Canard Aviator's Mail List Censorship

My Reply

John, you have made some serious contributions to this forum and they have 
been welcomed because of some others that should probably have their 
keyboards taken away from them. We hope this little misunderstanding will 
remain between us and try to move forward as we would prefer not to loose 
your valuable input.

John, I have also pasted a "form" letter below that we sometimes send out to 
members explaining our simple rules. I really hope it explains our position 
to you and that it is acceptable. After that is recent comments from Wayne 
Wright, in all this email is a bit on the lengthy side, hope you understand.

Thanks very much. Bob the moderator
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi ,

The comments you have made has been noted by the c-a staff and wish we could 
have published your comments.  We strive to keep the non-canard "stuff" to a 
minimum as you have now noted. The "real" problems are the thin skins, 
know-it-alls and rotten attitudes out there. We don't mind a limited 
straying off the path, but it usually gets trashed because of the above and 
we have to stop the thread.

Unfortunately, some of the members have really informative additional 
information to add, but because of the "others" and severely limited 
volunteer time on our part, we make decisions that are not always popular.  
Yes, we do trash certain emails, but never out of spite or malicious intent.

Most of out time is editing all the "extra" stuff added to the reply email.

The copyright notice is almost always added. Everyone forgets that server 
time is not free and every byte sent across takes time. When it is 
multiplied thousands of times the "time" becomes noticeable, besides why do 
we want to see that uninteresting part again. One should ONLY add the part 
of the email that pertains to your reply and no more. We do not have to read 
the whole email again, just enough to remind us of what you are talking 
about.

Sometimes we send out the "blurb" below to help and for the most part seems 
to help.

Thanks for your input.  Bob the Moderator.

<<< ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  for members >>>

P.S. While I have your attention please allow me to attach another note we 
sometimes send out to inform some of the "new" members about our site. There 
is some informative information in here that may help you understand us 
better. Thanks.
-----
As our membership becomes larger (900+) we are having a greater problem 
(exponentially) of members trying to be helpful and sending in various type 
of emails that can't be "passed on" for various reasons outlined below. We 
hope you understand that this cutting line is seemingly drawn arbitrarily 
sometimes, but the limited resources of the volunteer editorial staff must 
make decisions for content value that may or may not apply to the subject at 
hand.

Our original charter was to provide a site that would promote interaction 
between pilots and builders of Canard type aircraft. We wanted to have 
discourse of safety issues, builder problems or flying questions about our 
favorite type of airplane.

We specifically excluded religious cards and messages. Possibly it could be 
offending to others on this list server and besides it has very little to do 
with our original charge. Another note was to ask readers to keep the "one 
on one" emails out and certainly be CAREFUL of how you "talk" to others.

Our policy is and has always been, no chain letters, no rumors that you may 
have (virus alerts) heard and certainly no birthday greetings, photograph or 
large files (like photographs) and the such. Believe it or not there are 
members that are currently using 486's and 14kb modems.

Another area we won't allow comments is "opinions" of airplane crashes, 
unless it is your crash. You need to be careful even then because the FAA 
also reads this forum.  We are also sensitive about re-printing any article 
that has been published before and can be accessed elsewhere and the 
copyright it may carry.

We also do not wish to explore alternative power plants here, that can be 
done on another forum.

We have a no advertising rule that we rigorously enforce.  If you want to 
sell something or need a "widget" place the request in the Free advertising 
section of the Home Page. http://www.canard.com/  We were plagued for a 
while by companies trying to place phony email disguised as "help" subjects 
to our membership.

The basic rule is that if it pertains to Canard aircraft we are probably 
interested.

Yes, we have a few rules. Most are simply common sense type.  Wayne Wright < 
wwright@web-span.com> is the operator of this web site and is gracious 
enough to allow canard type aircraft enthusiasts to exchange ideas here 
without any charge to us as members.  Here is one letter that was written to 
the group in the past.

Wayne said in a previous post.   Hello Aviator Friends, As the 
"over-extended" operator and provider of canard-aviators@canard.com and 
www.canard.com  . . .  My hope in establishing this forum was to provide an 
avenue to discuss flight safety issues, flying qualities, mods, changes, and 
anything else closely related to flying our pusher and canard aircraft.  "

I'm also concerned that we'll lose membership by filling people's mail boxes 
with one-liners that simply agree with another persons post and 
thank-yous.".

** We hope this is a help to all, our sole intention is to make this a 
really great place to exchange ideas regarding Canard type aircraft.  It 
should help all of us to enjoy the e-mail.
Bob the Moderator

<<<<<<
(John, below is the latest from Wayne Wright and it does "clearly" explains 
our views about alternate engines.)
>>>>>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear ,

For starters, I'm not one of the moderators.  I own and operate the server 
which hosts the canard.com website and the canard-aviators mail list.  I 
stated canard.com several years ago now to promote the aircraft type, and to 
enhance safety by providing a rapid method of communicating information to 
all canard owners/pilots/builders.

Regarding moderation of the list, I have given the moderators instructions 
on what is and what is not acceptable for posting.  Most of the restrictions 
deal with members "flaming" other members, commercial "ads," and yes, 
certain engine topics.  Although it is relatively easy for the each list 
member to DEL a message, our server had to deliver that message to each of 
940 members.  The system delivers 15,000 to 25,000 canard messages every 
day.  Providing the service does have an impact on our system performance 
and bandwidth, and we are happy to provide it for the group.

About engines now.  It may be easier to give examples of what is acceptable 
and what is not, so I will do so below:

Acceptable:
1 Anything Charlie Airesman want's to post about his auto-powered EZ is 
perfectly fine.  It is flying or has flown on an EZ and that alone qualifies 
it.

2 Any engine mods. to PRESENTLY FLYING EZ engines or engine accessories to 
enhance performance, safety, reliability, etc.  This also applies to EZs 
**flying currently** with Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Briggs-n-Stratton, Clinton, 
West-Bend, Tonka, Mattel, or other vendor.  We welcome any info. on how 
these alternative engines are working out.


3 Any comments by anyone personally familiar with EZs **presently flying** 
twin Mazdas, or even one Mazda engine.


Unacceptable:
1) Comments on the merits of diesel engines that might one-day save the day 
for light aircraft.

2) Comments on how much better my Corvair conversion **will be**  than those 
crappy old outdated Lycoming dinosaurs.


3) Comments on how great Billy-Bob's newly designed, test stand run, 
ion-injected, water fueled, wood burning engine is.

4) Comments discussing the undemonstrated merits or potential of car engines 
in airplanes.


I'm very interested it knowing what **has been** done in terms of adapting 
any engine to the EZ.  It doesn't have to be certified, just demonstrated on 
an EZ.  I'm not interested in the list being used to promote or even discuss 
untried and undemonstrated engines.  Over the past couple of years one 
person I know of died on his first flight in an auto powered EZ, and another 
person was seriously injured trying to fly a diesel on an canard aircraft.   
I think it is far too easy for un-proven poorly designed "modifications" to 
be communicated to so less-than-savvy builders.  It runs contrary to our 
charter of promoting canard safety.

I hope this helps.  I've also included the moderators on this email so they 
can better understand my thinking and position on the subject.

Kind regards and safe flights!

-Wayne


My reply
Bob,
Thanks for the message. I had begun to think that the door was closed to
debate.

>members explaining our simple rules. I really hope it explains our position
>to you and that it is acceptable. After that is recent comments from Wayne
>Wright, in all this email is a bit on the lengthy side, hope you
understand.

No problem with the length. This is an important issue. I think it should be
discussed in public so you can get a feel for the majority opinion.

While I and others disagree with it, the position is acceptable - this is
you're wright, after all. The practice, whether by error or otherwise, is
not. There have been a number of occasions where moderators have
consistently let through opinions on one side of an argument while dumping
those on the opposing side.  Perhaps because of the volume, I think you tend
to be a bit inconsistent with you're censorship. eg. Discussion about
diesels gets through while discussion about rotaries does not. Also - you
suppress discussion about the moderation itself. I belong to three lists.
The other two are moderated only "after the fact" - i.e. if anyone gets out
of line they get jumped on - in public. This method works very well and
rarely causes a problem. I appreciate you're good intentions, and all the
effort you must put in to vet every message. I just think we'd all be better
served if you stop relax a little, stop the current practice, and "lead from
behind". As I said in one of the posts that "went missing", pilots tend to
be a fairly civil lot. Tell them what's acceptable and whats not and I think
you'll find that they behave fairly well.  This approach applies to all the
potential problems you cite - "sneaky ads", bad formatting, religious or
political comments, off subject stuff etc. etc.

>Yes, we do trash certain emails, but never out of spite or malicious
intent.

I believe that, but if someone puts thought and effort into a public post, I
think common curtesy dictates that the message be acknowledged and the
reason for its being trashed explained. Surely this would help prevent
further wasted effort.

>hope you understand that this cutting line is seemingly drawn arbitrarily
>sometimes
It doesnt SEEM arbitary - it seems to be all too purposeful.

>Our original charter was to provide a site that would promote interaction
>between pilots and builders of Canard type aircraft. We wanted to have
>discourse of safety issues, builder problems or flying questions about our
>favorite type of airplane.
A noble cause. However, alternate engines ARE very important a safety
issue - especially if attempted by a novice on a low budget without expert
help.  Like it or not, their use is growing rapidly. Would it not be better
if those trying to decide what engine to go with (and those attempting an
alternative) would get input from the enormous knowledge base of experienced
EZ drivers, rather than from a few enthusiasts (read zealots) of each
particular engine type.  Listening to the discussion in the Mazda forum it
sometimes sounds like this is a no-brainer and anyone using a Lycoming is an
idiot. There's no perspective and I think lots of people get led off down
the path with no real understanding of what they're getting into.  To some
extent I would argue that you're policy actually CAUSES people to stray from
the straight and narrow.

>We also do not wish to explore alternative power plants here, that can be
>done on another forum.

I agree in general, but there are times when an aircraft specific (canard /
pusher) discussion would be most valuable. For example, we have a number of
flying Mazdas. Just like in any other area of discussion, why not let the
wannabes ask questions and learn from those who have done it. Also, what's
wrong with someone who has professional training in, for example, welding,
commenting on some guy's plan to weld his own exhaust? Such expertise is a
valuable asset and it's currently being shut out. It would be perfect if we
could have sub lists to which people could subscribe if they choose.

>without any charge to us as members.
I , for one, would be happy to contribute a few $ to this valuable service -
so long as it wasnt censored.

As for limiting discussion to things which are proven - this seems pointless
and counter productive. Imagine if the Wright brothers had not been allowed
to discuss new ideas. The builders I've met come from all walks of life
ranging from NASA Rocket scientists to Dentists. The pooling of all that
knowledge is what the internet and these mail lists is all about. It helps
people avoid experimentation without information. There's nothing wrong with
informed innovation - that's how experimental aviation came about and how it
progresses.  Shutting out certain subject matter, or one side of an argument
doesn't achieve you're purpose. Uninformed innovation is the most dangerous
kind and, in a way, you are helping to promote it. You have to present both
sides of an argument before an intelligent reader will believe he's getting
valid information.

Regards, and thanks for listening.
John Slade
Cozy #757 http://kgarden.com/cozy

Note - I suspect that the majority or subscribers have no idea what's going
on in terms of censorship / moderation on the CA List. Therefore this
message and you're arguments to me will be posted on my web site along with
any other opinions (for or against) which I get permission to publish.