Notice: Nominations for RAMFM coordinator?

I second that nomination.

All those in favor?

Don Manning


"WindsorFox[SS]" > wrote in message
news:uXQrd.2265$Fp.788@lakeread05...
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>
> > Bill S having been gone a decent interval... what do the rest of you
think
> > about "electing' a new Nanny?
> >
> >
> > Realize this is largely ceremonial as the actual FLAMING seems to have
> > dropped to near zero since we've had no-one trying to enforce against
it.
> >
> >
> > Since Garth dug this up from the archives, I nominate him as the new
> > coordinator.
> >
> >
> > Anyone else?
>
> I nominate Kate.
>
> --
> YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
> a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

You can't do that.
I'm going to be Dwight's secretary.

Kate

"WindsorFox[SS]" > wrote in message
news:uXQrd.2265$Fp.788@lakeread05...
| Backyard Mechanic wrote:
|
| > Bill S having been gone a decent interval... what do the rest of you
think
| > about "electing' a new Nanny?
| >
| >
| > Realize this is largely ceremonial as the actual FLAMING seems to have
| > dropped to near zero since we've had no-one trying to enforce against
it.
| >
| >
| > Since Garth dug this up from the archives, I nominate him as the new
| > coordinator.
| >
| >
| > Anyone else?
|
| I nominate Kate.
|
| --
| YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
| a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

In that case,
I think we should get one of the Oklahoma Dancing Girls to do it.


2.3Sleeper" > wrote in message
...
|I second that nomination.
|
| All those in favor?
|
| Don Manning
|
|
| "WindsorFox[SS]" > wrote in message
| news:uXQrd.2265$Fp.788@lakeread05...
| > Backyard Mechanic wrote:
| >
| > > Bill S having been gone a decent interval... what do the rest of you
| think
| > > about "electing' a new Nanny?
| > >
| > >
| > > Realize this is largely ceremonial as the actual FLAMING seems to have
| > > dropped to near zero since we've had no-one trying to enforce against
| it.
| > >
| > >
| > > Since Garth dug this up from the archives, I nominate him as the new
| > > coordinator.
| > >
| > >
| > > Anyone else?
| >
| > I nominate Kate.
| >
| > --
| > YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
| > a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004
|
|

I nominate Patrick. He's around a lot... knows quite a bit about both old &
new. Seems fit for the job if you ask me. But then again... we've done fine
w/out a "coordinator" for a long while now. *shrug*. I nominate Pat.

-Mike

--
A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT
Cold air intake
FRPP 3.73 gears
Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter
Flowmaster 40 Series mufflers (self-installed woohoo)
Hi-speed fan switch
255/60R-15 rear tires
Subframe connectors


"Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
...
> ################################################## #############
> AMENDED CHARTER-Dated December 11th, 1995
>
> rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang is intended to be an unmoderated newsgroup
> to support discussion amongst Ford Mustang enthusiasts. Discussion will
> include, but not be limited to, repairs, modifications, upgrades,
> notices, opinions, advice and experiences from individuals that have an
> interest in the Ford Mustang automobile in its various flavours.
>
> Allowing the use of an "on record coordinator" for the use of dealing
> with the posting of commercial advertisers, massive cross posted "off
> topic" posts, and the occasional flamer.
>
> Non "commercial" advertising, for-sale notices and want-ads are acceptable
as
> long as they are in-keeping with the Mustang theme.
>
> ################################################## ############
>
> Bill S having been gone a decent interval... what do the rest of you think
> about "electing' a new Nanny?
>
>
> Realize this is largely ceremonial as the actual FLAMING seems to have
> dropped to near zero since we've had no-one trying to enforce against it.
>
>
> Since Garth dug this up from the archives, I nominate him as the new
> coordinator.
>
>
> Anyone else?

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Wound Up" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> That said, in all honesty and forthrightness in my persepective,
>>> Backyard Mechanic seems to be as qualified as anyone. I nominate
>>> him, because he probably doesn't want to nominate himself. Hell,
>>> he may not want me to nominate him. That's also perfectly in the
>>> RAMFM spurit.
>>
>> I'll take the job.
>>
>> I'm absolutely opposed to any regulation of usenet, and I promise to
>> do nothing.
>>
>> That's my platform.
>>
>> dwight
>
> dwight, can I be vice-coordinator? I'll totally reinforce your
> position of doing nothing. If for some reason you're unable to
> perform your duties of doing nothing, I will gladly step in and take
> over doing nothing. Thanks for the consideration.
>
> Joe
> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

You'd be my choice, Joe. But can you hear the cries from the populace, if a
couple of '93 specialists were in charge? Remember all the talk about
establishing model-specific newsgroups?

dwight

"Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Full Thread... also look at sales figures: http://tinyurl.com/63l4c

Looking at the sales figures for the Fox 5.0... It seems that, other than a
spike in 1986, the higher the HP rating, the lower the sales. In 1993, when
the 5.0 was proclaimed to have dropped from 225 to 205HP, sales increased
again.

Either that, or a bunch of folks were just like me - bought up the '93
leftovers, when the new design in 1994 wasn't all that appealing.

dwight

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Wound Up opined
>
>
>>>Anyone else?
>>
>>Why single out Bill S.? I Googled my own old posts to this group a few
>>weeks back, some from 7-8 years ago, and in my estimation he was then
>>and is now a fine fellow, if you're not just cruisin for a bruisin to
>>begin with.
>>
>>This is perfectly in the spirit of the current RAMFM. Garth (really
>>nice guy) doesn't want it, and no one else seems to care.
>>
>
>
> I didnt really single him out...I made an observation. But it's true,
> nothing attracts flamers like an active "moderator"
>
> And I dont want it either, that's why I nom'd Garth... and because I have
> been known to get ornery once in a while.
>
> But i disagree with you on the state of the group... go back to the
> beginning* Not too much different in content, just goes in cycles.
>
>
> * Remember the names?!!! like yesterday

I've noticed that it's often the case moderated NGs are worse off for
being so.

Garth would have been a good choice. I'm noticed your ornery
tendencies. And I'm sure you've noticed my insane tendencies.

If it does go in cycles, this is a definite low point on the curve, IMO.
It just seemed that back then, there was more technical meatiness to
this group.

Thunder Alley... the mother of all loaded topics in RAMFM. Aside from
saying it was entertaining to read, I'm going to leave that one be.

I have leared a lot from people in this group. I have just had to wade
through lakes of marshmallow fluff in order to do so.

I don't really care who the moderator is, but in my estimation, he or
she should have a very solid command of The Art of Usenet Prose in order
to hope to have a chance of survival when things get prickly.

>
> - - - - - - - -- - - - -
>
> Get this!!!
>
> |> 5. Prediction: If the Mustang returns to the sales levels of 1991-92,
> then
> |> it is dead. The rear-drive Mustang will be too expensive for
> |> "Front-Drive-Ford" to produce for less than 100,000 cars per year. Make no
> |> mistake about it; Ford is not sentimental. If the dollars aren't there for
> |> them, they will kill it in a heartbeat. (no Chevy reference implied ;-)
>
> I doubt it.. The Mustang (and Thunderbird) are fundamental to what Ford is.
> I expect Ford to move to a single rear-drive V-8 platform for the Mustang,
> Thunderbird, Lincoln Mark IX, and an unnamed small Jaguar and small Lincoln..
> (this is all speculated upon/discussed in this month's Automobile magazine..)
>
> - Robert W. Hall Aug 8, 1996
>
> Full Thread... also look at sales figures: http://tinyurl.com/63l4c


--
Wound Up J

1967 Mustang coupe, restored & modified

Remove "put her" to reply in that bucket

Just a thought on one little part of the responses here.

More than one person has mentioned (more or less) the lack of tech talk and
the prolific banter that is off topic.

I submit this thought.
How often do you get a group of car people together and have them talk
exclusively cars?
You can only say so much about cars and then you run out. Eventually the
conversation changes to other interests.
That's what it's like in here, a group of people with common interests
shooting the bull.

I like it this way. It doesn't get boring and you have the opportunity to
learn a little about many different things.
When it comes to banning off-topic conversations, then the place becomes
like a dull party. At that point it's time to mosey on down to the next
watering hole.

Of course, this is only my opinion, take it or leave it

Kate

Amen! And unmoderated it shall remain I hope!

--
A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT
Cold air intake
FRPP 3.73 gears
Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter
Flowmaster 40 Series mufflers (self-installed woohoo)
Hi-speed fan switch
255/60R-15 rear tires
Subframe connectors


"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> Bottom line on unmoderated newsgroups: You can call whomever you want
> whatever you want, but in reality nobody's got the power to do
> anything. Nominating and electing people for this and that may be
> social fun and all, but it's got nothing to do with controlling the
> newsgroup. Nobody controls it - it's unmoderated.
>
> Joe
> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>
>
> Wound Up > wrote in
> :
>
> > Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> >> Wound Up opined
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Anyone else?
> >>>
> >>>Why single out Bill S.? I Googled my own old posts to this group a
> >>>few weeks back, some from 7-8 years ago, and in my estimation he
> >>>was then and is now a fine fellow, if you're not just cruisin for a
> >>>bruisin to begin with.
> >>>
> >>>This is perfectly in the spirit of the current RAMFM. Garth
> >>>(really nice guy) doesn't want it, and no one else seems to care.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I didnt really single him out...I made an observation. But it's
> >> true, nothing attracts flamers like an active "moderator"
> >>
> >> And I dont want it either, that's why I nom'd Garth... and because
> >> I have been known to get ornery once in a while.
> >>
> >> But i disagree with you on the state of the group... go back to the
> >> beginning* Not too much different in content, just goes in cycles.
> >>
> >>
> >> * Remember the names?!!! like yesterday
> >
> > I've noticed that it's often the case moderated NGs are worse off
> > for being so.
> >
> > Garth would have been a good choice. I'm noticed your ornery
> > tendencies. And I'm sure you've noticed my insane tendencies.
> >
> > If it does go in cycles, this is a definite low point on the curve,
> > IMO.
> > It just seemed that back then, there was more technical meatiness
> > to
> > this group.
> >
> > Thunder Alley... the mother of all loaded topics in RAMFM. Aside
> > from saying it was entertaining to read, I'm going to leave that one
> > be.
> >
> > I have leared a lot from people in this group. I have just had to
> > wade through lakes of marshmallow fluff in order to do so.
> >
> > I don't really care who the moderator is, but in my estimation, he
> > or she should have a very solid command of The Art of Usenet Prose
> > in order to hope to have a chance of survival when things get
> > prickly.
> >
> >>
> >> - - - - - - - -- - - - -
> >>
> >> Get this!!!
> >>
> >> |> 5. Prediction: If the Mustang returns to the sales levels of
> >> |> 1991-92,
> >> then
> >> |> it is dead. The rear-drive Mustang will be too expensive for
> >> |> "Front-Drive-Ford" to produce for less than 100,000 cars per
> >> |> year. Make no mistake about it; Ford is not sentimental. If the
> >> |> dollars aren't there for them, they will kill it in a heartbeat.
> >> |> (no Chevy reference implied ;-)
> >>
> >> I doubt it.. The Mustang (and Thunderbird) are fundamental to what
> >> Ford is. I expect Ford to move to a single rear-drive V-8 platform
> >> for the Mustang, Thunderbird, Lincoln Mark IX, and an unnamed small
> >> Jaguar and small Lincoln.. (this is all speculated upon/discussed
> >> in this month's Automobile magazine..)
> >>
> >> - Robert W. Hall Aug 8, 1996
> >>
> >> Full Thread... also look at sales figures:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/63l4c
> >
> >
>

SVTKate wrote:
> Just a thought on one little part of the responses here.
>
> More than one person has mentioned (more or less) the lack of tech talk and
> the prolific banter that is off topic.
>
> I submit this thought.
> How often do you get a group of car people together and have them talk
> exclusively cars?
> You can only say so much about cars and then you run out. Eventually the
> conversation changes to other interests.
> That's what it's like in here, a group of people with common interests
> shooting the bull.
>
> I like it this way. It doesn't get boring and you have the opportunity to
> learn a little about many different things.
> When it comes to banning off-topic conversations, then the place becomes
> like a dull party. At that point it's time to mosey on down to the next
> watering hole.
>
> Of course, this is only my opinion, take it or leave it

True enough, Kate, and very well put. I completely agree. Maintaining
the balance is the trick. And where that balance lies and should lie is
entirely subjective, making it hard to judge very accurately. We are
all having a group of conversations, after all.

>
> Kate
>
>


--
Wound Up J

1967 Mustang coupe, restored & modified

Remove "put her" to reply in that bucket