Air France Crash
Aug 2nd 2005, 7:09 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>read the purpose of the group again
Oh?
Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
I suppose I'd better clear you from the kf so I can read it.
I noticed this because it replied to me.
Actually, don't bother, and I won't either.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>read the purpose of the group again
Oh?
Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
I suppose I'd better clear you from the kf so I can read it.
I noticed this because it replied to me.
Actually, don't bother, and I won't either.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
Aug 2nd 2005, 7:52 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>read the purpose of the group again
>Oh?
>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
The charter is not included fully in
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
--
Martin
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>read the purpose of the group again
>Oh?
>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
The charter is not included fully in
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
--
Martin
Aug 2nd 2005, 9:40 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Runge wrote:
> Appalling troll
>
As well as being a terrible non sequitur.
> Appalling troll
>
As well as being a terrible non sequitur.
Aug 2nd 2005, 10:01 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:52:45 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>read the purpose of the group again
>>Oh?
>>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>The charter is not included fully in
>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
>ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
I'll take the time to read it off-line. I find it
fascinating that runge is advising me on netiquette:-)
Cheers, Alan, Australia
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>read the purpose of the group again
>>Oh?
>>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>The charter is not included fully in
>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
>ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
I'll take the time to read it off-line. I find it
fascinating that runge is advising me on netiquette:-)
Cheers, Alan, Australia
Aug 2nd 2005, 10:01 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Tom wrote:
> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing
> during a heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
> reported in the area upon landing.
Just saw a television report about it that did not include an
extremely important bit of information.
If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the
runway from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as
"a ravine" (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in
addition to the extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few
injuries (24) and no deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's
passengers or aboard).
A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of
downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind,
then a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about
and, that close to the ground . . .
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
< http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net
> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing
> during a heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
> reported in the area upon landing.
Just saw a television report about it that did not include an
extremely important bit of information.
If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the
runway from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as
"a ravine" (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in
addition to the extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few
injuries (24) and no deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's
passengers or aboard).
A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of
downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind,
then a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about
and, that close to the ground . . .
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
< http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net
Aug 2nd 2005, 10:20 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
> From: Go Fig <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:04:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan S
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Aug 2005 14:44:11 -0700, "Tom" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway upon
>>> landing and burst into flames. No word on survivors or casualties,
>>> although both the pilot and copilot have survived and are being
>>> interviewed. The plane was landing during a heavy thunderstorm and
>>> extremely strong winds were reported in the area upon landing.
>>
>> Detailed report here:
>>
>>
http://www.canada.com/national/story...8-a713-706ef01
5>> 9
>> d71
>>
>> "More than 300 people escaped with their lives, some
>> stumbling to a nearby highway to flag down passing
>> commuters, after an Air France passenger jet skidded off the
>> runway Tuesday and then burst into flames during a fierce
>> thunderstorm at Pearson International Airport.
>>
>> Only 24 of the 297 passengers and 12 crew members aboard Air
>> France Flight 358 from Paris sustained any injuries, most of
>> them minor, authorities said. "
>
> Having seen the video, these were no "stewardess'" they were highly
> trained professionals to get 297 people off that inferno alive.
>
> Excellent job !
I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
next flight.
Donna Evleth
>
> jay
> Tue Aug 02, 2005
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Alan, Australia
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:04:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan S
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Aug 2005 14:44:11 -0700, "Tom" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway upon
>>> landing and burst into flames. No word on survivors or casualties,
>>> although both the pilot and copilot have survived and are being
>>> interviewed. The plane was landing during a heavy thunderstorm and
>>> extremely strong winds were reported in the area upon landing.
>>
>> Detailed report here:
>>
>>
http://www.canada.com/national/story...8-a713-706ef01
5>> 9
>> d71
>>
>> "More than 300 people escaped with their lives, some
>> stumbling to a nearby highway to flag down passing
>> commuters, after an Air France passenger jet skidded off the
>> runway Tuesday and then burst into flames during a fierce
>> thunderstorm at Pearson International Airport.
>>
>> Only 24 of the 297 passengers and 12 crew members aboard Air
>> France Flight 358 from Paris sustained any injuries, most of
>> them minor, authorities said. "
>
> Having seen the video, these were no "stewardess'" they were highly
> trained professionals to get 297 people off that inferno alive.
>
> Excellent job !
I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
next flight.
Donna Evleth
>
> jay
> Tue Aug 02, 2005
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Alan, Australia
Aug 2nd 2005, 11:01 pm
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:01:18 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:52:45 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>read the purpose of the group again
>>>Oh?
>>>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>>The charter is not included fully in
>>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>>There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
>>ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>>although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
>I'll take the time to read it off-line. I find it
>fascinating that runge is advising me on netiquette:-)
:-)
It's just the official list of charter contents. It seems that rte
doesn't exist.
--
Martin
>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:52:45 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>read the purpose of the group again
>>>Oh?
>>>Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>>The charter is not included fully in
>>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>>There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
>>ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>>although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
>I'll take the time to read it off-line. I find it
>fascinating that runge is advising me on netiquette:-)
:-)
It's just the official list of charter contents. It seems that rte
doesn't exist.
--
Martin
Aug 2nd 2005, 11:54 pm
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:40:10 +0100, Mike O'Sullivan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Runge wrote:
>> Appalling troll
>>
>As well as being a terrible non sequitur.
I'll do better next time.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Runge wrote:
>> Appalling troll
>>
>As well as being a terrible non sequitur.
I'll do better next time.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Aug 3rd 2005, 12:20 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
In article <[email protected]>, Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>read the purpose of the group again
> >
> >Oh?
> >
> >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>
> The charter is not included fully in
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>
> although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>read the purpose of the group again
> >
> >Oh?
> >
> >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
>
> The charter is not included fully in
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> There is no sign of rec.travel.europe at
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/
>
> although rec.travel.europe.uk is there.
Aug 3rd 2005, 12:27 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Icono Clast wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
>> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing during
>> a heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
>> reported in the area upon landing.
>
>
> Just saw a television report about it that did not include an extremely
> important bit of information.
>
> If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the runway
> from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as "a ravine"
> (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in addition to the
> extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few injuries (24) and no
> deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's passengers or aboard).
>
> A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
>
> A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of
> downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
> encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then
> a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and,
> that close to the ground . . .
> __________________________________________________ _________________
> A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
> < http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
> ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net
For an intelligent discussion of this accident by people who may even be
real-life commercial pilots, see http://www.pprune.org/forums/
threadid=184428
T.
> Tom wrote:
>
>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
>> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing during
>> a heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
>> reported in the area upon landing.
>
>
> Just saw a television report about it that did not include an extremely
> important bit of information.
>
> If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the runway
> from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as "a ravine"
> (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in addition to the
> extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few injuries (24) and no
> deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's passengers or aboard).
>
> A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
>
> A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of
> downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
> encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then
> a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and,
> that close to the ground . . .
> __________________________________________________ _________________
> A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
> < http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
> ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net
For an intelligent discussion of this accident by people who may even be
real-life commercial pilots, see http://www.pprune.org/forums/
threadid=184428
T.
Aug 3rd 2005, 12:36 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>read the purpose of the group again
> > >
> > >Oh?
> > >
> > >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
> >
> > The charter is not included fully in
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>
> Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
What wasn't voted on?
The CFV states
"""
Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of travel
in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western Europe (France,
Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland,
Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Finland); in eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania,
Ukraine, Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus.
"""
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/e8871d4d43013eca?dmode=source&hl=en>
I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
"eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
like a charter to me.
The results were:
"""
Yes No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
353 52 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.asia
360 47 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.europe
358 49 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.usa-canada
349 54 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.misc (replaces rec.travel)
"""
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/7ca574723083574c?dmode=source&hl=en>
Des
> In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>read the purpose of the group again
> > >
> > >Oh?
> > >
> > >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
> >
> > The charter is not included fully in
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
>
> Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
What wasn't voted on?
The CFV states
"""
Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of travel
in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western Europe (France,
Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland,
Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Finland); in eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania,
Ukraine, Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus.
"""
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/e8871d4d43013eca?dmode=source&hl=en>
I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
"eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
like a charter to me.
The results were:
"""
Yes No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
353 52 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.asia
360 47 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.europe
358 49 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.usa-canada
349 54 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.misc (replaces rec.travel)
"""
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/7ca574723083574c?dmode=source&hl=en>
Des
Aug 3rd 2005, 1:02 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
"Icono Clast" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1123064628.e06b5688a21737b75c54e5f38062fbc6@t eranews...
> Tom wrote:
>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
>> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing during a
>> heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
>> reported in the area upon landing.
> Just saw a television report about it that did not include an extremely
> important bit of information.
> If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the runway
> from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as "a ravine"
> (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in addition to the
> extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few injuries (24) and no
> deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's passengers or aboard).
> A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
> A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of downdraft
> (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have encountered,
> being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then a strong
> tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and, that close to
> the ground . . .
I suspect you mean a microburst , they have been involved in a
number of incidents.
http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/microbursts/Handbook.html
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
news:1123064628.e06b5688a21737b75c54e5f38062fbc6@t eranews...
> Tom wrote:
>> An Air France AirBus from Paris to Toronto has run off the runway
>> upon landing and burst into flames . . . The plane was landing during a
>> heavy thunderstorm and extremely strong winds were
>> reported in the area upon landing.
> Just saw a television report about it that did not include an extremely
> important bit of information.
> If I understand it correctly, there's a moat that separates the runway
> from "Canada's busiest highway". That moat, being reported as "a ravine"
> (a "gully" in Canadian), is probably the reason, in addition to the
> extreme good luck of all aboard, there were so few injuries (24) and no
> deaths among the 309 (not sure if that's passengers or aboard).
> A ravine is an act of Nature. A moat is an intentional structure.
> A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of downdraft
> (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have encountered,
> being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then a strong
> tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and, that close to
> the ground . . .
I suspect you mean a microburst , they have been involved in a
number of incidents.
http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/microbursts/Handbook.html
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Aug 3rd 2005, 1:38 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>read the purpose of the group again
> > > >
> > > >Oh?
> > > >
> > > >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
> > >
> > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> >
> > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
>
> What wasn't voted on?
Specific rules for acceptable content.
>
> The CFV states
>
> """
> Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of travel
> in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western Europe (France,
> Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland,
> Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
> Finland); in eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic,
> Slovakia, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania,
> Ukraine, Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus.
> """
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...ca?dmode=sourc
> e&hl=en>
>
> I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> like a charter to me.
It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
voted on.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> The results were:
>
> """
> Yes No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
> ---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
> 353 52 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.asia
> 360 47 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.europe
> 358 49 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.usa-canada
> 349 54 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.misc (replaces rec.travel)
> """
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/7ca574723083574c?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> Des
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
> > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>read the purpose of the group again
> > > >
> > > >Oh?
> > > >
> > > >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
> > >
> > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> >
> > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
>
> What wasn't voted on?
Specific rules for acceptable content.
>
> The CFV states
>
> """
> Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of travel
> in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western Europe (France,
> Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland,
> Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
> Finland); in eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic,
> Slovakia, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania,
> Ukraine, Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus.
> """
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...ca?dmode=sourc
> e&hl=en>
>
> I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> like a charter to me.
It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
voted on.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> The results were:
>
> """
> Yes No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
> ---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
> 353 52 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.asia
> 360 47 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.europe
> 358 49 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.usa-canada
> 349 54 : Yes Yes : Yes : rec.travel.misc (replaces rec.travel)
> """
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/news.groups/msg/7ca574723083574c?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> Des
Aug 3rd 2005, 1:50 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> > >
> > > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
> >
> > What wasn't voted on?
>
> Specific rules for acceptable content.
When you said "this", you were relying on the many telepaths to know
you meant that? The charter _was_ voted on, after all.
> > The CFV states
> >
> > """ Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of
> > travel in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western
> > Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland,
> > Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in
> > Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland); in eastern Europe
> > (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia,
> > Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Ukraine,
> > Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> > Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus. """
> >
> > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...ca?dmode=sourc
> > e&hl=en>
> >
> > I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> > "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> > like a charter to me.
>
> It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
> posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
> enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
> voted on.
As opposed to the many froups where writs are routinely served for
off-topic postings, of course.
You're weird.
Des
> In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> > >
> > > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
> >
> > What wasn't voted on?
>
> Specific rules for acceptable content.
When you said "this", you were relying on the many telepaths to know
you meant that? The charter _was_ voted on, after all.
> > The CFV states
> >
> > """ Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of
> > travel in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western
> > Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland,
> > Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in
> > Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland); in eastern Europe
> > (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia,
> > Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Ukraine,
> > Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> > Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus. """
> >
> > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...ca?dmode=sourc
> > e&hl=en>
> >
> > I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> > "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> > like a charter to me.
>
> It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
> posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
> enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
> voted on.
As opposed to the many froups where writs are routinely served for
off-topic postings, of course.
You're weird.
Des
Aug 3rd 2005, 2:00 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Charter rec.travel.europe was Re: Air France Crash
In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> > > >
> > > > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
> > >
> > > What wasn't voted on?
> >
> > Specific rules for acceptable content.
>
> When you said "this", you were relying on the many telepaths to know
> you meant that?
Did you happen to see what was DIRECTLY above my text line, what do you
think I was referencing... good grief.
> The charter _was_ voted on, after all.
>
> > > The CFV states
> > >
> > > """ Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of
> > > travel in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western
> > > Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland,
> > > Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in
> > > Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland); in eastern Europe
> > > (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia,
> > > Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Ukraine,
> > > Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> > > Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus. """
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...013eca?dmode=s
> > > ourc
> > > e&hl=en>
> > >
> > > I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> > > "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> > > like a charter to me.
> >
> > It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
> > posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
> > enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
> > voted on.
>
> As opposed to the many froups where writs are routinely served for
> off-topic postings, of course.
Have you ever looked at headers included in many Usenet ISPs, they may
included 'to report abuse'. ISPs must have legal standing to restrict
access.... "all aspects" and "this includes" is incredibly encompassing
language. Courts need language that specifies what is NOT included.
>
> You're weird.
Your woefully ignorant here.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> Des
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The charter is not included fully in
> > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
> > > >
> > > > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
> > >
> > > What wasn't voted on?
> >
> > Specific rules for acceptable content.
>
> When you said "this", you were relying on the many telepaths to know
> you meant that?
Did you happen to see what was DIRECTLY above my text line, what do you
think I was referencing... good grief.
> The charter _was_ voted on, after all.
>
> > > The CFV states
> > >
> > > """ Rec.travel.europe is for the discussion of all aspects of
> > > travel in Europe. This includes discussion of travel in western
> > > Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland,
> > > Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.); in
> > > Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland); in eastern Europe
> > > (Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia,
> > > Lituania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Ukraine,
> > > Byelorus, etc.), as well as in Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Armenia,
> > > Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Cyprus. """
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/new...013eca?dmode=s
> > > ourc
> > > e&hl=en>
> > >
> > > I demand that a passing Polish take offence at this definition of
> > > "eastern" Europe at once, of course, but other than that this looks
> > > like a charter to me.
> >
> > It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
> > posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
> > enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
> > voted on.
>
> As opposed to the many froups where writs are routinely served for
> off-topic postings, of course.
Have you ever looked at headers included in many Usenet ISPs, they may
included 'to report abuse'. ISPs must have legal standing to restrict
access.... "all aspects" and "this includes" is incredibly encompassing
language. Courts need language that specifies what is NOT included.
>
> You're weird.
Your woefully ignorant here.
jay
Wed Aug 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> Des
