Thread AWOL.

[Topaz]

...
It would be nice if OPs were informed, by default, of a threads deletion though.

That's a feature of the new forum software and something that I and, from comments in the mod forum, the other moderators are doing. Same with individual posts - the "delete" dialog now has a field where we can send a message to the person who posted the thread or the individual post, respectively. I believe the message goes to the OP as a PM. If you're not ever looking at your PM box, you might miss it.

If any of you would like a test/demo, post after after my post here with the text, "Please delete this." I'll check in a little later and do so, with a message to you about it through the system. Let's give the system a test. If it's not working for some reason, we'd like to know about it.

 

[WonderousMountain]

Sorry to hear that,
Maybe just put up another thread if you
think the subject Matter is deserving.
It looks like the delete may have been
A snafu, since nobody is calling you out.

 

[Dana]

My thread about Regulating by performance not just hating a machine disappeared to!

That thread went into 100% politics (talking about police brutality here and executions in China) almost immediately, which is why it was deleted (not by me, but I would have done so too).

We try to give a reasonable amount of latitude to off topic discussions, but when things get into pure politics or personal attacks the reported posts start coming in and we do our best to keep things civil.

When deleting a post or thread there is an option to notify the poster, I admit I sometimes forget to check that option. But sometimes it's obvious (or should be) that a post would be deleted whether the OP is notified or not.

 

[wsimpso1]

Nothing wrong with the concept... I looked back into Pilot-34's activity into August, and nothing of this sort shows up. I am mystified.

 

[Pilot-34]

Well that makes perfect sense I didn’t hang around long enough to see the part about police brutality in Chinese politics

 

[pictsidhe]

Well that makes perfect sense I didn’t hang around long enough to see the part about police brutality in Chinese politics

 

[Pilot-34]

OK I went back and re-made it so that it was very clear it was about defending your ability to fly.
Even going so far as to illustrate it with a local case where airplanes are not allowed to Use a lake while lots of other ivery loud machinery can use the lake.
So now I guess the question is will defending the rights to fly always be considered to political topic for this forum?

By the way whoever deleted that thread thank you thank you thank you for alerting me to that fact.
Honestly without the alert I would’ve spent at least a day trying to figure out how it had disappeared and very likely reposting it thinking that I had made a mistake.

 

[Vigilant1]

thinking that I had made a mistake.

You did.

 

[BJC]

Even going so far as to illustrate it with a local case where airplanes are not allowed to Use a lake while lots of other ivery loud machinery can use the lake.

I have made the decision not to allow aircraft to use some lakes, and almost anyone here would make the same decision under the same circumstances. It is costly, as well as real PITA, to deal with land owners, near by municipalities, state regulators of all kinds, indigenous people tribes, dozens of environmental advocacy organizations, half a dozen federal government regulatory agencies, fishermen, boaters and bird watchers.

There is no significant up side to allowing aircraft to operate on a lake, but there is a huge down side, even before the legal issues that ensue from the crash.


BJC

 

[Pilot-34]

By that logic shouldn’t GA be banned altogether ?
There is seldom any advantage to others in freedom for someone else

 

[BJC]

By that logic shouldn’t GA be banned altogether ?

No. Almost all lakes in this part of the country are privately owned.


BJC

 

[Vigilant1]

There is seldom any advantage to others in freedom for someone else

?? We all benefit, collectively, a LOT from an economy and legal structure that allows a (relatively) high degree of freedom. When people have the freedom to innovate, to try, to fail, to use their talents as they want, to keep the fruit of their labor, to put their money to work in the way they believe is the highest use, etc, etc then we all benefit.. Freedom is an individual good and a collective good.
For your case ( landing on a lake, running with wide open motorcycle pipes, etc), research the terms "tragedy of the commons" and "externalities"/"external costs". Or, as we used to say, " good neighbor".

 

[Pilot-34]

?? We all benefit, collectively, a LOT from an economy and legal structure that allows a (relatively) high degree of freedom. When people have the freedom to innovate, to try, to fail, to use their talents as they want, to keep the fruit of their labor, to put their money to work in the way they believe is the highest use, etc, etc then we all benefit.. Freedom is an individual good and a collective good.
For your case ( landing on a lake, running with wide open motorcycle pipes, etc), research the terms "tragedy of the commons" and "externalities"/"external costs". Or, as we used to say, " good neighbor".

I think you’re missing the point.
I was responding to BJCs comment about it being too much hassle to grant freedom.

I think you also missed the point about call regulations should be coded.
If you have a problem with loud pipes you shouldn’t ban motorcycles or even loud pipes you should ban the loud.
If your problem is really the noise what do you care what’s creating it or how someone goes about reducing it as long as it gets reduced?

A Cessna 185 on floats can be an air shattering experience.
But it doesn’t seem right to ban all airplanes when that lake also host drag boats that are even louder
The rule should simply be something like a restriction on the level of noise allowed No matter what or how it’s being made

 

[BJC]

I was responding to BJCs comment about it being too much hassle to grant freedom.

Too much hassle and legal liability to grant / share access to a privately owned asset. You might have made a different decision, but I was the one who did make the decisions.

Do you allow the public access to your private property for any type of recreational activity that they desire?


BJC

 

[Pilot-34]

When I made the comment I was not aware it was private property.
Honestly I see that is granting a privilege which I feel is much different than restricting freedom.

 

[Topaz]

Are we done talking about missing threads? Seems like this thread has served its life.

 

[BJC]

Deleted

 

[Pilot-34]

Lol Yes it’s probably time to quit talking about my particular missing thread but it would be good to leave this one open because I’m sure there will be more Missing threads in the future