Canard Aviator's Mail List Censorship

Sent to the CA list by John Slade, 10/16/00. Did not appear.

>> Engines that do not have a sound flying record are not
>> acceptable for discussion on the forum.
>>
>While I do not disagree with the idea of keeping safety first, I do not
think
>this decision is reasonable.  We talk about enough stuff that seems
>untried and unsound that to arbitrarily single out powerplants doesn't
>make sense.  What does the group think?

I totally agree with Charles. In fact, I'd go a step further....
What is the function of the "moderators" and why do we need them?

I respect the time and effort these guys spend on our behalf, but I wonder
if it's a worthwhile or valuable service. As I understand it they read every
message and decide if each one should be posted or not.  The intention is,
presumably, to ensure "moderation" (i.e. to optimize bandwidth) not to
enforce their own version of censorship. I wonder what percentage of
messages are actually "moderated" and for what reason.

Pilots are usually a fairly well behaved and civil lot. Over on the Cozy
list, our man Mark doesn't vet subjects or pre read messages - he just jumps
on people publicly on the VERY RARE occasions when someone gets out of
line. To my knowledge, no one has ever been thrown off the list. No offence
intended, Bob & Wayne, but why not relax and try letting the forum go
wherever it wants to go. There's always the delete key for those who don't
want to read stuff which is irrelevant to them. Consider it
"experimentation" in mail list management.

Now the big test - will this message get posted?
John Slade

On 10/2700 I gota message from the moderator 
and replied as shown. I received no response to my reply.

On 11/10/00 I replied to a question about epoxy. The following 
paragraph was chopped off my message:

As for using a balance to weigh 5 min epoxy - huh? Why would someone who
actually wants to finish the bird do this? Pedantic is the word that comes
to mind. 5 min epoxy is non structural and is usually removed after use.
It comes in two squirt bottles. Roughly equal squirts of each mixed on a
palette can be ready for use in seconds. Using a scale to get the weights
exact is, IMHO, a waste of your time. Don't be one of those builders who
builds a PERFECT airplane in 10 years and is ready to fly just after you
loose you're license due to medical problems.
My 2c

When I complained I got the following message:

It was the Moderator who chopped the end of your message.
To refer to other correspondents contributions in scathing terms
is not acceptable.
Bob the Moderator



Sent to the CA list by Simon Ramirez, 10/16/00. Did not appear.

Just the other day we were discussing diesel (jet-a) engines and
their development status.  I started building the Aerocanard because it is a
very good plane, as are all of the canard airplanes, and because it allows me
to tinker.  Boy does it allow me to tinker!  I haven't chosen an engine yet,
but when I do, you can bet that there will be non-Lycomings on the list of
possibilities.  As such, I need to have access to as much open and free
information as possible, especially about these engines.  I vote in favor of
allowing non-Lycoming engines to be discussed in this forum, just as we
would any other part of the airplane.  The airframe is an engineering marvel
and a very stable platform, yet it is still an experimental airplane just
like Paul said below.
-Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder, No Engine Chosen Yet

> > Subject: [c-a] unacceptable engines
>
>
> > I too think it's rather odd that sticking all sorts of appendages on our
> > wings is worthy of discussion, but using anything but what the moderator
> > considers acceptable shouldn't be discussed.
> > What part of "experimental" doesn't Bob and Wayne understand?
> >
> > Paul E Racer Chevy V6



From Chris Hunt:

Its great to _know_ something with out any hint of outside validation.
It is then even better to have that validation come around and prove you
where right in the first place. Censorship on CA is an example. Thank
you for your site, you are correct in the feeling that there are some
who will not put up with it in this day, age and medium.
Below is a letter I sent in that vanished in to the ether.
Do what you want with it, I am not sure it is anything but a long winded
'vent'. At the time I felt SOMETHING should be done.
I wasn't smart enough to start a web site like yours.

--Chris


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Posted to CA Mail list by Chris Hunt. Did not appear.

Someone once said "Real power is not having to respond". Obviously I
don't have that.

My experiences watching the traffic on this mailing list have added
greatly to my knowledge store in the areas of

-- The care and feeding of Rutan style airplanes.
-- The signal to noise ratio one can expect from a small subset of a
population when poked and prodded by current events.
-- The value that any ghost of law enforcement can have on a mob of
people that in general, if the can act with anonymity or at least
against someone they don't know, or both, will behave in a way that
strips away the thin venire of 'civilization' and reveals the animal
tendencies we would be stupid to deny all  humans have. People need to
have a cop present in any group larger than 40.

But what I didn't expect to discover was how strongly I would feel about
someone telling me what I can and can not say on the internet. I have
been quite surprised and grateful for this slap in the face that helps
me understand what a privileged life I have enjoyed.
Sometimes I think I understand why you are doing this. But in general I
don't think you are smarter than most, or able to predict the future
actions a discussion will have. But I distinguish between moderation and
censorship. Flame is a base line abusive standard that is easy enough to
spot and causes enough damage that I would not object to its control.
But you are comfortable exceeding that charter and have done so more
than I will know, mainly because you think you should, and... you can.
That exercise of power was unexpected by me when I first subscribed. I
also accept it has having a long history on this planet so I should not
have been surprised. Power tends to get things done. But like all good
tools, it is sharp. It is unavoidable that some one occasionally gets
nicked when it is used.
    I thought I was old enough to know these things have happen through
out history and that I understood the motivations and passions of people
reacting to it. But, until now I basically thought people like Thomas
Paine and the whole pantheon of founding fathers where... at the
core.... just a little too excitable and had a lot of time on their
hands. Either I have to conclude I fit that description, or move them in
to the group of what I call "normal guys".

    Now, I know you either knew this or have been told since so I am not
writing this as an attempt to change your policy or the world in
general. I learned long ago to try and keep my mouth shut in large
groups so your policy won't impact what I say in your forum, only what I

will hear. There are other venues and I have a firm policy against
single sourcing information any way.
    My small point in a long letter is to genuinely thank you for the
education, I began lurking on this list for the specific reason of
learning something I didn't know I didn't know.
    I was surprised to receive a lesson illuminating the so called Bill
Of Rights.
    I will continue to try to keep up with the traffic on the list but I
think I will drop my TV watching by 14%, there might be other things I
don't know.....yet



From Russ Jones:

I am on several other mail lists, these lists are neither moderated or
censored. I am able to post time critical questions and responses to others
questions on a real time basis. If a post is off topic or is getting out of
hand someone will always speak up, things get back to topic without issue.

In over two years I have only seen one lister get out of control. The list
owner was asked to remove this lister's ability to post, that was that.

Please consider that your list has grown and needs to be opened up a bit.

Russ Jones
VariEze
N262RJ (reserved)


From Bruce Layne:
While I respect the fact that engine development can be more
dangerous on our canard aircraft due to their higher landing speed, I would
greatly prefer that all areas are open to discussion, with cautionary statements
posted by the group at large, rather than having moderators deciding which
opinions are heard.  The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was a good idea.  Free speech is important to any free society.  I'd
prefer if the moderator's job was preventing spam from reaching the entire
group, and weeding out the occasional message that is devoid of information and
should have been sent to an individual instead of the group, for example, the
'Thanks for the info' messages.  Overall, the quality of the postings to the CA
List is very good, but there is always room for improvement.  In my opinion,
more moderation and less censorship would be a major improvement.

Posted by Bruce Layne 08/22/00. Did not appear.

I recently stumbled across another in the new crop of potentially good
engines for aircraft use.  Primary design constraints were high
performance and low cost.  Cost is reduced in part by lowered tooling
costs (same head casting works on either side, etc.).  It's a V design,
with configurations from 750 to 1200 cc, 100 to 150 HP.  Many options
available to optimize smoothness, power, torque and weight for a given
application.  A 1200 cc engine was just built up from production
tooling, and is allegedly doing well in test.  I contacted the developer
and he confirmed that the engine is suitable for aircraft use and should
have an installed weight under 1.25 pounds per HP.

http://www.corbinmotors.com/v290.htm


Fred Moores says:
What works for me is to collect information from more than one source, 
I'm on the cozy list and the plugs up list(rotary). In addition to the 
Cozy info, I have been collecting information on the RV series, the 
Cyclone and the Zenith 801. Those who want to suppress, can. Those who 
enjoy their experience and want to share, do. When discussions get 
personal and heavy handed, in my opinion, I do my best to bite my tongue 
and delete their messages. My opinion, for what it's worth.
Fred Mooers
visnry@itis.com



Charlie Kuss wrote:
I just checked out your web site in reference to the post above. I hope
that the moderators relent. Good luck. I feel better knowing that this 
sort of thing doesn't happen on the RV List (sponsored by Matronics) Matt 
at Matronics is a vendor of experimental aviation gauges and an RV builder. 
He has since expanded the number of discussion groups to over 20, 
including the EZ List at: 

http://www.matronics.com/ez-list/index.htm 

Perhaps you might join that list as well, if the moderators will not 
relent. The Matronics lists are unmoderated and free. There is also an 
ENGINES list for discussion of all types of aircraft (auto conversions 
included) engine questions. 

http://www.matronics.com/email-list/ 



.... to add you're post here, email it to me at calist@kgarden.com



J D Newman wrote:
Hi John,

Very glad you brought this up.  I didn't know how I should.

> IMHO, and that of numerous other pusher builders I've talked to,The Canard
> Aviator's mail list "moderators" have been practicing their own brand of
> censorship for a long
> time.

Yeap.  A REAL BIG problem!

> For example, they recently permitted discussion about diesels, but
> suppressed positive opinions about rotaries. Negative opinions were posted.
>
> This is about MUCH more than alternative engines. I agree that _most_
> alternative engine discussion is not proper to the Cozy or CA lists.
>
> This is about having someone control what we're allowed to talk about and
> selectively post and/or edit our opinions.

I and others have had this problem too.  I've personally had 3
excellent, informative, factual posts not posted by "Moderator Bob", 2
of them within the last month, that he would not post for all the group
to see for unknown reasons.

The Central States Newsletter is no better.  Terry Schubert would not
post an excellent rebuttal I had written a few years ago in response to
a terribly miss / uniformed member.  He'll post any one else's inputs,
but not mine.

Another problem he has unfairly done, I sent him 2 press releases
valuable to canard builders long ago, but he said he won't post vendor
information. Yet he has years of doing it ***ALL*** the time for any
other vendor.

And, rec.aviation.homebuilt is mostly people whining, and gossiping,
about anything and everything, yet know nothing of what they say.

This is but just a few reasons of why we, and many others, are NOT
members of any of these 3 biased and/or mostly useless forums.  My time
is WAY to valuable.  This disgusting deception and collusion by a few is
a tremendous disservice to all of aviation, and reflects poorly on all
of us.

> As one builder put it recently: "It's interesting how effective censorship
> can sway the beliefs of a group to such a degree by selectively amplifying
> some opinions and attenuating others."

Yeap, that's EXACTLY their intent!

> If this issue concerns you, please see http://kgarden.com/cozy/calist.htm
> for details and examples of posts which have "disappeared".

Concur 1000% with what you wrote!

> PS My respects and thanks to our man, Marc, for letting this list run
> uncensored. It works here. Why not elsewhere?

Concur.  Marc Zeitlin's site has been great to be a member of -- fair
and informative.


Infinity's Forever,                              EAA Nat'l & LCL Member
                                                EAA Technical Counselor
        JD                                           EAA Flight Advisor
                                                       AOPA Member
                                                       Test Pilot
James D. Newman, Pres/CEO/CFO      SOTW, OJAAT
LCDR         F-14        USNR


Perry Mick says:
I didn't realize the extent of the censorship on the CA list until
I read your webpage.  I guess that's because I don't post there much.

Here is an email I sent to the CA list on October 16, and it was
censored, but I was not surprised, with it's "religious" overtones
that may be objectionable to some people.  It was meant to be a joke.
You don't have to publish it if you don't want to.  But when I read
some of the totally rational and serious letters on your website that
were censored by CA, I decided I should make this public also.  To
their credit, they did post a message from me later in the week
supportive of the rotary engine, but it was also a message proposing
a position they agree with. But if I'd known the extent of the
censorship at that time, maybe my message would have been different!
(and not posted?)

Posted to CA Mail list by Perry Mick. Did not appear.

Subject: Re: [c-a] unacceptable engines
Date:    Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:49:20 -0700
From:    Perry Mick 
To:      Paul Mosher 
CC:      Canard Aviators 

Paul Mosher wrote:
> 
> I too think it's rather odd that sticking all sorts of appendages on our
> wings is worthy of discussion, but using anything but what the moderator
> considers acceptable shouldn't be discussed.
> What part of "experimental" doesn't Bob and Wayne understand?
> 
> Paul E Racer Chevy V6
> 

To talk of any engine other than antiques is heresy!  You keep your
opinions to yourself in that church, lest you be excommunicated.


The message they did post:

Subject: Re: [c-a] Forum & engines
Date:    Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:49:58 -0700
From:    Perry Mick 
To:      canard-aviators@canard.com

Message text written by "Harley Dixon"
> >
> I have an interest in....both here and there. And in the end, also probably
> get a better class of advice from both.
> <

Ken Miller wrote:
> 
> To all,
>         Just to put in my .2 dollars.....  I agree with Harley and Wayne,
> with a twist.
> 
>          The percentage of flying, de-bugged canards out there with
> alternate engines (Mazda's, Fords, Rotorway, etc.) is very, very low
> compared to the aircraft engined canards.   To have this forum dominated by
> discussions between a few theorists with a project still in the garage is,
> in my opinion, counterproductive.  Install and fly the engine for a few
> hundred hours, then report your findings.  I am very interested in
> listening to, and looking at, flying examples that have proven to be
> reliable in the long run.

Not to toot my own horn too much, but I flew 100 hours in the last year
(also the first year) on a $1000 rotary engine operating basically as
it is in the RX-7.  This is probably comparable to the number of hours
my air-cooled brothers put in per year.  Just don't ask me to race, I
have a long way to go to get the ducted fan working as well as a prop.
But I bet I'm flying with fewer moving parts than just about anybody.

But agreed, this forum is not here to develop alternate aircraft
engines, there are more specialized forums for that.

>         I believe there are some false economies in installing the auto
> engines.   I recently saw in Sport Aviation or Kitplanes where the Mazda
> engine package for an RV was going for $13,000, and the install package was
> another $5000!   I'm not so sure that is progress.

In that case you are paying for someone's extensive R&D, tooling,
production costs.  The cost difference is comparable to buying a kitplane 
vs. plans built.  I would like to see them succeed however, it advances the cause
of the rotary engine.  And if they could get quantities up, maybe the price
would come down.

>         I personally think that the future powerplant for aircraft is the
> diesel.  Not a converted truck engine, but an aircraft engine designed for
> the rigors of swinging a prop.   This is the direction General aviation
> should go, considering the pending demise of 100LL.   For now, I advise
> sticking with the Lycs or Continintals for the safety and reliability
> inherent in the design.
> 
Sticking with the Lycs is advisable for the 90% (guess) of the home-
builders out there, who don't want to take on all the extra work
involved in developing new engine installations (custom engine mounts,
new cooling problems, etc.)  All that custom work and experimentation
takes a lot of time, and it takes long enough to build a plane just
following the plans.

---- end of message ----


Now, if there were any followup replies to my message, they were 
censored, because I haven't seen any.

-- 
Perry J. Mick
Mick Duckt N7XR
http://www.ductedfan.com


Matt Lockwood wrote:

Wow!  Interesting point!  I was the one that posted the message about the
Corvair engines originally.  I never got a good amount of feedback on it..

-Matt Lockwood



Herb Sanders sent the following to the CA List. It did not appear - yet
Moderators Bob and Wayne, I wrote a respectful but dissenting message
regarding certificated engines and you failed to post it. I would
appreciate it if you would post that message and this one - then if you
think I am outside the limits, you can just take me off the list. I am
not so much concerned about the engine content, but the fact that you
appear to only post replys that agree with your opinion. If you have the
only correct opinion, maybe you should just write a book on what we all
need to know instead of having a forum of many experiences.

Who runs a "certificated" engine, anyway? Most of the EZ guys I know run
modified cases, or higher compression, electronic ignitions, alternate
fuel delivery systems (Ellison units or fuel injection}, auto plugs,
non-certified starters & alternators, prop extentions, and on and on.
How about the non-cert "looks like Lyc" engines and components turned
out by ECI, and Superior?

I don't see how you can ignore the significant achievements of Charlie
and his Suburu EZ, the V8 Long that turns 225mph or so in the races,
Mike Bowdens twin EZ, the several flying Mazda 13Bs, and others. Most of
the bad ideas get dropped and die a natural death, or you can DEL and go
on. How many times have I read some simple question that most of us
figured out 20 years ago? I either answer or del and go on.

Its not as if I am uninformed about ezs. Having built a Vari in 78, Long
in 82, Long in 95, and developed many parts that helped the group, I
still enjoy the different things the new guys try. I got out of selling
part in 1984, but it is gratifying to go to a fly-in and see dozens of
slip joint exhaust systems, cowls, wheel pants, flush inlets, leading
edge fuel tanks, etc that I built. Many items have been picked up and
continued, or improved, by other vendors. Not all change is good, but we
can sort out the bad and use the good to improve on what we have now.

If I need ot join a "testy old guys" group, just let me know and I will
leave you alone.
Regards, Herb Sanders



Michael Sausen sent me the following:
Hey John,

  Took me a little while to get this to you, I haven't really been home for
a month and a half, but below is an email that was "censored" from the list.
Normally something like this would bother me but this one really pissed me
off.  I was attacked over something stupid and then when I tried to respond
in a calm and reasonable manner, I get blocked.  As a matter of fact I think
you and I had a conversation during this thread.  I wonder how many other
people were blocked in responding to Mr. Henry's email trying to explain
that it wasn't meant to be a slam on Cessnas.

Thanks,
Michael Sausen
cozybuilder@mail.com
Planning to start January 2001

Sent to the CA list - did not appear:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sausen [mailto:canardian@mail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:23 AM
To: 'michael henry'; 'canard-aviators@canard.com'
Subject: RE: [c-a] Student Pilot question

Wow,

  Not that I really feel it necessary to defend my comments but here I go
anyway.  :-)

  I'm not sure, but I think you got stuck on that specific phrase.  Because
the rest of the email, and my previous one, doesn't really show me slamming
these aircraft.  Quite the contrary, I think I pretty much demonstrated that
I thought it would be better to do most of the training in conventional
production aircraft (my opinion).  Not that being trained in a canard type
is necessarily any worse or better, it's up to each individual to form their
own opinion on what is best for them.  About 90% of my flight time is in
Cessna's and I by no means think that they are junk.  They are extremely
well built and stable aircraft that are an excellent platform for training.

  I think I speak for many of us in saying that when we refer to a "spam
can" we are not saying it in a derogatory way.  It's just a term to describe
a group of small, metal, slow, mass production aircraft that are generally
used for training.  In the same way as people group aircraft as "canards",
"twins", "jets", "T tails", etc.  I by no means started the term or use it
regularly.  Nor do I think of it as meaning bad or good.  I just repeated it
in the context that it was used in.

  I really hope this is enough said on the matter so we can all get back to
important matters.  Now I'm off to jump a "commercial flight" on a "jet".
:-)

Michael Sausen