For the MC...

Doggtyred

Doggtyred

En-Route
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
2,713
Location
Houston area, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
If conversations about the spin zone are to remain in the spin zone, where do people who DONT PARTICIPATE in the spin zone supposed to go to talk about the spin zone, or lack of spin zone?

Or is locking threads discussing the action supposed to be some sort of power trip by volunteer admins? Because really thats what it looks like.

I came here years ago from dying usenet groups at behest of Jay Honeck, who'd been a frequent contributor there for many years. I've gotten some value from this group, but you know what? Controlling pilots is like herding cats. I get that the perceived lack of civility is the reason for the demise of the spin zone. I left participation in that zone over a year ago and haven't missed it one bit.

However, whether you (the MC) give a rats ass or not, the MC's heavy handedness about discussion of the issue is a big turnoff. Being an admin is a thankless task. I've been one. But its kind of like being a cop.. there's some controversy that comes with the role that you have to accept, lest you risk overreacting.

I'm close to no longer participating in POA, not because of the spin zone closure but because of some of the annoying **** like this (locking threads unnecessarily)... I wonder how many others feel the same...

Its your server.. your system... your rules... and I get that... Thank you for the free use of your system to network with others, but I think if this sort of crap continues it will result in a decline in user activity. Including the users who bring value to the board.

I'm going to respectfully suggest that the MC take a chill pill. They've taken their vote and made their non-negotiable unanimous decision. I suggest they let it play out. Let people vent for a bit provided its civil. And let people network on a social networking site.

Or you can just lock threads and suspend users and flex that ban hammer.

Pick your battles....
 
Doggtyred said:
If conversations about the spin zone are to remain in the spin zone, where do people who DONT PARTICIPATE in the spin zone supposed to go to talk about the spin zone, or lack of spin zone?

Or is locking threads discussing the action supposed to be some sort of power trip by volunteer admins? Because really thats what it looks like.

I came here years ago from dying usenet groups at behest of Jay Honeck, who'd been a frequent contributor there for many years. I've gotten some value from this group, but you know what? Controlling pilots is like herding cats. I get that the perceived lack of civility is the reason for the demise of the spin zone. I left participation in that zone over a year ago and haven't missed it one bit.

However, whether you (the MC) give a rats ass or not, the MC's heavy handedness about discussion of the issue is a big turnoff. Being an admin is a thankless task. I've been one. But its kind of like being a cop.. there's some controversy that comes with the role that you have to accept, lest you risk overreacting.

I'm close to no longer participating in POA, not because of the spin zone closure but because of some of the annoying **** like this (locking threads unnecessarily)... I wonder how many others feel the same...

Its your server.. your system... your rules... and I get that... Thank you for the free use of your system to network with others, but I think if this sort of crap continues it will result in a decline in user activity. Including the users who bring value to the board.

I'm going to respectfully suggest that the MC take a chill pill. They've taken their vote and made their non-negotiable unanimous decision. I suggest they let it play out. Let people vent for a bit provided its civil. And let people network on a social networking site.

Or you can just lock threads and suspend users and flex that ban hammer.

Pick your battles....
Click to expand...
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
 
Anyone see that South park episode where Steven Segal (obese) goes to talk to the school about how bad body shaming is and PC Principal forces Butters into filtering out any negative tweets for the twitter accounts of Eric Cartman, Steven Segal and several others till Butters is in near death health?

Then a new antagonist character named Reality is trying to spoil everyone's fun so they executed Reality by a public hanging.
 
Last edited:
Wonder how long it'll be before this is either deleted or locked? 1 hour?
 
I don't think it is heavy handed at all.
And if users leave POA, it will probably leave behind a more desireable crowd, imo.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I don't think it is heavy handed at all.
And if users leave POA, it will probably leave behind a more desireable crowd, imo.
Click to expand...

My husband writes software. He once read a book on how to improve software. Interestingly, when a team got rid of the person who annoyed them the most, the project's ultimate quality was lower than when the annoying person participated. Bottom line was that different perspectives improve the whole.

In my whole world, which is not small, SZ was the only place I ever found where I could get involved in dialogue with someone whose position was diametrically opposed to my own. Such is the only way, I think, to achieve the broader view required to find common ground and solutions. Yes, a forum is not in itself a solution, but the thoughts and actions of those affected by the discourse therein definitely can be.

I'm grateful for the new site.

Jung had it right ... all aspects of its life must be acknowledged for the organism to truly thrive.

I think POA will be fine, but I don't see the removal of SZ as a healthy move, like excising a tumor. It's more like amputating a limb.
 
Becky said:
My husband writes software. He once read a book on how to improve software. Interestingly, when a team got rid of the person who annoyed them the most, the project's ultimate quality was lower than when the annoying person participated. Bottom line was that different perspectives improve the whole.

In my whole world, which is not small, SZ was the only place I ever found where I could get involved in dialogue with someone whose position was diametrically opposed to my own. Such is the only way, I think, to achieve the broader view required to find common ground and solutions. Yes, a forum is not in itself a solution, but the thoughts and actions of those affected by the discourse therein definitely can be.

I'm grateful for the new site.

Jung had it right ... all aspects of its life must be acknowledged for the organism to truly thrive.

I think POA will be fine, but I don't see the removal of SZ as a healthy move, like excising a tumor. It's more like amputating a limb.
Click to expand...

But what if they replace it with something better?
Like a robot limb.

POA would benefit from robots.
I want a robot.
 
Bottom line was that different perspectives improve the whole.
Click to expand...

I have zero objections to new perspectives.

It's usually how they are presented that aggrieves.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I have zero objections to new perspectives.

It's usually how they are presented that aggrieves.
Click to expand...

Note that it was the "most annoying person" who was booted, to the project's detriment.

People are so soft these days. And that very statement will probably generate a "get off my lawn" label, when in actuality, the result of putting up with some aggrievances is wider acceptance and higher tolerances for those whose contributions are more obscure.

Oh, well.
 
Becky said:
I think POA will be fine, but I don't see the removal of SZ as a healthy move, like excising a tumor. It's more like amputating a limb.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What this place needs is more limbs.

deer460b_779862c.jpg
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
But what if they replace it with something better?
Like a robot limb.

POA would benefit from robots.
I want a robot.
Click to expand...

You are a robot, an autonomous, carbon based, metabolically powered robot with an aethernet link. You just don't realize it yet.
 
Becky said:
Note that it was the "most annoying person" who was booted, to the project's detriment.

People are so soft these days. And that very statement will probably generate a "get off my lawn" label, when in actuality, the result of putting up with some aggrievances is wider acceptance and higher tolerances for those whose contributions are more obscure.

Oh, well.
Click to expand...

The most telling thing about that is we don't like think. Thinking annoys us. That's why we are going extinct.
 
Dang, I should have waited a while longer before putting together my (now deleted) poll. There are a lot more candidates than I originally speculated.

Folks, you pay nothing to be here. Get over your collective selves.
 
timwinters said:
Dang, I should have waited a while longer before putting together my (now deleted) poll. There are a lot more candidates than I originally speculated.

Folks, you pay nothing to be here. Get over your collective selves.
Click to expand...

Actually, we donate time and thought as the cost of being here.
 
Henning said:
The most telling thing about that is we don't like think. Thinking annoys us. That's why we are going extinct.
Click to expand...

We need bullies, no society can survive without bullies. Bullies make you think. Some times that might be thinking of ways to kill people that bully you. But that still counts as human progress. As Becky said all this softness is suicide.
 
Another data point.
I am a member of another pilot forum, much like this, in fact it uses vBulletin so it looks the same.
In that one, the administrators have all but disappeared. No moderation whatsoever.
Over the last 2 years since the loss of moderator activity the site is now a scorched bombfield of the remnants of a useful place to visit.
All the badboys who used to be confined to the non-aviation forum had their way, looting and pillaging through every aviation thread and now its nothing but angry vulgarity and membership is down to 1/100th its original.
 
When does laundry start being laundry? And when does it stop being laundry?

Does it become laundry immediately after wearing, or does it have to already be in the hamper before it becomes laundry? If so, then what if after being put in the hamper, the clothing is retrieved and worn again unwashed? Does it cease being laundry and revert to simply "clothing" at that point, or is it merely laundry that is being worn?

Does it become laundry only when it's dirty, or can clean clothing also be laundry? The etymology of the word "laundry" goes back to the Old French lavandier, which meant "one who washes linen." But if it's not dirty, then it doesn't need washing; so if, for example, you wash brand new clothing simply so you can dry it and get the wrinkles out (because you're too damn lazy to iron it), is it truly "laundry?" It's not being "washed" so much as just "wet," after all.

And what about the other perplexing question: When does laundry stop being laundry? After it's washed? Dried? Folded? placed in the laundry basket for the trip upstairs? Hung in a closet or placed in a dresser drawer? Or does it remain laundry until the next time it's worn?

These are some of the things I wonder about.

Rich
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Another data point.
I am a member of another pilot forum, much like this, in fact it uses vBulletin so it looks the same.
In that one, the administrators have all but disappeared. No moderation whatsoever.
Over the last 2 years since the loss of moderator activity the site is now a scorched bombfield of the remnants of a useful place to visit.
All the badboys who used to be confined to the non-aviation forum had their way, looting and pillaging through every aviation thread and now its nothing but angry vulgarity and membership is down to 1/100th its original.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GwrR-4Q9E
 
Phoenix said:
We need bullies, no society can survive without bullies. Bullies make you think. Some times that might be thinking of ways to kill people that bully you. But that still counts as human progress. As Becky said all this softness is suicide.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, people have to choose to be kind, you can't force it. We teach our toddlers correctly, but then we show ourselves to be hypocrites to them by creating a society that that doesn't respect the same set of rules. You can't raise a child Dr Spock style, and toss them into financial feudalism with an option to get into the high flash world of gladiatorial drug dealing. Little do they realize that you sold out your own ideals and soul for the financial needs to provide for them. The real problem is our 'free market' is no such thing because it's all owned and controlled by the same banking conglomerate that we give control of all our resources to in exchange for slips of paper they create out of their imagination, and they charge for priviledge of using their money they made up. This is the reality of global central banking.

Our entire society is based on taking advantage of people, and the more disadvantaged a person in our society is, the more they are taken advantage of. That's why our society is **** full of drugs and violence, why everyone is depressed, our society only offers depressing, immoral, choices for existence unless you have the capability and desire to live outside of modern society.

We have no available option to choose from, though creatin one is within our means and would be hugely beneficial.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/urban-agriculture-and-energy--2/x/10003213#/
 
That stuff will be illegal, you know what they say 'no way to rule an innocent man,' also hard to rule one that can produce his own food. We've fallen a long way.
 
172andyou said:
Agreed. What this place needs is more limbs.

deer460b_779862c.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, that is just a perfect example of another perspective. I never would have considered SZ a useless appendage, more a vital one. But someone else sees it differently. Interesting.
 
Doggtyred said:
Its your server.. your system...
Click to expand...

Actually - I would expect any hardware may be owned by the non-profit corporation, though I suppose it could be loaned to it. And since there are no owners of a non-profit, none of the MC could claim title to any such equipment. None of the current members of the MC were founders of the board.

Also, I don't know who has provided funding for the non-profit, but I doubt that the current members of the MC are providing much in the way of on-going operating funds. The occasional replacement part or software upgrade may get supplied by Jesse and/or others as uncompensated out-of-pocket contribution. In an answer to a question I posed to them some time back I seem to recall them saying a friendly Internet hosting service was subsidizing all or most of the running cost (electricity and pipes to the net I imagine.) But I may be mis-remembering and I'm too lazy at the moment to search for that post.
 
timwinters said:
Dang, I should have waited a while longer before putting together my (now deleted) poll. There are a lot more candidates than I originally speculated.
Click to expand...

I won that poll unfair and square.

Folks, you pay nothing to be here. Get over your collective selves.
Click to expand...

They'd get a lot of people (such as myself) willing to contribute money, time, and effort. They have not asked in the time I've been a member. Unlike you, I understand why they don't do that and you just make yourself look foolish every time you post the same invalid point.
 
Becky said:
My husband writes software. He once read a book on how to improve software. Interestingly, when a team got rid of the person who annoyed them the most, the project's ultimate quality was lower than when the annoying person participated. Bottom line was that different perspectives improve the whole.
Click to expand...

I write software for a living, and have worked with lots of different teams, and have certainly seen cases of drastic improvements in quality once the person that "annoyed them the most" was removed from the team.

I'm glad he once read a book on how to improve software. He should probably read more books. Afterall, plenty of books to contradict each other.

The question is -- is the annoying person just a PITA that causes drama, distracts people, and doesn't fit with the team? Or is the annoying person actually right and is trying to change things for the better?

Nothing is quite so simple.
 
Jim Logajan said:
...there are no owners of a non-profit...
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
I find that hard to believe. Can you provide a source for that?
Click to expand...

"Nonprofits are not actually owned by anyone and therefore cannot be sold." From:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nonprofit-basics-29948.html

"While there is no outright ownership, there is control. One of the fundamental questions I ask when forming a new nonprofit corporation is how board members will be selected. This is a key question because those who hold the power to select board members retain the ultimate authority over the corporation." From:
http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/03/08/who-owns-a-nonprofit-corporation/

The Pilots of America non-profit is incorporated in Pennsylvania (search for "Pilots of America" with the quotes in the link https://www.corporations.pa.gov/Search/CorpSearch)

I could not find "Pilots of America" or any simple variant of that name in the IRS database of exempt organizations (https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Select-Check). I did find a "Black Pilots of America" exempt organization. I'm not sure how it would be possible for an organization incorporated in a state as a non-profit and operate for 10 years and not be register with the IRS under that name. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong database. Or it is registered with the IRS as a for-profit organization - or there has been some paperwork oversight. That latter could be bad.

As far as I can tell from past postings here and some web hits, Adam Zucker is probably the closest thing to a founder who is still a sitting member of the MC. He also probably has the most legal control. Requesting the filing info from PA or Mr. Zucker would probably answer some of these questions. The applicable laws would appear to be here (under SUBPART C. NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/15/15.HTM

A quick glance through definitions suggests that unless the bylaws explicitly say otherwise (i.e. those in control went out of their way,) the organization would have members:

"Membership corporation." A nonprofit corporation having articles of incorporation that do not provide that the corporation is to have no members.

 
Jim Logajan said:
Also, I don't know who has provided funding for the non-profit, but I doubt that the current members of the MC are providing much in the way of on-going operating funds.
Click to expand...

Whatever arrangement they have worked out should not matter at all to you. The fact is, the management is responsible for keeping the site running and they do it at no charge to the members. So be respectful.

If you disagree with closing the SZ (I do) its great if you want to voice your opinion, but speculating on how much money they spend on the site, who really has legal control of it, etc... is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
"Nonprofits are not actually owned by anyone and therefore cannot be sold." From:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nonprofit-basics-29948.html

"While there is no outright ownership, there is control. One of the fundamental questions I ask when forming a new nonprofit corporation is how board members will be selected. This is a key question because those who hold the power to select board members retain the ultimate authority over the corporation." From:
http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/03/08/who-owns-a-nonprofit-corporation/

The Pilots of America non-profit is incorporated in Pennsylvania (search for "Pilots of America" with the quotes in the link https://www.corporations.pa.gov/Search/CorpSearch)

I could not find "Pilots of America" or any simple variant of that name in the IRS database of exempt organizations (https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Select-Check). I did find a "Black Pilots of America" exempt organization. I'm not sure how it would be possible for an organization incorporated in a state as a non-profit and operate for 10 years and not be register with the IRS under that name. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong database. Or it is registered with the IRS as a for-profit organization - or there has been some paperwork oversight. That latter could be bad.

As far as I can tell from past postings here and some web hits, Adam Zucker is probably the closest thing to a founder who is still a sitting member of the MC. He also probably has the most legal control. Requesting the filing info from PA or Mr. Zucker would probably answer some of these questions. The applicable laws would appear to be here (under SUBPART C. NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/15/15.HTM

A quick glance through definitions suggests that unless the bylaws explicitly say otherwise (i.e. those in control went out of their way,) the organization would have members:

"Membership corporation." A nonprofit corporation having articles of incorporation that do not provide that the corporation is to have no members.

Click to expand...
What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?
 
jesse said:
What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?
Click to expand...

I think he's trying to shame you for working out a reasonable and cost effective way to run the site? Shame! :confused:
 
jesse said:
What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?
Click to expand...

A hostile takeover of POA. Then sell it off in pieces. SZ would fetch the highest bid, then Flight Following. The Carl Icahn of internetforumia.
 
jesse said:
What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?
Click to expand...

I'd thought Jim left in disgust a few days ago.
 
Jim Logajan said:
"Nonprofits are not actually owned by anyone and therefore cannot be sold." From:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nonprofit-basics-29948.html

"While there is no outright ownership, there is control. One of the fundamental questions I ask when forming a new nonprofit corporation is how board members will be selected. This is a key question because those who hold the power to select board members retain the ultimate authority over the corporation." From:
http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/03/08/who-owns-a-nonprofit-corporation/

The Pilots of America non-profit is incorporated in Pennsylvania (search for "Pilots of America" with the quotes in the link https://www.corporations.pa.gov/Search/CorpSearch)

I could not find "Pilots of America" or any simple variant of that name in the IRS database of exempt organizations (https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Select-Check). I did find a "Black Pilots of America" exempt organization. I'm not sure how it would be possible for an organization incorporated in a state as a non-profit and operate for 10 years and not be register with the IRS under that name. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong database. Or it is registered with the IRS as a for-profit organization - or there has been some paperwork oversight. That latter could be bad.

As far as I can tell from past postings here and some web hits, Adam Zucker is probably the closest thing to a founder who is still a sitting member of the MC. He also probably has the most legal control. Requesting the filing info from PA or Mr. Zucker would probably answer some of these questions. The applicable laws would appear to be here (under SUBPART C. NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/15/15.HTM

A quick glance through definitions suggests that unless the bylaws explicitly say otherwise (i.e. those in control went out of their way,) the organization would have members:

"Membership corporation." A nonprofit corporation having articles of incorporation that do not provide that the corporation is to have no members.

Click to expand...

It's been many years since I took my one course in not-for-profit organization law, so things may have changed since then.

Back then, however, there was no requirement whatsoever that a NFP organization apply for tax-exempt status. If an organization owned little or no property that would otherwise be subject to property taxes, planned to spend little or no money that would otherwise be subject to sales taxes, had little or no revenue that otherwise would be subject to income taxes, and did not intend to accept contributions that would otherwise be tax-deductible by the donors, then there really would be no point in applying for tax-exempt status.

In addition, some organizations were also tax-exempt by statute because of their nature. For example, all churches were tax exempt by statute, although most of them did apply for official recognition for various purposes including deductability of donations and exemption of daughter organizations (for example, if the church was the parent organization of multiple local churches, missions, soup kitchens, and so forth).

Other organizations were tax-exempt because their revenue and assets fell below some arbitrary amount. These organizations could also apply for official recognition if they had some legal or financial reason to do so (for example, if required by their states, to facilitate deductability of contributions, to qualify for wholesale buying privileges, or many other possible reasons), but they were not required to do so for income tax purposes. They were exempt by statute.

These rules were still in effect the last time I was an officer of a non-profit. That was about seven years ago. I don't know if they still are now, but I think they are. Surely there are enough lawyers here to correct me if I'm wrong.

My point is that the fact that a small not-for-profit corporation chooses not to apply for federal tax exemption means nothing in and of itself. Organizations have never been required to seek 501(c)(x) status unless they wished to enjoy tax exemption; and as of the last time I had reason to know about such things, some organizations could enjoy exemption without official recognition because of their nature or their [lack of] revenue or assets.

Long story short, there's nothing sinister going on here.

Rich
 
jesse said:
What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?
Click to expand...

His first paragraph was apparently just answering my question. As for the rest, :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top