.a.h.tech would be less than that. I'm on the
wooden-planes mailing list; our peak has been (so far) only four or five
in one day, and I haven't had an email from from it for several days now.

We'll get more technical discussion, but the total volume will be less.
It won't be like the moderator has to wade through 100-200 r.a.h
postings to cull out the appropriate ones.

>.... But it would deprive folks of the good, but non-technical,

>posts that show up here (all too rarely.) Your own story of your
>evening flight in the Fly Baby is a classic example.

It's a classic example of a post that falls outside the charter of
rec.aviation.homebuilt...as do most of my Fly Baby tales. The only
connection to homebuilding is that the flight happened to have taken
place in a homebuilt. There was nothing about building, nothing to aid
a prospective builder in selection, a stock certified aircraft engine,
no technical detail. Do a search-and-replace on "Fly Baby" with "Champ"
and the story's practically unchanged. It belonged in
rec.aviation.misc, not here.

When I post things to this newsgroup, trn says this group is about
"Selecting, designing, building, and restoring aircraft." Few of my
postings about the Fly Baby fall into these categories.

Do not confuse "popular" with "appropriate."

>.... I really enjoyed your story. But I would have enjoyed it more if

>I hadn't been holding my nose when I ran across it.

Well, here's a clue: When I talk about Zoom, the Subject line of the posting
either reflects that, or Campbell-as-a-subject has already been started
by other people with that subject line. I don't think I've *ever*
injected Campbell's name or made any sort of Zoom comment in an otherwise Zoom-ffree posting.

If I remember right, you once berated me for being against Campbell, but
taking no sides in the Lamar situation. There's a very good reason for
that: I never saw anything in Lamar's postings that was as wildly
outrageous as you claimed.

I'm not doubting you, though. It's just that, when the Lamar BS level
hit a certain level, I just quit reading the postings with that subject
line. I didn't have to hold my nose, all I had to do was hit "k" in TRN
when the cursor was on the appropriate line.

Pretty simple system, really.

>If I were moderator, here's how I would handle things. No flames at all.
>Not about Campbell. Not from Campbell. Not from or at anyone, for any
>reason. No "We've had a lot of complaints about company X," from
>Campbell. No responses to such postings on the unmoderated r.a.h.
>
>There are some things I'd accept from Campbell. Two years or so ago, one
>of the anti-auto-engine fanatics (guess who!) attributed that crash of that
>Kitfox at Arlington to the failure of its Soob engine. Campbell, who was
>there, offered a polite correction. It struck me as a valuable
>contribution, and I'd take it without hesitation. I would also accept a
>polite response on the order of, "Gee, Jim. I know it looked that way,
>but I have just been talking with the folks at Skystar, and what they now
> say is ..."

Owen, it sounds perfect to me. Start the process, I'll not only vote
for it, I'll twist some arms to help it pass. I trust you to do a
fair job as a moderator, and expect you'll be less subject to outside
pressures than some unknown.

It isn't going to happen unless you do it, Owen.

>...I thought you just said there was a vast, silent pool of people who find

>Campbell despicable but do not find it necessary to post their views.

Do not put adjectives in my mouth. Either quote exactly what I said, or
don't exaggerate. You're acting like Campbell in that regard.

You quoted *exactly* what I said in the beginning of your posting...why do
you feel it's necessary to start making up quotes at the end?

[Owen Davies]

Homebuilder wrote:

<SNIIIIIIIIIIIP>

> 1. stop flaming eachover in the ng, it only proves you are a
> complete wanker and a dominant one at that as you feel the need to
> force your opinions on us... sure we could ignore the thread but do we
> really need to ?

(slash-and-burn of worthwhile material)

That's the problem. We can't ignore it. On about half the occasions
when I look at a new thread with an interesting name, it turns out that
it's just one more of these anti-Campbell bozos mouthing off about the
same old obsession under a new, and probably deceptive, title. Either
that, or a formerly interesting thread has just been sidetracked into
the I-HATE-the-Zoomer war. I always wind up feeling that I've been
wandering around a pleasant, grassy field barefoot and discovered the
hard way that cows live here.

Come to think, that's a pretty accurate metaphor for r.a.h.

Owen Davies

[alan staats]

Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:

...snip

>it's just one more of these anti-Campbell bozos mouthing off about the
>same old obsession under a new, and probably deceptive, title. Either
>that, or a formerly interesting thread has just been sidetracked into
>the I-HATE-the-Zoomer war.

mr davies, as one of the "anti-campbell" bozos you refer to, allow me
to ask you a question: have you ever left the employ of someone, and
subsequently had that person call everyone you know, including
relatives, and make disparaging and insulting remarks about you to
them? i have. have you ever left the employ of someone and a week
later gotten an email threatening your children with rape and murder?
i have. and it only happened once, after leaving one employer. i'll
let you guess which one. you want to know why the campbell flame wars
happen? because, in my opinion, he is the largest hypocrite i have
ever come across in my entire life. he will trample the rights of
those he dislikes, slander them, libel them, "investigate" them and
then hide behind the principals of journalism as an excuse. but god
help those with the temerity to write something along these lines. i
expect everyone from the secret service to the fbi to his "legal
counsel and others with legal educations" will get a copy of this as
proof of my harassment of the "man".

say what you will about us bozos, but also say this: none of us hold
ourselves up as the saviours of aviation, none of us hold ourselves up
as undisputed experts on aviation, and none of us hold ourselves up,
in print and on our web pages, as "the world's most experienced
fly-writer". i think people like fred george, dick aarons, jack
olcott, mac mclellan, peter lert, jim holohan, et al, would take just
a bit of offense to that, if that particular fly was worth the swat.
he gets away with it simply because he knows they won't bother with a
"trivial psychopath" as one of the aforementioned has desrcibed him to
me.

ask around for a copy of ntsb se-4661. read it. then see where the
bozo label belongs.

staats

[Tony P.]

Owen:

Ron's statement may be "suspect" but it's true (about the many who
quietly have strong feelings about the Zoom issue). I've received
countless messages from people whose names you'll never see on a post on
the subject, and many whose names you've never seen on any post at all.
Many names you'd recognize immediately. And many of them want to keep
it that way. I'm not going to recite a number lest I sound totally
zoomlike, but I will represent to you that there IS a ratio of at least
2 to 1 between those who have publicly posted (and that's a large
number) and those who have privately commented to me (indeed, one of the
reasons I seldom start a thread myself is that I correspond with dozens
of folks privately and keep most information moving that way WITHOUT
annoying others). Who can say how many others are out there?

It's interesting that I have NEVER received a private message flaming
or complaining about the subject (except from those who are already
saying the same things publicly at least). Those who dislike the ongoing
thread usually post their sentiments right out there in front of
everyone. Especially, every flamer makes a lot of noise publicly, which
is part of what leads me to suspect the motives and origin of some.

But for every person you see POSTING in support of those who have been
zoomed, I can tell you I've heard from two or more who are publicly
silent. In fact, you know many of them, many have there own "Zoom"
stories and good reasons to keep quiet. A few of them just couldn't hold
their tongues any longer and just came out recently in response to
exceptional outrageousness. I will say that I have received at least 50
messages that were expressions of gratitude for the work and information
generated (that's just "thank you's" -- not other comments, and yes it
sounds like Zoom).

On the "moderated" group subject, I have a couple of thoughts: First,
you don't mean "moderated" because this group can't BE moderated. They
are not a moderate bunch, and the subject matter is not narrow enough
(as in the Soob mailing list, for example). They spontaneously emit
wisecracks, anecdotes, poetry, rude noises, catcalls philosophy (what's
this?) and occasionally wisdom. They skirmish, hurl barbs and throw
paper airplanes across the classroom. I wouldn't miss any of it for
anything. But you mean censored I think, and we should call it that.
The goal, I think, is not to expunge all nontechnical chatter, but to
eliminate the Zoom threads. I say that without rancor (remember that I
am not a victim who needs this forum to respond, unlike many others,
though I strongly support their freedom to do so here).

I fully understand that some are so annoyed by the presence of that
thread (not because of "bandwidth," I think, if they are totally honest,
but because he or his detractors or the debate simply irritate them and
they just can't ignore it). I've had pet peeves too. I'm willing to
tolerate their annoyance -- even when it's directed at me -- with (for
the most part) good humor (and you and I have had a civil dialogue about
it and understand each others' views I think).

I DO doubt that the Zoom threads are driving away a large volume of
other posts. This presumes that there are dozens of silent Zoom
supporters out there, so offended by the idea of his being criticized,
that they won't hang around. And that, though silent, they are the type
who post valuable insights and experiences. From what I've seen so far,
the ones who have shown up haven't contributed a word about ANYTHING
else and most never posted on Usenet at all until they popped off here.
Heck, some seem fictional. Don't misunderstand: I value your
contribution and wish you would participate more. But even in the
narrow-focus lists, those who are thin-skinned drop out. We just lost a
few of my favorites in one of the lists over what I considered a trivial
personality conflict relating to the way a few people expressed
themselves.

[As an aside: when a lawyer insults you, he is usually doing it on
purpose, consciously or not; he knows how to modulate his tone. When an
engineer insults you, he's often not paying attention to his tone at all
in his impatient -- and maybe intolerant -- effort to say something
firmly, unequivocally and precisely. Sorry, guys, had to say it. You
just can't be thin-skinned around opinionated people, and many of you
are that.]

The focused lists exist for other good reasons. I subscribe to the
Soob and VW/etc. conversions lists because they are technical
content-rich (also did in the past subscribe to the ultralight list, but
just got inundated with it). They aren't going to close down and come
back here if we kill the Zoom threads. Anyway, their creation, to the
best of my knowledge, had little or nothing to do with Campbell and I am
certainly not there for that reason (though there was some indirect
mention of Lamar in relation to the history of one of them).

But would you want a moderator to cut off the Oshkosh traffic thread?
or the one on BWB's domestic bliss, or on EAA politics? And would you
want BWB to be unable to inject a wisecrack just because it's
off-topic? Would you want Campbell to be barred from posting his
statements about a particular aircraft or a crash, or the manufacturer
to be barred from responding to his statements? What if they ARE lies
or exaggerations? Do you want them to be barred from saying so?

Sorry, any way you cut it, it amounts to letting one side have a voice
and the other being silenced. I have not a nickel at stake in any of it
and my professional success surely doesn't depend on any of this, but I
can't abide that being done to the victims.

I consider this like any other group of aviation experimenters
hangar-talking. Most of the content is aviation-related and some of it
is b.s. Most of the people are amicable, and some aren't. Some people
don't like each other (personally there are very few I dislike, but who
knows if vice versa is true). But I don't want somebody telling me what
to say or do, and it runs against the grain of most personalities I know
in aviation to have an authority figure hanging around, self-appointed
or otherwise.

What you will accomplish with a "moderated" group is to slow down the
time it takes to get things posted (they have to be reviewed, remember)
by a day or more, and make a lot of work for someone. If you limit the
charter narrowly, it will be useless. If you don't, it will be
purposeless. If you just eliminate the Campbell stuff it's silly to
pretend you're doing anything else.

Owen, I have a hunch that you are a person who dislikes negativity and
bickering in every part of your life. I applaud that. I know lots of
people like that. You'd probably fall on the floor laughing if I told
you I am exactly the same way in my personal life, but it's true. When
I hear people yammering about what so-and-so did to them and what they
did to so-and-so and gossiping and spreading rumors and looking at
things in the worst possible way, I have a visceral reaction to it. I
hate it. I believe that if you invest energy in negative thoughts and
statements, you get negativity back, and you create whatever kind of
life you want for yourself. Imagine being a lawyer and advocate who
hates negativity and confrontation! Actually, it's the best kind.

I just have an even stronger belief that turning your back on a bully,
or walking away from a fight that is unavoidable, only creates more and
worse fights. It's like negotiating with terrorists. The way to
minimize the unpleasantness is to confront it immediately. The way to
deal with lies is to tell the truth, even if it by implication accuses a
liar of being one. Hopefully, you can do it with class. I also am not
the kind of person who can just walk by a mugging and "not get
involved." This idea of a moderated group sounds to me like trying to
solve the problem of muggings on the subway by keeping the doors of the
train closed so the victims can't run inside and bring the problem with
them to annoy other passengers. The real solution is to open all the
doors, turn the lights up really bright and let the muggers know that we
WILL get involved. They need to know that there are no lone victims who
can be cut from the crowd and attacked.

For what it's worth, I for one think that the Zoom drama is playing
itself out in the real world. There may be occasional bulletins here,
but I think you'll be seeing less of his trolling for attention (if he
follows his counsel's advice) and near zero debate between him and
others. I can't promise you won't see commentary but I expect far less
of the undignified brawling that breaks out when he hurls his invective.
I also expect that when the drama plays out, much of the problem will
simply end as the reason for the debate diminishes.

Sorry to ramble, but I guess I had a few opinions. Surprised?

Tony Pucillo

"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>

[michael d casey]

In article <340A91...@mail.idt.net>, ae...@mail.idt.net says...

>
> Ron's statement may be "suspect" but it's true (about the many who
>quietly have strong feelings about the Zoom issue). I've received
>countless messages from people whose names you'll never see on a post on
>the subject,

------snip------

This is undoubtly true. There is a large group of folks that have kept their
opinions to e-mail or themselves for various reasons. Most, I suspect, do so
out of respect to their peers in RAH. Others out of a desire to remain out
of the public view or "aim". Attourneys, manufactures, journalists and
engineers, amoung others, are not usually part of the second group, by
nature. Their livelyhoods rest on their ability to formulate a solution
given a project, topic, or product in their respective vocations. In short,
many of the folks in the above vocations are not shy about offering their
opinions and knowledge because their opinions and knowledge are their
livelyhood, (even when their opinions are different from the opinions of the
majority). Good thing as far as I'm concerned. The world needs people like
these. They are the information providers, innovators, inventors and problem
solvers of the world. They compile information, address difficulties and
offer solutions.

>
> On the "moderated" group subject, I have a couple of thoughts:

---snip---

>But you mean censored I think, and we should call it that.

---snip again---

I'm the first to agree with the enjoyable postings. Some of you folks are
seriously funny. I too was the kid in the back of the class throwing paper
airplanes and cracking jokes years ago. On the other hand... As children,
did we not play with those we considered friends? Did we not exclude those
from our group that we, for whatever reason, did not care to include? The
answer is positivly yes. Each and everyone of us that had the opportunity to
choose our friends did exactly that. Picked out friends and excluded others.
As adults we have the same opportunity and approach lifes difficult people in
the same manner. If, for example, you find yourself part of a group,(local
chapter of the EAA comes to mind) and one member of the group is so
personally repulsive that the entire group is up in arms about him. What do
you do? Vote him/her out. Exclude them, democraticly. If that is
censorship, I for one am all for it. Democratic Censorship,,, what a novel
oxymoron. Everyone of us does this everyday of our lives.

---snip---

> I DO doubt that the Zoom threads are driving away a large volume of
>other posts. This presumes that there are dozens of silent Zoom
>supporters out there, so offended by the idea of his being criticized,
>that they won't hang around.

From my experience, in the NG, this is far from what actually is happeinig.
No one is supporting Zoom. No one wants to. The evidence is in. Both from
detractors and the Zoom himself. Some one alluded to Zoom's writing all the
letters to the editor himself. I thought the same as I read them. They
seemed to be written by the same hand. From the samy viewpoint. From the
same mind. Very few supported Zoom in the NG and I think none have left
because of loyalties to zoom. The vast majority of posts that were not from
the "Enemys of Zoom" were of the "PLEASE TAKE IT ELSEWHERE" variety. In the
past 4 months, how many hundreds of posts were of the Gays, pediphiles (at
oskosh), I've been zoomed and survived, the slimebag, (etc) variety? How
many were poor Zoom, they are picking on him again? I can remember only a
couple of pro zoom posts. The evidence is in. If the NG is losing
participants it is NOT because they are leaving in support of zoom. They are
leaving because of the constant bs ABOUT zoom. Give it a rest.

>
> [As an aside: when a lawyer insults you, he is usually doing it on
>purpose, consciously or not; he knows how to modulate his tone. When an
>engineer insults you, he's often not paying attention to his tone at all
>in his impatient -- and maybe intolerant -- effort to say something
>firmly, unequivocally and precisely. Sorry, guys, had to say it. You
>just can't be thin-skinned around opinionated people, and many of you
>are that.]
>

As an aside to your aside Tony. Touche' You hit the nail right on the head
when talking about engineering types. I think you missed it a bit when
discussing your own profession. When IN the courtroom or dealing with a
client's advesaries, the ability to insult is a very effective tool, to be
used with prudence and with an objective in mind. It is not used lightly in
court or in engineering. An attourney must temper "insults with facts".
"Your mother wears army boots" wont cut it in law, or, in manufacturing.
Firmly, unequivacally, and precisely only applies to engineering? Off the
mark. You want a jury to "firmly" believe what you and your client have
"unequivally" proven, That your client's enemy has harmed your client in
"precisely" this manner, and, find for your client. When an engineer, just
as an attourney, insult you outside of their professions, chances are that
they are doing it as the result of years of training and years of
"occupational" hazard. It is not meant to be insulting. It is the result
of our personal makeup and experiences. Ive never meet an insulting
Preacher... I've meet some that I dont agree with, but never an insulting
one. Am I that far off the mark? And I use your statement Tony, for my
own... "Sorry, guys, had to say it. You just can't be thin-skinned around
opinionated people, and many of US are that"! heh!

---snip---

> But would you want a moderator to cut off the Oshkosh traffic thread?
>or the one on BWB's domestic bliss, or on EAA politics? And would you
>want BWB to be unable to inject a wisecrack just because it's
>off-topic?

Heck no, keep em! ---gays, pediphiles, hemophiliacs, slimebag threads---
Dump em!!

>Would you want Campbell to be barred from posting his
>statements about a particular aircraft or a crash, or the manufacturer
>to be barred from responding to his statements? What if they ARE lies
>or exaggerations? Do you want them to be barred from saying so?

----------------------
Democratic censorship.
is an Oxymoron.
But,
we do it every day.
---------------------

Sorry, any way you cut it, it amounts to letting one side have a voice
>and the other being silenced. I have not a nickel at stake in any of it
>and my professional success surely doesn't depend on any of this, but I
>can't abide that being done to the victims.

Point well taken. However; if the future shuts down Campbell's editorial
slant on things, and he continues to rant in the newsgroup, might the
majority opinions in the NG favor excluding Campbell? If his ability to
slight ppl in print, outside of the NG, is quelled then he can't reach others
with his paticular venom and there will be no reason for anyone to feel the
need to defend their positions here, (only if he isn't allowed to spew in the
NG)!

> I consider this like any other group of aviation experimenters
>hangar-talking. Most of the content is aviation-related and some of it
>is b.s. Most of the people are amicable, and some aren't. Some people
>don't like each other (personally there are very few I dislike, but who
>knows if vice versa is true). But I don't want somebody telling me what
>to say or do, and it runs against the grain of most personalities I know
>in aviation to have an authority figure hanging around, self-appointed
>or otherwise.

This gave me my first smile of the day, (and its 4:00pm, yawn, late night
party, just got up). I, at first, didnt care for Tony. Like a fool, I
lumped him into a group I personally dis-like, attourneys. My fault
entirely. (I BLAME IT ON MY PROFESSION! Engineers and Attourneys are so
alike!! Heh!) After a few months of correspondence, personalities emerged
and ties were established. Friendships were made and intrestests,ideas,
differences, histories were bantered back and forth. Has been a pleasure.
In light of this, I have to again apologise to Tony for my post pertaining
to him, months ago. "Tony P. must really be bored" was in poor taste and not
knowing more about him, or the circumstances at the time is no excuse. Sorry
Tony.

> What you will accomplish with a "moderated" group is to slow down the
>time it takes to get things posted (they have to be reviewed, remember)
>by a day or more, and make a lot of work for someone.

---any volunteers?---

>If you limit the charter narrowly, it will be useless.

---no narrow limits are suggested. exclude one individual, remember lamar?
He did the NG a favorand left by his own accord. Bye Lamar, good riddance.
Think Campbell will do the same?---

>If you don't, it will be purposeless. If you just eliminate the Campbell
>stuff it's silly to pretend you're doing anything else.

---That would be, in this case, the exact purpose of moderating this group---

> Owen, I have a hunch that you are a person who dislikes negativity

>andbickering in every part of your life. I applaud that.

------snip------

>I hate it. I believe that if you invest energy in negative thoughts and
>statements, you get negativity back, and you create whatever kind of
>life you want for yourself. Imagine being a lawyer and advocate who
>hates negativity and confrontation! Actually, it's the best kind.

Amen!

> I just have an even stronger belief that turning your back on a bully,
>or walking away from a fight that is unavoidable, only creates more and
>worse fights.

Amen again! Hence the current litigation to halt the problem.

>This idea of a moderated group sounds to me like trying to
>solve the problem of muggings on the subway by keeping the doors of the
>train closed so the victims can't run inside and bring the problem with
>them to annoy other passengers.

The idea of a moderated group is to round up the "mugger" and lock em OUT!
They are the way they are and not going to change because you asked them to.
Much like an actual, criminal mugger, that is finally caught, sending them to
jail for a week, month or year does little to change their behavior. The UK
had an interesting idea many years ago. Lock em up and ship em off to an
island far far away. The only way to deal with an individual like that, in
my estimation, is to "firmly, unequivocally and precisely" limit their
ability to interact with the majority of the civilized world. If their
words and deeds are so repulsive to the majority, move em on. I know that
2+2=4. If the majority, (99.9%) know otherwise, who is in error? I am. If
the actions of one country are so contrary to 99.9% of the civilized world,
go to war and halt their actions. Limit their ability to interact whith the
rest of the world. Can anyone else spell IRAQ? Not a difficult decision to
make in theory, much more difficult in reality.

>The real solution is to open all the
>doors, turn the lights up really bright and let the muggers know that we
>WILL get involved. They need to know that there are no lone victims who
>can be cut from the crowd and attacked.

Get involved by locking the muggers up and/or out, for good.

> For what it's worth, I for one think that the Zoom drama is playing
>itself out in the real world. There may be occasional bulletins here,
>but I think you'll be seeing less of his trolling for attention (if he
>follows his counsel's advice) and near zero debate between him and
>others. I can't promise you won't see commentary but I expect far less
>of the undignified brawling that breaks out when he hurls his invective.
>I also expect that when the drama plays out, much of the problem will
>simply end as the reason for the debate diminishes.

At this point Tony. I look forward to the commentary! Just like picking a
scab, we can't ignore it now. Its just starting to get really interesting.

> Sorry to ramble, but I guess I had a few opinions. Surprised?
>
> Tony Pucillo
>
>
>"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
>
>

Ramble on, heh! Apologies offered for my rambling as well.

Mike (I never learned latin, does spanish count?) Casey
kcm...@cris.com

[Owen Davies]

With substantial deletions, Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> In article <34072E...@davies.mv.com>,
> Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:
> >Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
> >
> >> Here's something else to consider: Who guides the monitor? For
> >> instance, there are a lot more anti-zoomers on this newsgroup than have
> >> made public postings expressing their dislike.
> >
> >Eh? That's a pretty suspect assertion, Ron, and a tough one to prove.
>
> Suspect? How? All I'm saying is that not everyone who dislikes Zoom
> (or for that matter, LIKES Zoom) has publically stated their opinion on
> the matter.

Well, okay. It was the phrase "a lot" that I meant to take issue with.
So long as they don't post their opinions, I have no way to measure the
anti-Zoom population. In a private e-mail, which I still assume will
show up on our local newsgroup server eventually, Tony Pucillo stated
that
he had received many messages of support for his anti-Campbell stance
from
people who have never participated in the "Zoom = scum" threads. So
"a lot" may be justified. However, it did seem a bit short of evidence
to support it.

That said, all you folks who have held your tongues thus far, please
keep up the good work. Tentatively, I agree with you all. While I have
had no personal experience with him, from all I've read and heard, he
does
sound like a pretty despicable character, to whatever extent he can be
held
responsible for his actions. I just don't want to have to wade through
all
the further assassination of his character and gloats about his possible
misfortune when I go looking for stuff about homebuilt airplanes.

> {regarding my suggestion for a technical-issues-only subgroup]
> >For one thing, Ron, you are kind of contradicting yourself here. First you
> >say that we'll get more technical discussion; then you say that there
> >won't be much input to the moderator.
>
> Rec.aviation.homebuilt now gets over 100 articles a day. I think the
> input to an r.a.h.tech would be less than that. I'm on the
> wooden-planes mailing list; our peak has been (so far) only four or five
> in one day, and I haven't had an email from from it for several days now.
>
> We'll get more technical discussion, but the total volume will be less.
> It won't be like the moderator has to wade through 100-200 r.a.h
> postings to cull out the appropriate ones.

OTOH, I haven't counted, but would be much surprised if I get fewer than
50
per day from the SOOB and KR lists (combined.) And, as I said, I don't
want
to limit it to technical discussion. As far as I'm concerned, this
newsgroup
would be perfect if it weren't for all the bile.

> >.... But it would deprive folks of the good, but non-technical,
> >posts that show up here (all too rarely.) Your own story of your
> >evening flight in the Fly Baby is a classic example.
>
> It's a classic example of a post that falls outside the charter of
> rec.aviation.homebuilt...as do most of my Fly Baby tales. The only
> connection to homebuilding is that the flight happened to have taken
> place in a homebuilt. There was nothing about building, nothing to aid
> a prospective builder in selection, a stock certified aircraft engine,
> no technical detail. Do a search-and-replace on "Fly Baby" with "Champ"
> and the story's practically unchanged. It belonged in
> rec.aviation.misc, not here.
>
> When I post things to this newsgroup, trn says this group is about
> "Selecting, designing, building, and restoring aircraft." Few of my
> postings about the Fly Baby fall into these categories.
>
> Do not confuse "popular" with "appropriate."

I confess, I haven't looked at the official rules for this newsgroup.
If
they would have prohibited your Fly Baby stories, IMHO they need to be
revised. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that your evening flight
took
place in a homebuilt is excuse enough to run it here.

> >.... I really enjoyed your story. But I would have enjoyed it more if
> >I hadn't been holding my nose when I ran across it.
>
> Well, here's a clue: When I talk about Zoom, the Subject line of the posting
> either reflects that, or Campbell-as-a-subject has already been started
> by other people with that subject line. I don't think I've *ever*
> injected Campbell's name or made any sort of Zoom comment in an otherwise Zoom-ffree posting.

Would that others were so scrupulous! It's gotten so that when the
subject
of a new thread is in any way ambiguous, I'm reluctant to look at it.

> If I remember right, you once berated me for being against Campbell, but
> taking no sides in the Lamar situation. There's a very good reason for
> that: I never saw anything in Lamar's postings that was as wildly
> outrageous as you claimed.
>
> I'm not doubting you, though. It's just that, when the Lamar BS level
> hit a certain level, I just quit reading the postings with that subject
> line. I didn't have to hold my nose, all I had to do was hit "k" in TRN
> when the cursor was on the appropriate line.
>
> Pretty simple system, really.

First of all, Ron, I hope I haven't "berated" you. I have a lot of
basic
respect for you, and berating anyone is something I try to avoid.
(Those of
long memory may recall that I once came down really hard on someone who
had
subjected me to several increasingly virulent flames. The memory of
having
yielded to that urge pains me almost every time I sign on here.) But
Lamar
could be pretty abusive when he put his mind to it.

And it is people who are abusive ***here on r.a.h.*** who really annoy
me.
On the consensus scale of ethics and deportment, Campbell may rate
somewhere
between petty trash and a dangerous lunatic, but at least he usually
keeps
it out in the real world, not here where I have to put up with it.

> >If I were moderator, here's how I would handle things. No flames at all.
> >Not about Campbell. Not from Campbell. Not from or at anyone, for any
> >reason. No "We've had a lot of complaints about company X," from
> >Campbell. No responses to such postings on the unmoderated r.a.h.
> >
> >There are some things I'd accept from Campbell. Two years or so ago, one
> >of the anti-auto-engine fanatics (guess who!) attributed that crash of that
> >Kitfox at Arlington to the failure of its Soob engine. Campbell, who was
> >there, offered a polite correction. It struck me as a valuable
> >contribution, and I'd take it without hesitation. I would also accept a
> >polite response on the order of, "Gee, Jim. I know it looked that way,
> >but I have just been talking with the folks at Skystar, and what they now
> > say is ..."
>
> Owen, it sounds perfect to me. Start the process, I'll not only vote
> for it, I'll twist some arms to help it pass. I trust you to do a
> fair job as a moderator, and expect you'll be less subject to outside
> pressures than some unknown.
>
> It isn't going to happen unless you do it, Owen.

Thanks for the support, but (GROAN!)

> >...I thought you just said there was a vast, silent pool of people who find
> >Campbell despicable but do not find it necessary to post their views.
>
> Do not put adjectives in my mouth. Either quote exactly what I said, or
> don't exaggerate. You're acting like Campbell in that regard.

Ron, you're right. I was off base here. Clearly, I read more into your
statement than you intended and then reacted to my imperfect
understanding
instead of to what you had actually said. I sincerely apologize. I
will
try not to let it happen again.

Owen Davies

[alan staats]

>Furthermore, I disagree that the flame wars exist because of Campbell's
>evils. Instead, they exist because you and others like you -- some
>with legitimate grievances and some, it seems, with no more excuse
>than their taste for blood -- lack that very modest amount of courtesy,
>discipline, and simple good sense needed either to curb your anger or
>to take it somewhere useful. To a remarkable extent, in attacking your
>enemy, you have become what you despise.

mr. davies, you just don't get it. "real world" remedies? ok, mr.
davies, i'll take my two kids out of school, go to florida for a
couple of months or so and sue mr. campbell. ok? even better, i'll
take apart their college trust funds to pay for it. that way you
won't have to "suffer" through these diatribes.any more.

i don't publish a magazine, mr. davies, where i can hide behind the
first amendment while literally bludgeoning others with it. THIS IS
MY FORUM, AS MUCH AS IT IS YOURS, CAMPBELL'S, PUCILLO'S, MILES',
RILEY'S, BADWATER'S AND EVERYONE ELSES. if you don't like the tenor,
or tone, or content of a book, do you write the author complaining
that "my library is cluttered with your books, which i hate, so please
stop writing them"? i doubt it. or, closer to the mark, if you're
RON'd at a hotel somewhere, do you call the front desk because there
is a television in the room that has a program, on one of the
channels, that you don't like, so could they please come up and remove
the offending television? i doubt it. what most everyone i know
(including myself) does, is to simply turn the channel. i live in the
united states, mr. davies, where short of standing up in a darkened
theatered and shouting "fire" i can say any damn thing i please. with
my mouth, or with my fingers. in person, in print, on the air or on
the internet. and if you don't like it, turn the page, flip the
channel, turn a deaf ear or HIT THE GOD D*M DELETE BUTTON.

staats

[Owen Davies]

alan staats wrote:

> mr. davies, you just don't get it. "real world" remedies? ok, mr.
> davies, i'll take my two kids out of school, go to florida for a
> couple of months or so and sue mr. campbell. ok? even better, i'll
> take apart their college trust funds to pay for it. that way you
> won't have to "suffer" through these diatribes.any more.

I did not mean to suggest that you should sue him. The behavior you
describe is subject to criminal as well as civil penalties, if you can
provide evidence to support your accusations. And criminal prosecution,
unlike litigation, is available without charge. That is one of the
rare things government is good for. It's their job.

Yours is to take your case to the responsible authorities and make it
well enough to be taken seriously, so that they can prosecute your
attacker,
just as it would be if you had been mugged on a street corner. If
Campbell
is the vicious POS you accuse him of being, it is also your
responsibility,
both as the victim of his harrassment and as a citizen.

> i don't publish a magazine, mr. davies, where i can hide behind the
> first amendment while literally bludgeoning others with it. THIS IS
> MY FORUM, AS MUCH AS IT IS YOURS, CAMPBELL'S, PUCILLO'S, MILES',
> RILEY'S, BADWATER'S AND EVERYONE ELSES.

(substantial elision)

> i live in the united states, mr. davies, where short of standing up
> in a darkened theatered and shouting "fire" i can say any damn thing
> i please. with my mouth, or with my fingers. in person, in print,
> on the air or on the internet. and if you don't like it, turn the page,
> flip the channel, turn a deaf ear or HIT THE GOD D*M DELETE BUTTON.

It seems to me that you are hiding behind the First Amendment every bit
as much as Campbell is. Yes, this forum is as open to you as it is to
anyone else. However, it was established for a specific purpose, the
exchange of information about homebuilt aircraft and matters related to
them. I would even be willing to stretch that description to admit a
message warning that Campbell--a prominent person in the general
aviation
community, if not specifically in homebuilts--is a dangerous nut, based
on the following evidence. Going on and on about it endlessly for
months
or years is misusing this resource.

Yes, I can hit the delete button. And will. But it should not be
necessary.
Any more than it should be necessary for you to accept abuse from the
likes
of Jim Campbell, or anyone else. And if your offense is smaller than
the
ones you attribute to Campbell, nonetheless I too feel abused.

I guess what it comes down to is which you really prefer: going after
Campbell in the real world, a course that is difficult, effective, and
to
be applauded by anyone who cares about seeing evil punished; or going
after
him here in r.a.h., a course that is easy, useless, and to be condemned
by
anyone who would like to see this forum returned to its original
purpose.
The choice, of course, is yours.

Owen Davies

[alan staats]

Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:

>alan staats wrote:

>(substantial elision)

>Owen Davies

i give up

[jo...@ia.net]

Owen, I have disagreed with all of the complaints of off-topic posts, especially
the Zoom threads, for the same reason that J.R. Johnson states, that the damage
done by the zoomer to many reputations in this industry is indeed pertinent to
this newsgroup.

That is, I have disagreed until now.

You have put forth the idea that this _is_ becoming r.a.z. most eloquently and
succinctly with this post... and while I still agree with the 'anti-zoomers'
that a 'z' post must be answered, I must now join you in calling for restraint
to the "me too" or "you think that's bad" type of posts... perhaps only the
recipient of the 'tirade of the day' should make the response...

We know how frustrated all these zoom targets must feel, but we will all benefit
by getting this group back to 'news exchange' more than 'frustration venting' -
an answer to a 'z' tirade qualifies as news, ubt anything beyond that really
does no good...

But I still want to hear about BWB's RV6 spaceship, and the Woes of Wanttaja!

-John R.

Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:

>alan staats wrote:
>>
>> Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...snip
>> >it's just one more of these anti-Campbell bozos mouthing off about the
>> >same old obsession under a new, and probably deceptive, title. Either
>> >that, or a formerly interesting thread has just been sidetracked into
>> >the I-HATE-the-Zoomer war.
>>
>> mr davies, as one of the "anti-campbell" bozos you refer to, allow me
>> to ask you a question: have you ever left the employ of someone, and
>> subsequently had that person call everyone you know, including
>> relatives, and make disparaging and insulting remarks about you to
>> them? i have. have you ever left the employ of someone and a week
>> later gotten an email threatening your children with rape and murder?
>> i have. and it only happened once, after leaving one employer. i'll
>> let you guess which one. you want to know why the campbell flame wars
>> happen? because, in my opinion, he is the largest hypocrite i have
>> ever come across in my entire life. he will trample the rights of
>> those he dislikes, slander them, libel them, "investigate" them and
>> then hide behind the principals of journalism as an excuse. but god
>> help those with the temerity to write something along these lines. i
>> expect everyone from the secret service to the fbi to his "legal
>> counsel and others with legal educations" will get a copy of this as
>> proof of my harassment of the "man".

>(and so on)

>Mr. Staats,

>You have my deep sympathy for your troubles. No one should have to
>endure the kind of abuse you describe. There is no possible excuse
>for such behavior as you and others attribute to Jim Campbell.

>However, there are remedies for that sort of thing. They exist out
>there in the "real world," where you are suffering, not here in r.a.h.
>When it comes to stopping whatever evils the Zoomer commits, all the
>anti-Campbell diatribes that clutter this newsgroup accomplish nothing.
>Nothing at all. Your energies could be spent more productively
>elsewhere, with less aggravation to those of us who find the constant
>bile objectionable.

>If all you want is a venue for your hostility, or a forum in which to
>share your anger with like-minded peers, then someone has already made
>the appropriate suggestion: Set up your own newsgroup. If you ever
>decide to found rec.aviation.zoom, I'll vote for it with pleasure. But
>rec.aviation.homebuilt isn't the place for the vilification of others,
>no matter how deserving.

>Furthermore, I disagree that the flame wars exist because of Campbell's
>evils. Instead, they exist because you and others like you -- some
>with legitimate grievances and some, it seems, with no more excuse
>than their taste for blood -- lack that very modest amount of courtesy,
>discipline, and simple good sense needed either to curb your anger or
>to take it somewhere useful. To a remarkable extent, in attacking your
>enemy, you have become what you despise.

>In an earlier posting, Ron Wanntaja commented on the
>technically-oriented
>mailing lists, which of late have been draining off messages that
>otherwise
>might have aired in r.a.h. Like him, I doubt that they have been
>established
>in order to provide a Zoom-free forum for those who would discuss
>matters
>actually related to homebuilt airplanes. But the fact remains that
>while
>the flame wars rage, less and less useful, interesting material about
>homebuilts appears here. The result is that this newsgroup is quickly
>being
>converted into rec.aviation.zoom without the formality of a vote. I
>view
>this with dismay.

>Though I cannot prove it, I strongly suspect that one reason the number
>of
>on-topic messages has declined is that fewer and fewer people who might
>have
>participated here bother to do so, because they no longer expect to find
>anything of value in r.a.h. The joys of building, flying, and tinkering
>with
>homebuilt aircraft have been replaced by the joys of hating Jim
>Campbell.
>And most of us can do without it. At this point, I would not be here
>myself,
>except that I can remember a time when the signal-to-noise ratio was a
>lot
>higher, and I have not completely lost hope that it someday may be so
>again.

>Finally, I wish to apologize for my reference to "anti-Campbell bozos."
>I try to remain civil. Honestly, I do try. Yet I deal with frustration
>badly, and I find the state of rec.aviation.homebuilt frustrating
>indeed.
>However, that is an explanation. It is not an excuse. I will try to do
>better.

>All I ask in return is that you try to do better as well. Tell us
>whether
>you have built an airplane or own one that someone else built. Tell us
>which
>models most impress you, and why. Tell us what you know about welding
>or
>fabric work or composites. Or ask for help with selecting or building
>an
>airplane, a glider, or a gyrocopter. But spare us the flame war.
>Please.
>Just give it a rest. It's gone on for far too long.

>Owen Davies

[mailtoRo...@aol.commailto]

In article <340EEC...@davies.mv.com>, Owen says...

>I did not mean to suggest that you should sue him. The behavior you
>describe is subject to criminal as well as civil penalties, if you can
>provide evidence to support your accusations. And criminal prosecution,
>unlike litigation, is available without charge. That is one of the
>rare things government is good for. It's their job.
>
>Yours is to take your case to the responsible authorities and make it
>well enough to be taken seriously, so that they can prosecute your
>attacker,
>just as it would be if you had been mugged on a street corner. If
>Campbell
>is the vicious POS you accuse him of being, it is also your
>responsibility,
>both as the victim of his harrassment and as a citizen.

BIG SNIP HERE

I had a fascinating and horrifying conversation with a friend of mine a couple
of years ago. He is a Postal Inspector in the Los Angeles area.

The conversation was in regard to mail fraud and how the US Attorney's office
handled cases that were presented to them by the Postal Inspectors.

The gist of the conversation was that the US Attorney's office wouldn't
prosecute any case of mail fraud that involved less than $250,000.00 no matter
how well documented the investigation was. The result of this is that the
Postal Service knows of numerous operators of mail fraud scams in the LA area
and can't get the US Attorney's Office to prosecute. The scam artists pull the
same scams over and over while making sure to keep each scam session below the
"trigger" threshold for prosecution. The public keeps getting ripped off and
nothing is done.

As you can well imagine this does produce a de-motivated and cynical group of
Postal Inspectors and a bunch of happy scam artists.

In other words the government isn't as good at their jobs as we would like to
believe.

Blue Skies,

Roy T.

[Mary Shafer]

I moderate sci.aeronautics and I think that it's a big mistake to
overspecify the charter. We have a charter of about five lines, with
a set of posting guidelines of about 100 lines. The newsgroup is
flame-free, the postings are relevant to the charter, and the tone of
the group is extremely civil.

Find an intelligent, mature person who is interested in keeping the
newsgroup on-topic and create the newsgroup, letting that person do it
the way she or he thinks best. If someone thinks a posting has been
rejected unfairly, r.a.h is available as an alternative forum.

Even simpler, and a lot quicker, is for each and every reader and
poster to self-moderate. Skip what isn't interesting, without
complaining about it. Post only if the message adhers to the charter.
Don't try to win, or even to have the last word, or feel justified.
Yes, I know self-discipline isn't always as gratifying as doing
whatever feels good at the time, but in the long run it is better.
Better for the newsgroup, better for one's reputation, better for
one's soul.

After all, isn't much of homebuilding and piloting about
self-discipline?

--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handing Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE and ACTIVE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please

[Owen Davies]

John,

Many thanks for the kind words. I won't answer them on the newsgroup,
as I'm trying to back out of this thread. It's taking too much time
that I can't afford. But your support is much appreciated.

Like you, I have no problem with someone answering one of Campbell's
messages when something he has said is wrong or misleading. It's all
the hate-for-the-sake-of-hatred that angries-up my digestion.

Owen Davies

[Owen Davies]

Oh, dear. That was boneheaded of me.

On the Old Tools mailing list, when someone pulls something like this,
he gets to clean out the spitoon there on the virtual porch. I hate
to think what I'll have to do around here! 8-)

Owen Davies

[David Munday]

On 05 Sep 1997 11:46:22 -0700, Mary Shafer
<sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>Find an intelligent, mature person who is interested in keeping the
>newsgroup on-topic and create the newsgroup, letting that person do it
>the way she or he thinks best. If someone thinks a posting has been
>rejected unfairly, r.a.h is available as an alternative forum.

I know more or less how to go about proposing an un-moderated
newsgroup, but how do you set up a moderated one? Do you specify a
moderator in the proposal for the newsgroup? What sort of net access
is needed for a moderator to operate? Do you need to be a sysadmin?
or can it be done from anywhere? aol, etc?

Do you still have a copy of the sci.aeronautics proposal that might be
used as a guide?

I think it's about time to run such a thing up the flagpole and see if
anybody salutes.

By the way I think you're exactly right about both the charter and the
issue of selecting a good moderator and then getting out of his or her
way. You can't legislate such stuff, it's a matter of judgement. You
have to pick someone who has demonstrated it and let them exercise it.

>Even simpler, and a lot quicker, is for each and every reader and
>poster to self-moderate. Skip what isn't interesting, without
>complaining about it. Post only if the message adhers to the charter.
>Don't try to win, or even to have the last word, or feel justified.
>Yes, I know self-discipline isn't always as gratifying as doing
>whatever feels good at the time, but in the long run it is better.
>Better for the newsgroup, better for one's reputation, better for
>one's soul.

You're correct of course, unfortunately the past few ears experience
has shown such an approach to be insufficient.

--
David Munday - mun...@muohio.edu
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it. - Clarence Darrow

[GooberB]

>At last! This is the message I received by e-mail three or four days
>ago.

>
>Tony P. wrote:
>
>> Ron's statement may be "suspect" but it's true (about the many who
>> quietly have strong feelings about the Zoom issue). I've received
>> countless messages from people whose names you'll never see on a post on

>> the subject, and many whose names you've never seen on any post at all.
>

>(Snip!)

Owen,

A moderated (censored) newsgroup would not permit you to post a private E-Mail.

(much snipping)

>> am not a victim who needs this forum to respond, unlike many others,
>> though I strongly support their freedom to do so here).
>

>Come on, Tony, this kind of playing with words is beneath you. In this
>instance, "moderated" has a clear and generally recognized meaning:
>overseen

Comon Owen, moderating is censoring. I'm with Tony, leave the group to be
what it is and if you don't want to read or to respond to a thread, just don't.

>In fact, I do not even ask to eliminate all the Zoom threads. However,
>they have gotten so far out of hand that they threaten to dominate

Can you define"out of hand?" I for one don't think they're out of hand.
But your censor may think so and therefore I won't be able to read or to
respond to a thread that I have an interest in.

>a newsgroup that exists for the exchange of information about homebuilt
>aircraft and matters related to them. If someone had useful information
>to add about Campbell, his misdeeds, or his possible comeuppance ...
>well,
>it still would not belong here,

What? This group is only to talk about AN fittings and what to put into 3
& 1/8 inch holes? I thought it was to talk about homebuilt aviation and
all matters relating to aviation. I think the Zoom threads are very
relevent to homebuilt aviation. Perhaps your censor has a different view
from your's as to what can and cannot be said?

(more snipping)

Back to Tony
,

>> I DO doubt that the Zoom threads are driving away a large volume of
>> other posts. This presumes that there are dozens of silent Zoom
>> supporters out there, so offended by the idea of his being criticized,
>> that they won't hang around.

I couldn't agree more. Geeze Owen, how many folks have been sent packing
or for that matter turned off their InterNet access because of the "Make
Cash the Easy Way" posts?
>
>Nonsense, Tony. All it presumes is that people go where they can expect
>to
>find value. If someone wants a source of information, commentary, or
>just
>good stories about homebuilt airplanes, r.a.h. is no longer the obvious
>place to find them.

Nonsence Owen, the only Zoom post that I've found on my server this
weekend was your's, complaining about all the Zoom posts.

It takes too much time and patience to search
>through
>a lot of garbage for comparatively little gold.

Nonsence, once again.

Owen you are trying to change the course of reality. The net has changed
and is not the civil gentlemanly place it used to be. Censorship is not
the answer, it never is. When Zoom gets in return what he quickly gives
out, he'll eventually will go away, much like Lamar.

We all must put up with the backlash until the offender gets tired and
leaves for greener pastures.

Goober

[alan staats]

goo...@aol.com (GooberB) wrote:

<snip>

owen, if you need a moderated newsgroup to discuss aircraft (homebuilt
or otherwise) why don't you just go out and form one? it can't be
that hard.

i have found, through personal experience and much experimentation,
that to delete a "get cash quick" post or a "teenage nymphos in
compromising positions" post takes about 1.5 seconds of my time.

just to see if that same technique worked with what you would, i
imagine, consider to be "valid" posts, i deleted a previously read
post on what to put into a 3 1/8 inch hole. i was truly astounded to
find that the same technique worked in the same amount of time.
voila', the term "moderation" suddently took on a new meaning! i
could moderate myself!

as can we all.

as odd as this may sound, despite the fact that i have been slandered
and threatened by the un-named bugaboo, i have also been informed and
vastly entertained by others here as well.

my advice stands. if you want a moderated r.a.h., go form one
yourself. ooh, a new meaning for the word "formation."

staats

[David Munday]

On 7 Sep 1997 15:22:00 GMT, goo...@aol.com (GooberB) wrote:

>Owen,
>
>A moderated (censored) newsgroup would not permit you to post a private E-Mail.

Well, not unless the moderator judges it to be within the charter, but
you could still post it in the unmoderated newsgroup here.

>>In fact, I do not even ask to eliminate all the Zoom threads. However,
>>they have gotten so far out of hand that they threaten to dominate
>
>Can you define"out of hand?" I for one don't think they're out of hand.
>But your censor may think so and therefore I won't be able to read or to
>respond to a thread that I have an interest in.

This is the sort of thing we elect a moderator to decide. If you could
reduce it to an iron-clad definition you could implement it with some
sort of advanced filters. You can't. If I were god, er, moderator,
the prevailing criterion would be firstly if it relates to homebuilt
aviation, and most of the Campbell stuff does, and secondly if it's
"heat or light" and thirdly if it's of the "me too" variety. If it
relates to homebuilt aviation, it's more than an "I hate campbell and
you should too" article, and it's not the eighth article saying the
same damned thing, it goes in. [when moderators clip repetition, they
usually insert a note in brackets like this saying there're a bunch
more where this came from, but they've been clipped]

Judgement will vary somewhat on each of these, and selecting a
reasonable moderator is the difference between success and failure of
the enterprise (r.a.h.moderated).

Again, if the moderator doesn't allow it you can still post it in the
present unmoderated newsgroup.

>What? This group is only to talk about AN fittings and what to put into 3
>& 1/8 inch holes? I thought it was to talk about homebuilt aviation and
>all matters relating to aviation. I think the Zoom threads are very
>relevent to homebuilt aviation. Perhaps your censor has a different view
>from your's as to what can and cannot be said?

That's up to the elected moderator. I think Ron's flybaby stories, or
Bill's RV stories fit within the charter because they relate to flying
homebuilt aircraft. Though they're amusing I don't think the lawyer
jokes fit, though the first or second would probably slip through
before I'd reach for the "censored" stamp. A little tangent here and
there isn't a problem in my judgement, but that's my judgement and
again judgements will vary somewhat, it's not law, it's a matter of
judgement and selecting a reasonable moderator is key.

Again, if the moderator doesn't allow it you can still post it in the
present unmoderated newsgroup.

Am I repeating myself yet?

>I couldn't agree more. Geeze Owen, how many folks have been sent packing
>or for that matter turned off their InterNet access because of the "Make
>Cash the Easy Way" posts?

Yeay! another great reason to form a moderated newsgroup. SPAM like
that doesn't make it past most any moderator.

>Nonsence Owen, the only Zoom post that I've found on my server this
>weekend was your's, complaining about all the Zoom posts.

It's not just the "Zoom posts" it's all sorts of errata (and again
much of the Campbell stuff is within the charter.)

And yet once again if you want to post something the moderator rules
out of bounds, there are other places to do it like
rec.aviation.homebuilt for instance. If the moderator is too
restrictive there won't be anything in r.a.h.moderated so no-one will
read it.

>Owen you are trying to change the course of reality. The net has changed
>and is not the civil gentlemanly place it used to be. Censorship is not
>the answer, it never is. When Zoom gets in return what he quickly gives
>out, he'll eventually will go away, much like Lamar.
>
>We all must put up with the backlash until the offender gets tired and
>leaves for greener pastures.

I suspect that once "the offender" is without a paper publication we
may see more of him here. So long as he stays on topic that's not
entirely bad. He's as entitled to contribute as you or me.

Look, you want to call a moderator a censor, that's literally true, he
is. Another equally true synonym is an editor who decides what does
and does not belong in a magazine. The case is a little different
because an editor can't have too much stuff since newsprint costs
money, and he has a limited supply of that. There's a long tradition
of moderated newsgroups on usenet, and in every case I've encountered
a moderated newsgroup is better than its non-moderated counterpart.
No one is trying to take r.a.h away as an unmoderated newsgroup. I
expect that it will either remain as a larger, noisier, and yes, a
more open sibling to r.a.h.moderated; or if all the good stuff moves
to the moderated newsgroup in enough people's opinions traffic will
fall off.

This can be done badly up of course. A poor moderator could be
selected, and make decisions that don't match the wishes of his
readership. In that case the traffic would dwindle in the moderated
newsgroup and it would fall by the wayside.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <19970907152...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, goo...@aol.com
Major snipping

>Owen you are trying to change the course of reality. The net has changed
>and is not the civil gentlemanly place it used to be. Censorship is not
>the answer, it never is. When Zoom gets in return what he quickly gives
>out, he'll eventually will go away, much like Lamar.
>
>We all must put up with the backlash until the offender gets tired and
>leaves for greener pastures.
>

>Goober

Well said.I for one would rather make up my own mind and be a self
censor then have some person in a self appointed white tower do it
for me...It's called freedom, to bad some people can't deal with it...

Chuck(don't tread on me )Slusarczyk

visit our web site@
www.cgsaviation.com

[David Hyde]

Nauga's thoughts on moderation.

Mary Shafer writes:

>I moderate sci.aeronautics...The newsgroup is

>flame-free, the postings are relevant to the charter, and the tone of
>the group is extremely civil.

Traffic is also much lower in sci.aero, at least at my feed. R.a.h seems
to be a much more dynamic newsgroup, which requires more effort on the
part of the reader to separate the wheat from the chaff. What you gain
from this effort is a larger pool of opinions on a wide range of subjects.
This interaction is what makes r.a.h. interesting to me. It doesn't take
me long to figure out when to stop following a thread - when the number of
off-topic posts (or at least ones I disagree with) becomes larger than the
number of on-topic posts. I also don't think I'm missing much by not
always reading every thread. The ones with the most posts are either the
most dynamic or the most informative - I read a few and decide. If I'm
not interested in what's being put forth, I don't continue to read the
thread. If the traffic continues, I can check in later and see what I've
missed - sometimes they migrate back to the topic and it doesn't take much
to catch up. I don't pretend to understand all the subtle nuances of
usenet and why this might not work for everyone, but it does well for me.

jo...@ia.net writes (responding to Owen Davies):

>You have put forth the idea that this _is_ becoming r.a.z. most
>eloquently and succinctly with this post...

The current (read but available on my feed) posts regarding moderation
currently outnumber the Zoom posts. There's not a lot new being said in
either thread (my contribution included). Current events dictate that
there will be more Zoom posts in the near future, but these will likely
contain relevant info. Certainly more relevant that what city has the
best weather or who has the best lawyer joke. Read at your own peril.

Owen Davies wrote:

> But the fact remains that while
>the flame wars rage, less and less useful, interesting material about
>homebuilts appears here.

I find it _all_ pretty interesting, but I agree about the 'less useful'
part. I hereby vow to contribute a useful post directly related to
homebuilding as soon as I finish this one.

>The result is that this newsgroup is quickly
>being converted into rec.aviation.zoom without the formality of a vote.

Now _this_ I disagree with. There are _many_ off-topic posts here that
don't relate to Zoom. Check out the Wintel bashing (tm). Check out the
100Hz filter discussion. Check out the weather wars. The Zoom threads
tend to ebb and flow, but there's always a bonanza of drivel available.
Just skip it.

> Ron Wanntaja commented on the technically-oriented
>mailing lists, which of late have been draining off messages that
>otherwise might have aired in r.a.h.

I used to subscribe to a single mailing list serving a single line of
kitplanes. I dropped it because the same discussions and arguements kept
cropping up regarding the same subjects about which I had no interest (I
had already chosen a primer :). This was with 50+ e-mails a day from the
list. It took me more time to delete this mail (usually without reading
it) than it does to personally filter r.a.h. When I've had a question,
I've been able to find an answer, either on the group or through the
group. Still, I don't think of r.a.h. as a source for answers, more for
discussion and 'networking' (ugh). I have found more than one person to
go to for info on specific subjects without cluttering the newsgroup with
a specific question.

Oh, heck, I'm done.

Dave 'manual shutdown' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu

[jo...@ia.net]

na...@Glue.umd.edu (David Hyde) wrote:

>Nauga's thoughts on moderation.

.... <skipping a bit>

>Owen Davies wrote:

>>The result is that this newsgroup is quickly
>>being converted into rec.aviation.zoom without the formality of a vote.

>Now _this_ I disagree with. There are _many_ off-topic posts here that
>don't relate to Zoom. Check out the Wintel bashing (tm). Check out the
>100Hz filter discussion. Check out the weather wars. The Zoom threads
>tend to ebb and flow, but there's always a bonanza of drivel available.
>Just skip it.

Hmmm... you are correct that 'z' posts have never been more than a significant
minority, but at times it has showcased the poorer aspects of both 'sides'...
and I think _that_ contributes to the possibility of 'driving out' on-topic
posts. I really don't think there's all that much danger of it, but still I'd
like to see even the 'z' posts remain on-topic, where only the 'respondent'
succumbs to the urge to respond. The rest of the 'you think that's bad, look
what z said about me two months ago' and the 'what he said' posts only clutter
things up, muddy up the issue of the real (and necessary) defense, and then of
course in come the complaints of 'off-topic' posts and calls for a moderated
group or fragmentation of r.a.h.

I don't want to see a moderated group... the z posts must be answered and to a
limited degree are on-topic..
I'm amused by the complaints of 'off-topic' beavior, which themselves constitute
probably a larger population of 'off-topic' posts..

>> Ron Wanntaja commented on the technically-oriented
>>mailing lists, which of late have been draining off messages that
>>otherwise might have aired in r.a.h.

>I used to subscribe to a single mailing list serving a single line of
>kitplanes. I dropped it because the same discussions and arguements kept
>cropping up regarding the same subjects about which I had no interest (I
>had already chosen a primer :). This was with 50+ e-mails a day from the
>list. It took me more time to delete this mail (usually without reading
>it) than it does to personally filter r.a.h.

Me too :) ... I also have a newsreader that doesn't recognize cross-posts as
duplicates, so watching several r.a.?? groups is also somewhat inconvenient.
Personally, I'd rather not see further fragmentation of the r.a.?? ngs, as I
think I would be more likely to miss some good threads unless I subscribe to
_all_ rec.av groups (did you know there are currently 21 r.a.?? newsgroups?).
IMHO, rec.av.engines might be a reasonable request, but then you'd open the
gates for r.a.electrical, r.a.avionics, r.a.computers, r.a.canards,
r.a.airfoils, etc.

>When I've had a question,
>I've been able to find an answer, either on the group or through the
>group. Still, I don't think of r.a.h. as a source for answers, more for
>discussion and 'networking' (ugh).

I agree wholeheartedly, I sure would miss BWB and Ron W.'s stories if they only
posted them to rec.av.stories, but it's easy enough to pass over them if I
didn't want to read them...

> I have found more than one person to
>go to for info on specific subjects without cluttering the newsgroup with
>a specific question.

Even if you did ask a specific question, as long as the title gave a good clue I
would not consider it 'cluttering up' the newsgroup.

>Oh, heck, I'm done.

Good points all, but I still think the group (and the posters themselves) would
be better off if a little more restraint were exercised specifically in the
z-rebuttal posts (except for the target du jour)... as someone else pointed
out, z is probably quite proud of how big a ruckus he can raise, I'd be in favor
of no response whatsoever except new readers do need to see the answers as
well...

>Dave 'manual shutdown' Hyde
>na...@glue.umd.edu

Does the fact that I'm whining about 3 different off-topic topics make this post
on-topic, or am I now _way_ off topic?
Perhaps we should have a rec.aviation.off-topic??

John 'apparently in run-on mode' Rourke

[Reis Evans]

David Hyde gave me an inspiration for how to (airplane) weed out the
irrelevant posts. I wrote a (wing) simple filter for my news reader
that makes a (dutch roll) quick comparison of the phrases in a list
(auto conversion) to the verbage in the article. If less than
(elevator) one in ten words is an aeronautical term, the (phugoid
oscillation) filter automatically rejects the article, and it does not
appear (flaperon) on the screen.

Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a (empenage) way for the filter to
function in only one (downwind turn) direction. If I fail to make at
least 1/10th (PSRU) of my post relevant to aircraft, my filter won't
(AirTruk) allow the article to go out. I apologize for (canard) the
inserts; I'll keep working on it. The finished product should (Stits)
be worth a fortune!

Come to think of it, (laminar flow) maybe we could require ALL r.a.h.
posters to use (control stick) my filter, just the way it is!

Reis |:{)}

[David Munday]

On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 04:36:38 GMT, jo...@ia.net wrote:

>I don't want to see a moderated group... the z posts must be answered and to a
>limited degree are on-topic..
>I'm amused by the complaints of 'off-topic' beavior, which themselves constitute
>probably a larger population of 'off-topic' posts..

To make a faint defense of the moderated group decision (only a faint
one) It is what I would call a meta-discussion. A discussion about
how r.a.h should be run or modified which doesn't sensibly belong
anywhere else.

i do think it's time to stop just talking about it, and if a moderator
can be found put it to a vote and end it.

>I agree wholeheartedly, I sure would miss BWB and Ron W.'s stories if they only
>posted them to rec.av.stories, but it's easy enough to pass over them if I
>didn't want to read them...

As I've said before, i don't think most of these belong outside a
r.a.h.moderated charter if it closely resembles the one for r.a.h

>Good points all, but I still think the group (and the posters themselves) would
>be better off if a little more restraint were exercised specifically in the
>z-rebuttal posts (except for the target du jour)... as someone else pointed
>out, z is probably quite proud of how big a ruckus he can raise, I'd be in favor
>of no response whatsoever except new readers do need to see the answers as
>well...

I agree, and I'm glad to see some response to the proposal that's not
of the form "you're a book-burner" You have several excellent points,
some of which I agree with philosophically, but it's my opinion that
recent experience has shown that restraint in adherence to the charter
is insufficiently present in r.a.h and a moderated newsgroup is
desirable.

i hope we can soon put such an idea to a vote and be done with it one
way or the other.

[jo...@ia.net]

Reis Evans <%erevans%@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Reis |:{)}

ROTFLM(pusher prop)AO!

Sorry, I've always wanted to say that, and this (spin-stall) time I couldn't
resist!

-John R.

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <5uncfa$i...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, <jo...@ia.net> wrote:
>
>Owen, I have disagreed with all of the complaints of off-topic posts, especially
>the Zoom threads, for the same reason that J.R. Johnson states, that the damage
>done by the zoomer to many reputations in this industry is indeed pertinent to
>this newsgroup.
>
>That is, I have disagreed until now.
>
>You have put forth the idea that this _is_ becoming r.a.z. most eloquently and
>succinctly with this post... and while I still agree with the 'anti-zoomers'
>that a 'z' post must be answered, I must now join you in calling for restraint
>to the "me too" or "you think that's bad" type of posts... perhaps only the
>recipient of the 'tirade of the day' should make the response...
>
>We know how frustrated all these zoom targets must feel, but we will all benefit
>by getting this group back to 'news exchange' more than 'frustration venting' -
>an answer to a 'z' tirade qualifies as news, ubt anything beyond that really
>does no good...

Well, at the risk of having to give up any hope of getting an "I've been
Zoomed" T-shirt, I'd like to suggest the following:

1. Practically everyone in the newsgroup knows the opinions of all the
primary participants in the Zoomwars.

2. Therefore, it isn't really as necessary to keep reminding people
what a *#$%#@ he is. Consider, in addition, the meaning of the phrase,
"Counter-productive".

3. Unless, of course, *new* information surfaces...he sends someone
threatening mail, calls employers, or posts more idiocy about people
or products to either his web page or this newsgroup.

In this "new information" category, I would include anything to do with
the status of his bankruptcy or Tony's lawsuit, including
official/non-official transcripts of any court appearances.

I know some folks don't want to hear ANYTHING...but again, I must point
out that this is the only venue most of Zoom's victims have. And it
*is* effective...I think Vicki would still have been listed as USA's
publisher if she hadn't posted her disclaimer a few months back.

4. Ensure the Subject: line of the posting reflects the actual
content... if Zoom comes up during the discussion of an innocuous topic,
change the Subject line in your reply. It's been suggested to add the
letter "Z" at the beginning and end; I prefer changing to a more
descriptive title. Anything's better than not changing it at all, of
course.

5. Let's tell some stories that DON'T include anecdotes about ex-publishers.
There's a number of folks who have been involved in ultralight and
homebuilt aviation for decades...show your non-zoom-flaming side!

People like Owen and Dave Munday have expressed their displeasure that the
net.involvement continues. I do not like to see either of them
disparaged for doing so...they have expressed their opinions forcibly
but with good logic and a minimum of personal byplay. They have made
some valid points.

There is a strong emotional side of this issue; a side that someone who
has NOT been a target of a Campbell campaign can only catch glimpses of.
I understand all too well what people like Al Staats have gone through.

The author of one of the most popular novels of the early 20th Century
(made into two major movies, one silent, the other a huge color
spectacular) started his tale to debunk certain religious precepts. By
the time he finished the book, though, he'd grown to embrace those concepts.

Tony Pucillo is on a similar journey. In eight months he transitioned
from a Zoom fan to filing a libel, fraud, and RICO lawsuit against him. I
think his lawsuit merely scratches the surface of the information he's
gathered. Tony, like the author mentioned above, has the makings of one
Hell of a book. I hope he writes it, someday.

I think the Zoomer rhetoric should be toned down a bit. Like Tony, I feel
that the Campbell saga is coming to a close. Verbally strafing the
wreckage isn't really necessary, and is ticking off people who are
otherwise friends. Mind you, if a figure rises from the scorched gasbag
and starts firing a .50 cal from the lip.....

[Tony P.]

Ron:

I wholeheartedly agree. Pure invective and grousing is neither
productive nor persuasive. If we all stuck to what's newsworthy on the
topic there might be fewer complaints. Heck, if the subject of the
gripes stuck to what was newsworthy, maybe --- oops, there I go again,
dammit! :)

Seriously, on that subject I have not changed my view. I respect those
who educated me in a constructive manner, and I've been educated here
about many other things as well including most recently by some welding
comments from Owen. If we upgrade the content I think we're going to
have very little friction.

BTW, see my post about news. The meeting scheduled for the 15th has
been moved again to the 22nd in the bankruptcy.

Oops, one more comment. I ran into a copy of your book at a parts mart
in Georgia (sorry, no royalties on resales!) and enjoyed it (the seller
had bought it at the Smithsonian; very high-class). Even though it's a
few years old I'd recommend it highly. I did have an eerie feeling when
reading the comments about using the Stits and similar materials
correctly and the consequences of not doing so since this was written
before the Steve Wittman events.

But you didn't cover gasbags. Maybe in the sequel.

Tony Pucillo

[I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
quite enough, thank you.]

[Owen Davies]

Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:

> Well, at the risk of having to give up any hope of getting an "I've been
> Zoomed" T-shirt, I'd like to suggest the following:
>
> 1. Practically everyone in the newsgroup knows the opinions of all the
> primary participants in the Zoomwars.
>
> 2. Therefore, it isn't really as necessary to keep reminding people
> what a *#$%#@ he is. Consider, in addition, the meaning of the phrase,
> "Counter-productive".
>
> 3. Unless, of course, *new* information surfaces...he sends someone
> threatening mail, calls employers, or posts more idiocy about people
> or products to either his web page or this newsgroup.

(and so on)

Thanks, Ron. Not a single word I disagreed with. I have no wish
to ban any and all Zoom-related posts from the group, though in
my irritation I could well have made it sound so. It's just the
endless litany of "me too" posts I hate. Some people can get
pretty ugly in their hatred of Campbell, and while it sounds like
they have plenty of reason for their anger, it really bothers me.
Genuine information is always welcome, especially if offered calmly.

As for the on-topic/off-topic debate, it doesn't much worry me.
It was just the only reasonably objective standard I could find for
dealing with what really troubled me.

It's really nice to find that we can reach agreement on this.

Owen Davies

[Badwater Bill]

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:04:08 GMT, Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com>
wrote:

> Some people can get
>pretty ugly in their hatred of Campbell, and while it sounds like
>they have plenty of reason for their anger, it really bothers me.
>Genuine information is always welcome, especially if offered calmly.
>

>Owen Davies
>

Who's this guy Cambell? Never heard of him.

BWB

[Howard Jones]

Badwater Bill (billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:04:08 GMT, Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com>
: >Genuine information is always welcome, especially if offered calmly.
:
: Who's this guy Cambell? Never heard of him.

Malcolm Campbell, he's an aussie guy who once held the land speed record.
all americans are petrol heads at heart, that's why the interest has lasted
for so long.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Jones, (how...@perth.dialix.oz.au) _--_|\
The world around you is metric, you will be assimilated, / \
resistance is futile. *_.--._/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Tony P.]

Owen:

The real beauty of calm discussion is that it brings out our kinship.
If you took all the folks who like this individual based on his
presentation in the magazine and those who detest him based on his
performance in public and private, you'd almost certainly find the only
difference is how much they know and have experienced.

All are people who are avid in their love of aviation, who want to see
the charlatans and abusive regulators and bureaucrats leashed, and who
think that the future of private aviation is in the homebuilt direction
or none at all. It may seem weird, but that's why my first reaction is
usually to embrace and inform rather than personally attack. I think Ron
and many others feel the same way. [Indeed, I hope I've made it clear
that this IS how I feel.]

These are simply brothers who have received a highly-skewed set of data
(which is what I meant in the infamous poem "garbage in, garbage out."

And it's easy to understand the annoyance of those who feel that
negativity obscures that. Anger and friendship are both contagious.

[Ray Jarvis]

On 15 Sep 1997 12:15:31 GMT, how...@perth.dialix.com.au (Howard Jones)
wrote:

>Badwater Bill (billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:04:08 GMT, Owen Davies <ow...@davies.mv.com>
>: >Genuine information is always welcome, especially if offered calmly.
>:
>: Who's this guy Cambell? Never heard of him.

I thought he came from someplace in California,
I seem to recall a little town called "Tracy" or something like that.

>
>Malcolm Campbell, he's an aussie guy who once held the land speed record.
>all americans are petrol heads at heart, that's why the interest has lasted
>for so long.

Sorry Howard a point of protocol, my dear chap.
Malcom Campbell was infact a man of the "Tartan Cloth Clan".
Yes a McTavish Scotsman none the less!!!!
Didn't have a straight flat road long enough in Scotland, so they
ventured to the salt flats of Lake Eyre (Aire), just over the back
paddock from Perth!!

[Tony P.]

BWB:

I think Owen forgot that some of us are awfuly ugly to start with and
it has nothing to do with Campbell. It only LOOKS like we're getting
ugly toward him.

He's teasing the afflicted. Is that politically incorrect?

[Badwater Bill]

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:50:40 -0700, "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:

> It may seem weird, but that's why my first reaction is
>usually to embrace and inform rather than personally attack.
>

> Tony Pucillo

You and Bruce Frank are such nice guys! My first response is to over
react by at least an order of magnitude (that's technical talk for: A
factor of 10) and beat the opponet up. If someone steps on my foot, I
rip their leg off and beat them to death with the bloody stump!

I can't help myself. What can I say? I'm just an ass hole!

Badwater Bill

[Tony P.]

Bill:

I dunno, Bill. Even your insults are funny. It's hard to be offended
when you're ROTFL (oops, that's rolling-on-the-floor-laughing, I had a
relapse for a moment there). When a person calls HIMSELF an asshole,
it's kind of hard to get offended when he calls YOU a jerk. It makes
his opinion of you sound pretty good.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <3422CC...@mail.idt.net>, "Tony says...

>
>BWB:
>
> I think Owen forgot that some of us are awfuly ugly to start with and
>it has nothing to do with Campbell. It only LOOKS like we're getting
>ugly toward him.
>
> He's teasing the afflicted. Is that politically incorrect?
>
> Tony Pucillo

Tony,
Speak for yourself,if you remember I was voted the "Cutest fat guy
at Oshkosh (with teeth)" so I don't resemble that remark!!!

Chuck(to short for my weight)Slusarczyk

[Badwater Bill]

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 21:45:22 -0700, "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:

>Bill:

>
> I dunno, Bill. Even your insults are funny. It's hard to be offended
>when you're ROTFL (oops, that's rolling-on-the-floor-laughing, I had a
>relapse for a moment there). When a person calls HIMSELF an asshole,
>it's kind of hard to get offended when he calls YOU a jerk. It makes
>his opinion of you sound pretty good.
>
> Tony Pucillo

I love this newsgroup. I don't know where else you can have so much
fun with your clothes on.

BWB Bad to the Bone!

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <6077q2$s5f$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Terry Schell <tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com (Badwater Bill) writes:
><snip>

>>I love this newsgroup. I don't know where else you can have so much
>>fun with your clothes on.
>

>Wait... you mean your clothes are *on*? Am I in the wrong group?
>
>Terry "where-did-I-put-my-skivvies?" Schell

No, you're in the right group, Terry. But...hey, do me a favor and tilt
your monitor up a few more degrees, willya? The view kinda ruins
my appetite....

[Terry Schell]

[Tony P.]

Chuck:
Cutest fat guy with teeth? You still have teeth after drinking that
stuff? I noticed your fuel jugs and muzzle loader jugs look the same.
Is that a coincidence? Are the performance curves on the Hawk skewed by
nonregulation fuel, or are you guys drinking something I hate to
consider?

Anyway, you only won because I wasn't there. The girls had kidnapped
me and carried me off to a secluded place to have their way with me (or
so I'm hoping people will believe).

I will admit I was impressed with your ability to attract members of
the opposite gender at Sun & Fun, though I noticed you graciously and
monogamously showed no interest.

[Tony P.]

Clothes? why do you think we build at HOME?

[Terry Schell]

want...@halcyon.com (Ronald James Wanttaja) writes:

>In article <6077q2$s5f$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Terry Schell <tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>No, you're in the right group, Terry. But...hey, do me a favor and tilt

>your monitor up a few more degrees, willya? The view kinda ruins
>my appetite....

Oh... excuse me! I was just working on my "monitor tan" and didn't
realize that you guys would be so "sensitive."

Terry "green-in-the-gills-or-green-with-envy?" Schell

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <3429b567...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Marty Hammersmith <bal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Been looking forward to this day Vernon since you first
>mentioned the idea. You have no idea how disappointed I am to see you
>basically are picking up where Zoom left off. Who wants to pay to read
>about the U.S. Aviator saga-it's all here in it's drawn out self for
>free. For that matter who wants to read anymore about it. Who cares
>about Happy, CGS etc. This is OLD OLD stuff and probably at this point
>a total waste of time.
> Please reconsider your launch, write about aviation-perhaps
>execute what Campbell originally claimed was his vision. Be the voice
>of the common aviator and purveyor of the truth. Don't perpetuate the
>crap, PLEASE!

Ummm, well, I don't think Vernon is going to "perpetuate the crap." I
believe he's going to allow *both* sides of the story to be heard. I,
for one, would like to hear what Happy Miles' detractors have to say
*without* being filtered through Zoom. And I'd like to hear Miles'
response, WITHOUT being filtered through Zoom. I'd like to make up my
own mind, thank you.

Yes, Vernon has his own filters, just like any other writer. He's not
perfect. He'll make mistakes. But I think Vernon's reaction will be
try to keep from making the same error again...not to suppress those who
complain.

I think Vernon has a good chance of being exactly what you want: The
voice of the common aviator and a purveyor of truth. Vernon's been an
aviation journalist for quite a while. He knows the people in the
industry. He's had a few kicks in the teeth lately (not to mention a
Ford grille in the rib cage), but I don't think readers are going to get a
monthly play-by-play of his woe du jour.

[KAirAdvise]

Please hang in there this is a long news and sales pitch for a new Kit
Aircraft oriented consumer magazine, Kit Aircraft Advisor.
I am attempting to launch a legitimate reader/consumer oriented magazine
that covers the Kit Aircraft and Homebuilding industry and the issues that
you as a consumer will deal with. Kit Aircraft Advisor will not accept
advertising, because our allegiance is focused on the consumer. Read on for
a look at our first issue topics, our true no risk subscription offer and
options, how many subscribers will we require to launch within eight weeks,
and other salient details. You may wish to simply print this out now and
then read it.

Thank you,
Vernon Barr
Editor / Publisher

Kit Aircraft Advisor First Issue Highlights:
- News & Commentary
-The US Aviator Saga (by itself worth the subscription price)
-Thought Provoking Editorials
- Features
-A look at Adventure Air, its products and its ubiquitous
founder, Happy Miles
-Chicken Bagging Chuck and the many products of CGS Aviation
-Pirep, The Murphy Super Rebel and Elite
-The Resurrection of the Berkut
-Columns
-The Legal Pad by Anthony E. Pucillo
A look at the legal considerations of aircraft building and
purchasing
-Ombudsman of the Air by Anthony E. Pucillo
Tony tries to solve the problems of our readers in kit
delivery etc.
-Bounce & Fly by Vernon Barr
An often irreverent look at the FAA, EAA and the business in
general
-Tips & Tricks
Building tips to enhance your building experience, plus we
answer your questions

- Plus
-News
-New Products
-Kiwi Awards - given to the individual, business, or politician
who just can't get it off the ground
- And much, much more

Frequency and Size and Format:
Six (6) times per year, 40 pages including covers.
Cost and Options:
Traditional delivered via USPS, $26.95 per year - Electronic delivered via
WWW, $13.95 per year. Make checks payable to: Diakrisis Communications/Kit
Aricraft Advisor Mail checks to: Anthony Pucillo, Attorney, 12795
Wilderness Dr., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 (see no risk offer) Please
make sure you have included your address, e-mail address, and indicate
which version you wish to purchase.
No Risk Offer:
An escrow account has been established through Anthony Pucillo, Attorney
at Law, to hold all subscriber moneys until Kit Aircraft Advisor is ready
to go to press. If we don't receive a minimum number of subscribers, all
moneys will be refunded.
Purpose:
Kit Aircraft Advisor is to be strictly a consumer magazine, supported only
by subscribers interested in receiving unbiased news and features
concerning the Kit Aircraft and Homebuilding industry. Because we take no
advertising, we cannot be influenced by the revenues advertisers would
bring to our profit and loss statement. We can be totally unbiased in our
approach to the products and issues our readers are interested in reading about.

Thank you for looking this over, I look forward to having you as a
subscriber and loyal reader.

Vernon

[Marty Hammersmith]

Been looking forward to this day Vernon since you first
mentioned the idea. You have no idea how disappointed I am to see you
basically are picking up where Zoom left off. Who wants to pay to read
about the U.S. Aviator saga-it's all here in it's drawn out self for
free. For that matter who wants to read anymore about it. Who cares
about Happy, CGS etc. This is OLD OLD stuff and probably at this point
a total waste of time.
Please reconsider your launch, write about aviation-perhaps
execute what Campbell originally claimed was his vision. Be the voice
of the common aviator and purveyor of the truth. Don't perpetuate the
crap, PLEASE!

I do very much like the idea of WWW delivery and no
advertising. Good luck regardless of the road you take. I hope you
don't take the one you have in mind. Go for the high one!

[Tony P.]

To all who may be interested:

Please see my response to Mr. Moore relative to my involvement in this
project (it is Vernon Barr's magazine and I may be a contributing writer
on legal issues).

I HAVE agreed to escrow any subscription checks UNTIL THE FIRST ISSUE
IS COMPLETED AND ON ITS WAY TO SUBSCRIBERS. The object is that until
there is a magazine, Mr. Barr has consented to withhold receipt of any
subscription moneys. While (as the US Aviator saga may have
highlighted) there can never be a totally "no risk" subscription, I
believe the gesture of producing a magazine before receiving the funds,
and conditioning the receipt upon enough subscriptions to meet initial
goals speaks well of Mr. Barr's intentions.

Perhaps if more manufacturers waited to have a product before selling,
there would be less need for Mr. Barr's publication.

I hope his project is successful and am open to any comments regarding
same, public or private.

[Bob Moore]

In article <19970924223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kaira...@aol.com (KAirAdvise) wrote:
>Please hang in there this is a long news and sales pitch for a new Kit
>Aircraft oriented consumer magazine, Kit Aircraft Advisor.

> -The Legal Pad by Anthony E. Pucillo

> A look at the legal considerations of aircraft building and purchasing
> -Ombudsman of the Air by Anthony E. Pucillo
> Tony tries to solve the problems of our readers in kit delivery etc.

No thanks, I've had quite enough of Tony P here on the net.

Bob Moore

[Tony P.]

Mr. Moore:

Since I have not heard from you before and don't know what your
grievance is, let me just respond to what is relevant here.

I have no commercial involvement with this venture, no economic
interest or stake in what Vernon is doing. I have been offered no
editorial role and I doubt that any writing I do will be a substantial
fraction of the publication.

What I HAVE agreed to do is, if asked, to write on legal topics of
interest from time-to-time. If this works itself into attempting to
iron out misunderstandings between consumers and manufacturers or
sellers, as I hope, it may be useful. I would love to try to help with
that because it was consumer issues that brought me into the Campbell
dialogue in the first place and there is a crying need for such a thing.
(I haven't been able to interest EAA to date in such a program.) Either
way, I will be addressing only those questions put forward by others and
writing on a clean slate.

So DON'T be confused about one thing: a long time ago I undertook to
gather information and make it available to interested parties in due
course, so others could judge Mr. Campbell's motives and credibility for
themselves (and I meant good and bad information). Obviously, that
effort has developed in other directions and you may have watched it
develop, but in any case, MR. BARR'S PUBLICATION IS NOT SOME PERSONAL
FORUM FOR COMMENTARY BY ME ON MR. CAMPBELL. That has nothing to do with
Mr. Barr's publication.

Let me say that again: I am involved in legal proceedings of various
kinds, and in "real world" issues with Mr. Campbell, and I have limited
my commentary (you will note I have responded and I have posted
necessary notices regarding the bankruptcy). Indeed, I've tried to keep
my posts light in tone. I am not "telling the 'Zoom' Campbell story
HERE and have not sought to tell in it Vernon's publication.

It would be a disservice to Mr. Barr to either assume that his
publication is some kind of vehicle for myself or that indeed I will be
a guiding spirit. He is a capable editor and writer who has probably
forgotten more about aviation than I know, and will have other writers
whose knowledge exceeds his, I'm sure. If I am given a chance to do
that which I enjoy doing most and hopefully do best (discuss and analyze
legal issues rather than personalities) I will be delighted to do that.
It would be a welcome change for me as well.

Insofar as Mr. Barr wishes to address the US Aviator saga, I can only
say that as a long-time friend of Mr. Campbell, writer for the magazine
and intimately-involved observer, nobody is more qualified. No doubt he
has in mind soliciting writings from several observers on some aspect or
aspects of it (you have to ask him about that -- I'm speculating) and if
I were one of those, I would contribute only where my contribution
might be unique and that's a very limited range (legal issues, mostly).
Others have more firsthand knowledge of almost everything than I.

I do think that Vernon has a unique grasp of the controversy and having
seen his past kindness to Mr. Campbell and observed his current
compassion TOWARD Mr. Campbell, I suspect he could do a more balanced
job than most others. But since I do not know in what depth or how
personally he would intend to address the issues (i.e. Campbell's
personality and surrounding issues or a focus on the publication's
history and problems) nor whether it would be more than a single time, I
can't address the scope of that coverage.

So, whatever your dislike for me, don't deflect it to Vernon. I will
be happy to read and respond to any comments or grievances you may have
for me personally, and hopefully even do so coherently. Please don't
hesitate to email me, and don't hesitate to be candid.

Finally (and this will be posted separately as well) the expectation is
that I will for no compensation deposit any subscription checks in an
escrow account, not to be disbursed until the first issue is published.
I don't think there's such a thing as a "no risk" subscription, but I
think the gesture of not accepting the money until the first issue
exists is a decent one and am happy to assist with it.

[jo...@ia.net]

bal...@worldnet.att.net (Marty Hammersmith) wrote:

>On 24 Sep 1997 22:34:44 GMT, kaira...@aol.com (KAirAdvise) wrote:

>>Please hang in there this is a long news and sales pitch for a new Kit
>>Aircraft oriented consumer magazine, Kit Aircraft Advisor.

>>I am attempting to launch a legitimate reader/consumer oriented magazine
>>that covers the Kit Aircraft and Homebuilding industry and the issues that
>>you as a consumer will deal with. Kit Aircraft Advisor will not accept
>>advertising, because our allegiance is focused on the consumer.

<snipping details>

> Been looking forward to this day Vernon since you first
>mentioned the idea. You have no idea how disappointed I am to see you
>basically are picking up where Zoom left off. Who wants to pay to read
>about the U.S. Aviator saga-it's all here in it's drawn out self for
>free.

Although I am willing to read thorugh all the 'z' and 'anti-z' stuff in this
group (I do consider it relevant), I agree with you 100% that printing a saga of
someone else's 'tirade' serves only to extend the original unpleasantness... I
believe it is appropriate and even necessary to post answers to all threats,
accusations etc in the same forum in which they appear - but seeing as how this
is a _new_ publication, hopefully intending to take the higher road, could we
get some new traveling gear, please, and leave all the old baggage behind?

Note: If someone comes along and attacks Mr. Barr's venture in this forum, by
all means, he should answer away! But even then, keep it out of the magazine.

> For that matter who wants to read anymore about it. Who cares
>about Happy, CGS etc. This is OLD OLD stuff and probably at this point
>a total waste of time.

Actually, I've been reading this newsgroup for 2 years and know very little of
the offerings of Happy or Chuck... I may have skimmed over those postings, but
if in magazine format I think I might be very interested. They are kit aircraft
manufacturers, correct? And this is a magazine about kit aircraft? Bring 'em
on!

> Please reconsider your launch, write about aviation-perhaps
>execute what Campbell originally claimed was his vision. Be the voice
>of the common aviator and purveyor of the truth.

Absolutely!

> Don't perpetuate the
>crap, PLEASE!
> I do very much like the idea of WWW delivery and no
>advertising. Good luck regardless of the road you take. I hope you
>don't take the one you have in mind. Go for the high one!

Actually, I'd like to see ads as well - but I suppose it's hard to be objective
when it may mean loss of revenue. On the other hand, Consumer Reports went
without advertising (and therefore supposedly objective), yet I found so many of
their reviews so wide of the mark (IMHO) that I stopped reading them long ago.

I think it really comes down to the determination and integrity of the
publisher/editor. In any event, I'll sign up right here on the spot (One WWW
subscription, please.. bits are so much easier to carry around than wood pulp!)

-John R.

[JFBECKETT]

Having known Vernon for some time now I am pleased to see that he is
planning to do something unique and positive in the aviation publishing
business. I've delved into the publisher job title before (unsuccessfully
I'm sorry to say, at least in the financial sense) and know what a pack of
trouble it can be. But still, it's an honorable attempt, and far be it for
me to stand in the way of progress. I will happily become a subscriber
ASAP, and even contribute an article or two here and there if they are welcome.

More power to ya' Vernon!

Jamie Beckett

[Chuck Rush]

Let us all know on the group when you're finished with either and/or
both sides of the Zoom issue and I'll be glad to subscribe. Frankly, I
don't have time to wade thru it looking for more info on kit planes and
building... After all, there's glass to lay and rivets to pull...
--
Chuck Rush
Pond Rushes, http://www.dallas.net/~crush
e-mail: crush_no...@dallas.net
N. Texas Water Garden Society, http://www.cirr.com/~ntwgs
Anti-spam note - to reply, remove the _nojunkmail from the address.

Semper ubi sububi. Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes.

[Charles K. Scott]

In article <60edr7$g...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
jo...@ia.net writes:

> Although I am willing to read thorugh all the 'z' and 'anti-z' stuff in this
> group (I do consider it relevant), I agree with you 100% that printing a saga of
> someone else's 'tirade' serves only to extend the original unpleasantness... I
> believe it is appropriate and even necessary to post answers to all threats,
> accusations etc in the same forum in which they appear - but seeing as how this
> is a _new_ publication, hopefully intending to take the higher road, could we
> get some new traveling gear, please, and leave all the old baggage behind?

I know it seems like Jim Campbell and his saga is old news to you, and
perhaps to many others but actually, outside this group and a few
vendors, are you sure his story is old news?

After all, the story and background of this guy (who's "nom de guerre"
is Captain Zoom, and could I spend some time on the implications and
suggestions THAT makes) is pretty fascinating. We could all learn from
it because in his prime, he convinced a lot of people that he was a
sane crusader, out to save aviation from the bad guys. It's a valuable
lesson to learn. Not all who speak convincingly, and there may be no
other person on this earth more convincing than Campbell in person, are
what they say they are.

Corky Scott

[Vernon L. Barr]

>
> Been looking forward to this day Vernon since you first
> mentioned the idea. You have no idea how disappointed I am to see you
> basically are picking up where Zoom left off. Who wants to pay to read
> about the U.S. Aviator saga-it's all here in it's drawn out self for

> free. For that matter who wants to read anymore about it. Who cares

> about Happy, CGS etc. This is OLD OLD stuff and probably at this point
> a total waste of time.

> Please reconsider your launch, write about aviation-perhaps
> execute what Campbell originally claimed was his vision. Be the voice

> of the common aviator and purveyor of the truth. Don't perpetuate the

> crap, PLEASE!
> I do very much like the idea of WWW delivery and no
> advertising. Good luck regardless of the road you take. I hope you
> don't take the one you have in mind. Go for the high one!

Good advice . . . but I should clarify. The article on the USA saga is
about an excellent idea gone awry and why these things can happen in the
publishing business - it's not about JC and his seeming demise.

Thanks

Vernon

[Vernon L. Barr]

Let me clarify all of this a bit further. There is a story behind the USA
Saga and how it impacts truth in journalism and reporting on this
industry. There is also a very interesting story about Adventure Air and
how Happy Miles developed his product and how the company reached it's
current condition and its current product line. Chuck S. is truly one of
the founding fathers of the UL business and has seen the ups and downs of
the market first hand, he probably has more wisdom on surviving and still
being a viable company than any person still involved. Both of these
companies have been attacked under the mask of balanced and righteous
journalism. It's my intention to give balanced reporting in all issues Kit
Aircraft Advisor. Yes, it's not easy to be unbiased, but it's easy to be
balanced.

In reference to the escrow account for subscribers. I feel that you as
subscribers should be as protected as possible against fraudulent
practices. Thus I asked Tony to establish and escrow account to hold all
subscriber moneys until enough subscribers stepped up to make this a
reality. I NEED 3,000 SUBSCRIBERS TO MAKE THE USPS (TRADITIONAL) VERSION
AVAILABLE. IF I DON"T GET THAT KIND OF RESPONSE, I WILL NOT PURSUE THE
PROJECT AND ALL MONEYS WILL BE REFUNDED. THE MAGIC NUMBER FOR THE
ELECTRONIC VERSION IS 2,000 SUBSCRIBERS.

I have heard a lot of rhetoric in the news groups about needing balanced
reporting in this industry. I will do my best to give that to those who
are willing to pay for it by becoming subscribers. I know there are enough
netters out there with an interest in what Kit Aircraft Advisor will offer
to make the project a reality. It's now time to vote, as they say, with
your check books. I am ready, are you? I think so!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to e-mail me. I will give
you as honest and straight forward a report as I can.

Thanks,

Vernon Barr
Editor/Publisher
Kit Aircraft Advisor

[Vernon L. Barr]

[Tony P.]

Chuck:

Tell you what: send the check. I'll forward YOUR subscription money
only when Vernon sends out the SECOND issue if the first one covers US
Aviator. Then you can both be happy.

That's intended as a joke, but I suppose I actually would if you really
intended to subscribe and that wasn't just another barb.

Hey, why did you remove "Castigat ridendo mores?" It's one of my
favorites and everytime somebody snags it from me I get a royalty!

Tony Pucillo

Asinus asinem fricat; ligonem ligonem vocat. [That should keep you
busy!]

[Bill Robie]

While nearly everyone who reads this newsgroup has grown weary of
the Z tales, there are a good many non-Internet folks who have only
heard one side of this story. I trust Vernon Barr's years of
experience within, and excellent reputation among, the aviation
publishing community to present a balanced look at the entire
episode.

I *will* agree with others that a continuance of "rants" would be
both boorish and unproductive--but I don't think that Vern intends
anything of the sort. If anything, I suspect that he would truly
like to put the matter to rest in one issue, giving the other side
of the matter and then moving on to more productive things.

My check will be in the mail asap. I hope that at least 2,999
others will join me. I like the idea of knowing that my money will
be going into escrow, rather than into some "dark hole" that unnamed
others might have used to funnel subscriber money toward other endeavors.

Bill Robie

[Bill Robie]

In article <60egbi$cv3$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Charles K. Scott <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

[...]

>After all, the story and background of this guy (who's "nom de guerre"
>is Captain Zoom, and could I spend some time on the implications and
>suggestions THAT makes) is pretty fascinating.

[...]

Yep. I wonder how the rank of "Captain" was chosen. It would be
interesting to know his real (enlisted) rank--and more interesting,
perhaps, to know why it appears that he may have served less than a
full enlistment in the USAF.

Bill Robie

[RobertR237]

>
>Yep. I wonder how the rank of "Captain" was chosen. It would be
>interesting to know his real (enlisted) rank--and more interesting,
>perhaps, to know why it appears that he may have served less than a
>full enlistment in the USAF.
>
>Bill Robie
>
>

Bill,

Let me state clearly and up front that I am not a Zoom Defender but in the
case of serving less than a full enlistment, there was a period in the late
60's when the Air Force was offering early discharges to reduce manning at
the end of the Viet Nam build up. I was one of the participants and
recieved a 7-month early out. I don't know if that is why Campbell served
less than full term but it is a possibility.

My point is to not draw conclusions on anything but the facts PLEASE.

Bob Reed

[Marty Hammersmith]

On 28 Sep 1997 12:31:13 -0400, ro...@umbc.edu (Bill Robie) wrote:

>In article <60egbi$cv3$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Charles K. Scott <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>After all, the story and background of this guy (who's "nom de guerre"
>>is Captain Zoom, and could I spend some time on the implications and
>>suggestions THAT makes) is pretty fascinating.
>[...]
>

>Yep. I wonder how the rank of "Captain" was chosen. It would be
>interesting to know his real (enlisted) rank--and more interesting,
>perhaps, to know why it appears that he may have served less than a
>full enlistment in the USAF.
>
>Bill Robie
>

Just one more point to ponder. If you're gonna give
yourself a rank in some made-up service, wouldn't you go for something
more like, say, General?

[Tony P.]

Bill:

"Captain" is suitably ambiguous, isn't it? It implies military rank,
yet in truth only denotes command of a vessel. That can be an
ultralight or a canoe.

In a way, however, it is perfectly appropriate. Remember that
according to tradition, once out of sight of land, the Captain's word
was law. He was the repository of all civil authority.

To one who hasn't been within sight of a firm fundament in years, the
notion of omnipotence might be irresistible. Heck, the reality may be
that the "Captain" is a solopsist at heart; since we don't exist, our
rights and feelings don't either. One could logically defend an ethical
system based on that premise. It's also consistent with the notion of
being permitted to simply call facts into being by declaring them so.

I want one of whatever he's having.

Tony Pucillo

[I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
quite enough, thank you.]

"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>

[Bob Moore]

In article <3430FC...@mail.idt.net>, ae...@mail.idt.net wrote:

> "Captain" is suitably ambiguous, isn't it? It implies military rank,
>yet in truth only denotes command of a vessel. That can be an
>ultralight or a canoe.

I always thought that ships had Masters.
I always thought that aircraft had a Pilots-in-Command.
I always thought that "Captain" was a title to be used
as a preface to ones last name much as "Doctor" is
used as a title for a physican and to denote that one
had achieved certain qualifications that should be
acknowledged by others when addressing the person.

I am often amused at those who announce that they
are either "A Captain" or "A Doctor" or even more
embarassingly introduce themselves as "Doctor XXXX"
or "Captain XXXX". Titles are for others to decide.

BTW, I haven't seen the original post that prompted
Tony's reply and I'm definately not an English major.

Just another one of my buttons, Tony. :-)

Bob Moore, ATP
PANAM (retired)

[Ron Natalie]

Tony P. wrote:
>
> Bill:

>
> "Captain" is suitably ambiguous, isn't it? It implies military rank,
> yet in truth only denotes command of a vessel. That can be an
> ultralight or a canoe.
>

...or a bicycle built for two!

[Ron Natalie]

Bob Moore wrote:

> I always thought that ships had Masters.
> I always thought that aircraft had a Pilots-in-Command.
> I always thought that "Captain" was a title to be used
> as a preface to ones last name much as "Doctor" is
> used as a title for a physican and to denote that one
> had achieved certain qualifications that should be
> acknowledged by others when addressing the person.

Aboard ship (and presmably aircraft where there is
more than one pilot, presumably you would know Bob)
Captain is a term used for the "top guy" regardless
of his actuall rank or other qualifications. The
Navy actually goes as far as to *not* use the
title Captain to address people with that rank
who aren't the vessel commander.

People who use that to assert the title off the
boat are considered a little daft, as are those
who use "Doctor" socially (despite possessing
a PhD).

[pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton]

> bobm...@wwd.net (Bob Moore) writes:
> In article <3430FC...@mail.idt.net>, ae...@mail.idt.net wrote:

> >"Captain" is suitably ambiguous, isn't it? It implies military rank,
> >yet in truth only denotes command of a vessel. That can be an
> >ultralight or a canoe.

> I always thought that ships had Masters.

Called Captain

> I always thought that aircraft had a Pilots-in-Command.

Called "Aircraft Commander" (military) or "Captain" (Civilian Airlines/Corporate))

> I always thought that "Captain" was a title to be used
> as a preface to ones last name much as "Doctor" is
> used as a title for a physican and to denote that one
> had achieved certain qualifications that should be
> acknowledged by others when addressing the person.

It very much is, and in the following formats:

In Military Aviation, it is either

A: An Air Force Rank

B: A (higher) Naval rank

The "PIC" of a military aircraft with a multi-person crew is
called an "Aircraft Commander", not 'Captain" unless he holds
that rank.

For military maritime use, "Captain" is the form of address for the ships
commander, but only if that person is an officer. The "Captain" of a Destroyer
may be a Leutenant, but he sure as shit is called Captain by the crew!!

In civil Airline/Corporate aviation, a Captain is:

C: A Pilot in Command of an aircraft flown under
either FAR Part 135 or FAR Part 121 to distinguish
him from a First Officer (co-pilot) of Second Officer
(Flight Engineer). It is the proper formal form af address
for persons holding that position, much as "Doctor" would
be used as a formal salutation for a Physician or PhD.

After you put in your dues for many years as a First Officer,
when you 'finally' get that 4th stripe it sure feels good to be
called 'Captain' now and then. It's an insult to see an amatuer
like Z.... calling himself that, though.

******************************************************************************************
David Sutton pil...@planet.net HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/
Red Star Aviation HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html

"Warbird Aviation: The Ultimate Motorsport" Yak-50, Fouga Magister, MiG-17
"Porsche: A Close Second" 911S, Euro-Spec 944
"Russian Ural Motorcycles: A Primitive Third" 1966 Sidecar, 1967 Solo
*******************************************************************************************

[Tony P.]

Ron:

Lemme see "Da da da da dadadadadada -- I'm half crazy -- dadadada
dada." I like that tune!
--

[Tony P.]

Bob:

I agree with you. I have no use for titles in the first place, but I
totally agree that "Captain" is a title of respect that must be earned
and then bestowed by others. And speaking as one with a doctoral (and
postdoctoral -- yes, they do exist) degree who has never been called
"Doctor" and am not likely to be, I don't have a lot of tolerance for
those who usurp titles either.

Especially in a place like this, where there are enough "Doctors" (i.e.
those with academic degrees who aren't presumptuous enough to use the
title) and "Captains" who have EARNED the title, to float a fleet.

Yet in these peculiar times, a flyer confined to ultralights by law can
call himself "Captain" without having ever had command of anything. And
a person can claim to have been a 747 pilot at 21 without having the
guys with nets take him away. And garbage collectors can speak of their
"profession."

[Tony P.]

Dave:

And I wonder how the fellows who put out the NY Times or even Perry
White of the Metropolis Daily Planet would feel about the use of the
title "Publisher" by one who inexplicably issues a
once-every-nine-months magazine while the company that published it is
in bankruptcy? Or who calls himself "Editor-in-chief" without
apparently even so much as a trade school diploma, while chronically
misspelling common words?

The lesson, and it has been well-learned by some, is that our society
and especially our media move so fast that it isn't worth it to them to
verify credentials and claims. Most people will give you the benefit of
the doubt, whatever you call yourself, and you can fool some of the
people most of the time. Heck, you can get away with calling yourself
"Doctor" -- I mean a real medical physician doctor -- for months without
anybody getting wise, if you're convincing enough.

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <3431C9...@mail.idt.net>, Ol' Doc Pucillo <ae...@mail.idt.net>
sorta said:
>
>.... And speaking as one with a doctoral degree...

Shows you how screwed up this world is...we gotta call the lawyer
"Doctor" and the nuclear physicist (e.g Badwater Bill) "Asshole." :-)

Ron "Just don't call me late for dinner" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

[MikeFox1]

>And garbage collectors can speak of their "profession."

You mean sanitation engineers?

[Duncan Charlton]

Um, how does Colonel Sanders fit into all this?

Duncan
(Captain of a Fire Truck, hope to be a Chief some day)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <19971001055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mike...@aol.com
says...

>
>>And garbage collectors can speak of their "profession."
>
>You mean sanitation engineers?

When I worked at NASA Lewis they were called "Experimental Aerospace Refuse
Disposal Technicians" not to be confused with welders who were called
"Experimental Aerospace Metal Fusion Technicians".. I was an "Experimental
Aerospace Chickenologist and Bar B Que Specialist GS-12 dash 4 "...
Ahhhh those were the days...

Chuck (I shot dead chickens at canopy's )Slusarczyk

http://www.cgsaviation.com

[Ray Jarvis]

On 30 Sep 1997 21:58:11 -0700, want...@halcyon.com (Ronald James
Wanttaja) wrote:

>>.... And speaking as one with a doctoral degree...
>
>Shows you how screwed up this world is...we gotta call the lawyer
>"Doctor" and the nuclear physicist (e.g Badwater Bill) "Asshole." :-)
>

Hey, wasn't it BWB who called the Nuclear Physicist an "Asshole"

[Michele Boland]

Of course, you might be missing two other "Captain"'s whose tiles might shed
some ilumination on the true intended implication of the title in question:

Captain Peachfuzz
Captain Kangaroo

Captain must be a high title as the guy who was in charge of the "Minnow" on
Gilligan's Island was only a "Skipper"! :-)

Michele "no title yet" Boland

PS: and to complete an earlier reference. I have a second key to the ward
room locker and I ate the strawberries!!!! ( I can prove it with geometric
logic )

PPS: I friend of mine that I used to sail with me used to refer to me as
"captain" when he crewed on my sailboat. He also gave me a nice placard for
the boat that said something to the effect "I know exactly what is wrong with
this boat but I am NOT getting off". It took me a while to get it! ;-)
Doohh!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michele Boland - Adventuress, Aviatrix, Musician and
all around clever person!
Dedicated to the domestication of the Platypus!
learn more about Michele at - http://rampages.onramp.net/~micheleb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~