Best Wishes To Burt Rutan

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:49 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 12, 1:52*pm, Len wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:25*pm, "john hare" wrote:



"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:40:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 11, 2:53 pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

As I said, the newsgroup is dying. *Most of the serious space posters
have departed for more congenial climes. *It probably won't be much
longer until I join them. *Kind of like the elves heading off to the
West...

I checked in here to see if things had improved. Surprised to see three
people *not in my killfile on one subject. Unlike your blog, I read your
posts here only if you are talking to someone serious. Jeff is doing about
a quarter to a third of the posts I read.

I think you put your finger on the problem, Jeff and John
(and others).

As for concern about Burt, I think many of us have
looked to this thread, hoping for positive news--
without posting.

As for s.s.p being reduced to near nothingness by
noisemakers, I have a suggestion that may, or may
not, be workable. *Moderated groups do not seem
to work too well. *And we all know what can happen
to unmoderated groups. *The basic problem seems
to be dependence on either a low bypass filter or a
high bypass filter. *How about a moderate bypass
filter involving perhaps ten or more "parallel moderators?'

The new news group within s.s. would only post
publicly a candidate post that at least one of the
parallel moderators felt worthwhile. *Each of these
parallel moderators would be free to use kill files
to avoid having to deal with the most blatant
offenders that have nearly destroyed s.s.p. with
their drivel. *An occasional bad message that
slips through the system would not open the door
to the bad messenger. *Perhaps the group of
parallel moderators could be self policing so that
three-quarters vote could oust a moderator that
was letting too much drivel into the system.

Jon Goff, in his own excellent blogs, has suggested
a number of serious posters that could be a start
for the list of parallel moderators in the new news
group. *Name of the new group: *sci.space.access ?

Len

I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. I think that most would
figure it out.

On Feb 12, 8:33*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:49 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:



On Feb 12, 1:52*pm, Len wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:25*pm, "john hare" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:40:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 11, 2:53 pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

As I said, the newsgroup is dying. *Most of the serious space posters
have departed for more congenial climes. *It probably won't be much
longer until I join them. *Kind of like the elves heading off to the
West...

I checked in here to see if things had improved. Surprised to see three
people *not in my killfile on one subject. Unlike your blog, I read your
posts here only if you are talking to someone serious. Jeff is doing about
a quarter to a third of the posts I read.

I think you put your finger on the problem, Jeff and John
(and others).

As for concern about Burt, I think many of us have
looked to this thread, hoping for positive news--
without posting.

As for s.s.p being reduced to near nothingness by
noisemakers, I have a suggestion that may, or may
not, be workable. *Moderated groups do not seem
to work too well. *And we all know what can happen
to unmoderated groups. *The basic problem seems
to be dependence on either a low bypass filter or a
high bypass filter. *How about a moderate bypass
filter involving perhaps ten or more "parallel moderators?'

The new news group within s.s. would only post
publicly a candidate post that at least one of the
parallel moderators felt worthwhile. *Each of these
parallel moderators would be free to use kill files
to avoid having to deal with the most blatant
offenders that have nearly destroyed s.s.p. with
their drivel. *An occasional bad message that
slips through the system would not open the door
to the bad messenger. *Perhaps the group of
parallel moderators could be self policing so that
three-quarters vote could oust a moderator that
was letting too much drivel into the system.

Jon Goff, in his own excellent blogs, has suggested
a number of serious posters that could be a start
for the list of parallel moderators in the new news
group. *Name of the new group: *sci.space.access ?

Len

I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. *Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. *I think that most would
figure it out.

Probably so, Rand. However, I would be interested
in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
for a new space news group. Is it a workable idea?
Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?

Len

On Feb 12, 8:33*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:49 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:



On Feb 12, 1:52*pm, Len wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:25*pm, "john hare" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:40:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 11, 2:53 pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

As I said, the newsgroup is dying. *Most of the serious space posters
have departed for more congenial climes. *It probably won't be much
longer until I join them. *Kind of like the elves heading off to the
West...

I checked in here to see if things had improved. Surprised to see three
people *not in my killfile on one subject. Unlike your blog, I read your
posts here only if you are talking to someone serious. Jeff is doing about
a quarter to a third of the posts I read.

I think you put your finger on the problem, Jeff and John
(and others).

As for concern about Burt, I think many of us have
looked to this thread, hoping for positive news--
without posting.

As for s.s.p being reduced to near nothingness by
noisemakers, I have a suggestion that may, or may
not, be workable. *Moderated groups do not seem
to work too well. *And we all know what can happen
to unmoderated groups. *The basic problem seems
to be dependence on either a low bypass filter or a
high bypass filter. *How about a moderate bypass
filter involving perhaps ten or more "parallel moderators?'

The new news group within s.s. would only post
publicly a candidate post that at least one of the
parallel moderators felt worthwhile. *Each of these
parallel moderators would be free to use kill files
to avoid having to deal with the most blatant
offenders that have nearly destroyed s.s.p. with
their drivel. *An occasional bad message that
slips through the system would not open the door
to the bad messenger. *Perhaps the group of
parallel moderators could be self policing so that
three-quarters vote could oust a moderator that
was letting too much drivel into the system.

Jon Goff, in his own excellent blogs, has suggested
a number of serious posters that could be a start
for the list of parallel moderators in the new news
group. *Name of the new group: *sci.space.access ?

Len

I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. *Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. *I think that most would
figure it out.

Probably so, Rand. However, I would be interested
in your opinion with respect to the ten or more
"parallel moderators" for a new space news group.
Is it a workable idea? If workable, is it a good or
bad idea?

Len

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:06:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. *Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. *I think that most would
figure it out.

Probably so, Rand. However, I would be interested
in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
for a new space news group. Is it a workable idea?
Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?

I think that it's an idea behind its time. Usenet is dying. The web
is where the action is.

On Feb 12, 9:37*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:06:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. *Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. *I think that most would
figure it out.

Probably so, Rand. *However, I would be interested
in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
for a new space news group. *Is it a workable idea?
Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?

I think that it's an idea behind its time. *Usenet is dying. *The web
is where the action is.

If I face the facts, I guess I have to agree reluctantly.
It's a shame. Usenet's appeal was its openness.
Unfortunately, its very openness invites itself to a
cancerous death.

Len

Len wrote:
:
:Probably so, Rand. However, I would be interested
:in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
:for a new space news group. Is it a workable idea?
:Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?
:

It's a bad idea. Moderation (regardless of the number of moderators)
generally means death for a newsgroup in fairly short order.

I bet you can't find 10 people that everyone would agree on. I'd also
bet you couldn't manage a meaningful vote to change the thing to
moderated.

I think Rand is right, but doesn't paint with a broad enough brush.
After all the times we joked over the years about "Death of Usenet
Predicted" comments by this or that newby, I believe it's finally
occurring. Usenet is dying and folding it into 'Google Groups'
appears to be what's killed it.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Feb 12, 8:33 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:49 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Len made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:



On Feb 12, 1:52 pm, Len wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:25 pm, "john hare"
wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:40:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far
away,
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 11, 2:53 pm, "Jeff Findley"

wrote:

As I said, the newsgroup is dying. Most of the serious space
posters
have departed for more congenial climes. It probably won't be
much
longer until I join them. Kind of like the elves heading off to
the
West...

I checked in here to see if things had improved. Surprised to see
three
people not in my killfile on one subject. Unlike your blog, I
read your
posts here only if you are talking to someone serious. Jeff is
doing about
a quarter to a third of the posts I read.

I think you put your finger on the problem, Jeff and John
(and others).

As for concern about Burt, I think many of us have
looked to this thread, hoping for positive news--
without posting.

As for s.s.p being reduced to near nothingness by
noisemakers, I have a suggestion that may, or may
not, be workable. Moderated groups do not seem
to work too well. And we all know what can happen
to unmoderated groups. The basic problem seems
to be dependence on either a low bypass filter or a
high bypass filter. How about a moderate bypass
filter involving perhaps ten or more "parallel moderators?'

The new news group within s.s. would only post
publicly a candidate post that at least one of the
parallel moderators felt worthwhile. Each of these
parallel moderators would be free to use kill files
to avoid having to deal with the most blatant
offenders that have nearly destroyed s.s.p. with
their drivel. An occasional bad message that
slips through the system would not open the door
to the bad messenger. Perhaps the group of
parallel moderators could be self policing so that
three-quarters vote could oust a moderator that
was letting too much drivel into the system.

Jon Goff, in his own excellent blogs, has suggested
a number of serious posters that could be a start
for the list of parallel moderators in the new news
group. Name of the new group: sci.space.access ?

Len

I messed up on the attributions for the former post.
In reviewing the thread, it was Rand that noted that
the group is dying. Sorry about that.

A trivial problem, in the grand scheme. I think that most would
figure it out.

Probably so, Rand. However, I would be interested
in your opinion with respect to the ten or more
"parallel moderators" for a new space news group.
Is it a workable idea? If workable, is it a good or
bad idea?

Len

----------------------

I am certainly very concerned for Rutan, who I think
after his well-documented NASA roast at ISDC, is
certainly one of our Great Men (which class does not
include many Washington DC people). But a new topic
has emerged during this thread, and I think it's
entirely as important over the long run as is Rutan.
"...the group is dying," I see above: it misses the
point, and I think it wants a new thread of its own.

Namely, that *usenet* is dying. Sporge flooding and
similar tactics have dumped so much sewage posting
into usenet that the bright people, the smart ones,
the good divergent thinkers and speakers, are going
away. This seems accompanied by increased posting
from people who have nothing constructive to say
and yet say even that badly. It's like a city that
is made into a slum: after that change, the people
needed most there, stay away.

Who is doing this to usenet? I note its close
coincidence in time with the ongoing political
process. It's reasonable to believe people in
Washington need to interfere with constructive and
open discourse, such as past usenet practice. It's
obvious that by using zombies and related resources,
a very few people could originate all the sewage
we are seeing here and in usenet. And if anyone
thinks my concern is empty, he need only look at
the rate of appearance in formerly busy newsgroups
of new work; and of its present quality.

(Side topic: such sewage tells of those who make
it. I think that even now, here in this formerly
very rich usenet, there are people who can read
that stuff and estimate what its originators are
up to. There would also be techies who might
finger its origins -- and publish their results.)

So I'd like to see this new issue sorted out from
Burt Rutan, and started as a new thread. In the
mean while, *how is* Rutan doing? ??

Cheers - Martha Adams [sci.space.policy 2008 Feb 13]

On Feb 13, 10:52 am, "Martha Adams" wrote:

Who is doing this to usenet? I note its close
coincidence in time with the ongoing political
process. It's reasonable to believe people in
Washington need to interfere with constructive and
open discourse, such as past usenet practice. It's
obvious that by using zombies and related resources,
a very few people could originate all the sewage
we are seeing here and in usenet. And if anyone
thinks my concern is empty, he need only look at
the rate of appearance in formerly busy newsgroups
of new work; and of its present quality.

It is like Brad Guth, but with a different spin. It is paranoia to
think there are resources available in gov't to do this. The reason
is plain and simple, internet is more accessible to the masses and its
fringe elements. Before what was limited to "intellectuals" and
technically savvy people, is now available to almost anyone. Also the
ease of "communicating" with a keyboard has also led to this. In the
past, it was impossible to get a teenager to write a short paper for
school, now look at the volume of words in in blog entrys , Myspace
sites, etc or even amounts sent in chat rooms, IM applications and
cell phones.

On Feb 13, 3:53*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Len wrote:

:
:Probably so, Rand. *However, I would be interested
:in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
:for a new space news group. *Is it a workable idea?
:Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?
:

It's a bad idea. *Moderation (regardless of the number of moderators)
generally means death for a newsgroup in fairly short order.

I bet you can't find 10 people that everyone would agree on. *I'd also
bet you couldn't manage a meaningful vote to change the thing to
moderated.

I think Rand is right, but doesn't paint with a broad enough brush.
After all the times we joked over the years about "Death of Usenet
Predicted" comments by this or that newby, I believe it's finally
occurring. *Usenet is dying and folding it into 'Google Groups'
appears to be what's killed it.


Ironic, because I still see lots of USENET traffic and in as many
areas as I did 10 years ago. Perhaps USENET's growth has slowed and no
doubt that the average poster less interesting that 10 years ago, but
yet here we all are. So....

On Feb 12, 6:37*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
Len wrote:

Probably so, Rand. *However, I would be interested
in your take on the ten or more "parallel moderators"
for a new space news group. *Is it a workable idea?
Is it a good or bad idea, if workable?

I think that it's an idea behind its time. *Usenet is dying. *The web
is where the action is.

I don't know.. I think usenet-type discussions have a very valid
place in the scheme of exchanging information and opinions over the
web.

But yeah, s.s.p is pretty morbund these days. I drop in once a day
and see what's going on, and its highly unlikely there's a topic going
on that's worth participating in the discussion any more. Part of it
is how the industry has moved on, and part of it is the poliferation
of alternatives to usenet, and part of it that the focus and interest
in the topic has shifted. In that environment, plus some posters
(who will remain unnamed) who poison the discussion environment, its
not worth posting something. But I suspect there are a lot of people
still lurking around on a semi-regular basis.

- Wales Larrison -