On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:55:51 -0500, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


Actually, #3 seems to have won that title with "Skipperize"

I internally debated that issue long and hard before naming #4 the
winner. It is certainly a grey area.

I decided to go with #4 for a few reasons. First, Skipper appears to
have gone the way of madcow, so is there a personal attack if the
person isn't around. Second, I doubt many here don't have an idea
what "Skipperize" means. Good or bad, old skippy made a reputation
for himself. Third would be my own bias.

Of course, I'm willing to listen to rational debate on the issue, as
long as its properly backed up with facts.

bb

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:02:50 -0500, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

Why do you constantly change your address, this will be the third time this
month I have to re-block your posts

Just do it and stop whining. How hard is it to add someone to a
killfile? What would you do if your chore actually had some degree of
difficulty?

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...

I internally debated that issue long and hard before naming #4 the
winner. It is certainly a grey area.

I decided to go with #4 for a few reasons. First, Skipper appears to
have gone the way of madcow, so is there a personal attack if the
person isn't around. Second, I doubt many here don't have an idea
what "Skipperize" means. Good or bad, old skippy made a reputation
for himself. Third would be my own bias.

Of course, I'm willing to listen to rational debate on the issue, as
long as its properly backed up with facts.

bb


I think it's probably a personal attack - just because the person
seems to be absent doesn't make it better...maybe even worse.

Also, for Harry to say "It's really difficult to get a decent boating
discussion going here..." is a little hypocritical. Sure, he does talk
boats plenty, but he's also one of the OT and antagonistic
posters. Also the "and the idiots jump right in" is a pot-kettel-black
remark.

But whatever. I tend to agree with HKs politics if not always
his tone and none of this OT stuff bothers me much. It it SO
easy to skip or ignore it if one wants to.

Anyway, enough time wasted on this tripe - back to something
good - or at least profitable.

On 7 Nov 2003 00:53:16 -0600, noah wrote:

[snip]

At any rate, again, the signal to noise ratio has reached the point
where we are losing posters. I'm betting that if we forced the noise
back down to a whisper, the vandals would slink back to their
respective rocks, crawl under, and be quiet.

Think about it, the decision is yours.

Gene, you made my day.

When I first posted my "whine" about OT, I got good email support from
casual visitors, but only one "reg". I backed off. If I couldn't get
the support from regs, then the vote probably wouldn't do well.

Because of the fundamental makeup of rec.boats, I believe any sort of vote would
be essentially irrelevant. An unmoderated newsgroup has to operate by
consensus.

This newsgroup can be changed. An FAQ can be adopted. A sister
"discussion" group for OT can be created.

And watch that group be roundly ignored. The people who are most visible in
these squabbles *enjoy* the attention. I've seen exactly this kind of
phenomenon in at least two other newsgroups. One of them died a lingering
death; the other...well, we don't know just yet.

ut it is ALL subject to
being supported, defended, and voted on by the people who frequent
here. Support for the change will have to be more than "casual" to be
effective.

I agree wholeheartedly--with the exception of the "vote." Consensus, yes.
Vote, meaningless.

Taking a vote presupposes that the kind of nasty, arrogant, doctrinaire,
personal bickering *might* be acceptable, and sanctioned. Since I don't think
there's a lot of doubt about the kind of damage this does to a newsgroup, a vote
would not be honored even if it were to "approve" of what is going on now.

In the 5 or so years that I have been around here, there has been a
definite decline in the number of on-topic posts, and posters.

Go back less than that--but for crying out loud, folks, don't try to lay the
blame for the deterioration on [Clinton][Hillary][GWBush][Pat
Robertson][whoever].

We deserve better. The group deserves better. It is my opinipon that
the level of OT posting is now inviting outside trolls to pump up the
OT.

Again, in case I haven't said it for the last 15 nanoseconds or so: the problem
in rec.boats is NOT off-topic posts. Those are just fine, IMO.

have been told that "this is the way it is". That rec.boats is
an open forum, like the lounge at the yacht club.

I have belonged to, or been associated with, four yacht clubs in my life. I
have *never* seen this kind of bickering, even in the most heated discussions.
Most people just don't behave like this in Real Life(tm). There's too much risk
of confrontation--even of personal injury. Here, we see lots of posturing and
rhetoric--but generally from the safety of anonymous accounts.

I may be alone in
my opinion, but I don't buy it, and I don't like it. I have
participated in OT threads, but I would rather do it elsewhere. There
is a reason that there are over 40,000 newsgroups.

Try 90,000 newsgroups.

Each one, believe
it or not, has a "topic". )

"Topics" are commonly ignored--and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks for your thoughts, Noah.

Joe Parsons

If anyone would like to see rec.boats returned to "boating", then say
so. Those of us who might be willing to go through the crap of Usenet
procedure will need your support to make it worthwhile.

On 07 Nov 2003 08:15:42 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If anyone would like to see rec.boats returned to "boating", then say
so. Those of us who might be willing to go through the crap of Usenet
procedure will need your support to make it worthwhile.

Rules, schmules....Any restriction will ultimately require a moderator.

Not necessarily. Do you need someone to tell you how to behave in public?
Probably not--you were most likely brought up to observe certain societal norms
and mores, and observe them because, in The Real World(tm), life generally goes
quite a bit more smoothly when we are courteous to others.

Do you observe no-wake zones even when you know there's no law enforcement
around? Bet you do--because it's the *right* thing to do--and because real
people are likely to yell at you if you don't. But more because it's the right
thing to do.

"Somebody" has to judge whether the thread, "Our Heroic Leader, GWB, sent me a
Republican tax refund so I could afford to put tires on my boat trailer" is on
topic, or not. "Somebody" has to be able to pull the plug
on the handful of half-wits who post nothing but insults and/or profanity.
(assuming that insults and profanity aren't finally accepted as somehow
on-topic).

Here's a concept: "You" (generic "you") refrain from rising to the bait when
it's proffered. Why do threads last? Because "you" post to them--and "you"
means "Joe Parsons," too, obviously. When there's a general acknowledgement
that courtesy and civility are part of the societal norm in rec.boats, it
becomes much less likely that a thread like "[xxx], asshole of the Internet"
will garner almost 50 posts. I mean, *look* at yourselves, people! That was
such an obvious troll--and many got snagged by it!

The great thing about an unrestricted format is that the group reflects
*exactly* what the participants want it to be.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And wrong. There is a phenomenon known as "mob rule," or
"pack mentality." We see it operating here, every day, in the majority of the
posts. Do you really think the handful of people posting to these many
"political" threads are representative of the real audience of rec.boats? The
audience that existed before being driven away. It's a little like the cuckoo,
which never builds its own nest, but lays its eggs into the nests that other
birds have built, and the chicks drive the other birds away, killing many in the
process.

It is precisely the sum total of
dozens of individual parts. It's always amazing to hear from some guy who
appears for the first time to say, "Well, I hung out here for a couple of
months but I didn't find anything really worthwhile and nobody addressed the
issues I'm interested in, so I'm outta here."

Don't see what you like here? Introduce it.
Post a question or a comment about your pet subject. Beats heck out of going
away disappointed.

That's a lovely theory--one I have advanced myself, dozens of times over the pst
15 years. But it just doesn't work, when you have an atmosphere that is so
hostile to reasonable, productive conversation.

There are any number of moderated and censored boards for boating. Boater Ed,
Hull Truth, etc etc etc. Those who insist on a tight structure and censored
posts can and should go there. The redeming aspect of an open forum is that
although you wind up shoveling through a lot of horse crap, more often than not
there is a pony 'round here someplace.

This assumes (incorrectly, I think) that there is any kid left to shovel through
the manure to find the hoped-for pony.

Joe Parsons

I'd be for leaving things as they are, with hopes that the worst offenders for
introducing political posts might consider toning it down a bit. I'll admit to
participating in the OT arguments and debates as much as anybody and more than
most- but I am nowhere nearly among the leaders in starting the OT balls
rolling.

A fair number of the folks who aren't boaters followed one of our regulars here
from other NG's, where he has apparently p'd off a few folks of opposite
political persuasion. I guess these people couldn't get enough arguing and
flaming to suit them in the jet ski group and others.

Suggestion: How about two continuous threads to contain *all* political posts?
One could be "Right Wing Fallacies and Enlightened LIberal Rebuttals", and the
other could be "Treasonous Left Wing Socialist Rantings and Patriotic
Conservatives' outraged reactions." Most NG readers probably work like mine and
separate posts by thread. If the RW or the LW thread has 215 posts in a day, so
be it. One click and those who have no interest can simply pass it by.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:49:18 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Many (if not most) of these OT posts are made by non-boaters.

Hard to tell, since there's so little boating content.

They
may *own* a boat, but their boating is never discussed here. One of
the more arrogant of these idiots admitted he came here only as a
vandal and not to discuss boating. He freely admitted that when he
wished to discuss boating he went elsewhere. When he wanted to engage
in mischief, this is where he came.

That got me to thinking. I wonder if there is not a movement afoot
among some (consciously, or not) to attempt to disable rec.boats.

I've come to think it's more a function of people with no sense of
self-restraint or of decorum when it comes to the best interests of the whole.
To my eye, it starts out as a lack of consideration more than anything else.

I
have no real answer for that, but it strengthens my resolve to ignore
these posts and forge on with what we should be discussing here. In
Agent, I just hit the round circle with a diagonal bar through it...
thread is ignored. Whatever you use for a newsreader, I encourage you
to learn about and use its capabilities to ignore inappropriate
threads. In some instances, killfilling a poster may be appropriate,
if they have never made a boating related post... and there are some
of those out there posting, now.

I've been using Agent for a long time. It's great software--but the simplicity
of using killfiles, filters and "ignore thread" is never going to stop people
from reading these threads, even if only in morbid fascination.

At any rate, again, the signal to noise ratio has reached the point
where we are losing posters. I'm betting that if we forced the noise
back down to a whisper, the vandals would slink back to their
respective rocks, crawl under, and be quiet.

Good possibility.

Think about it, the decision is yours.

It is, indeed. Peer pressure can be a powerful thing.

Joe Parsons

On 7 Nov 2003 04:04:19 -0600, noah wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 08:15:42 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If anyone would like to see rec.boats returned to "boating", then say
so. Those of us who might be willing to go through the crap of Usenet
procedure will need your support to make it worthwhile.

Rules, schmules....Any restriction will ultimately require a moderator.
"Somebody" has to judge whether the thread, "Our Heroic Leader, GWB, sent me a
Republican tax refund so I could afford to put tires on my boat trailer" is on
topic, or not. "Somebody" has to be able to pull the plug
on the handful of half-wits who post nothing but insults and/or profanity.
(assuming that insults and profanity aren't finally accepted as somehow
on-topic).

Chuck, ..Mr. Gould, as a former '60's hippie, I can identify with
"rules, schmules". No moderators.

As a sentient, compassionate, and aware being, I say that "insults and
profanity" have been here for a long time.

The great thing about an unrestricted format is that the group reflects
*exactly* what the participants want it to be. It is precisely the sum total of
dozens of individual parts. It's always amazing to hear from some guy who
appears for the first time to say, "Well, I hung out here for a couple of
months but I didn't find anything really worthwhile and nobody addressed the
issues I'm interested in, so I'm outta here."

I don't object to an unrestricted format. I would welcome it, as long
as it didn't have the title "rec.boats". How about
rec.boats.unrestricted?

Don't see what you like here? Introduce it.
Post a question or a comment about your pet subject. Beats heck out of going
away disappointed.

LOL! Done that before....
You are a very logical man. I have seen it in the newsgroup, but you
cannot logically defend the OT posting to a group named "rec.boats".

It's not the OT posting that's the problem. I think much of that content
actually builds community. And a certain amount of off topic posting may serve
to leaven the dough, so to speak, and make the newsgroup a more casual,
friendlier place.

You're good, but you're not *that* good.

There are any number of moderated and censored boards for boating. Boater Ed,
Hull Truth, etc etc etc. Those who insist on a tight structure and censored
posts can and should go there. The redeming aspect of an open forum is that
although you wind up shoveling through a lot of horse crap, more often than not
there is a pony 'round here someplace.

No one is talking about moderated or censored newsgroups.

Noah, for many people, "moderation" is exactly equal to "censorship."

In any case, it's not likely you'd ever see a moderated version of rec.boats. I
just don't see it getting through a CFV.

I would be
thrilled with a negotiated and adopted FAQ.

Now a FAQ is a great idea. It's one of the ways you can build consensus.

Joe Parsons

Not necessarily. Do you need someone to tell you how to behave in public?

Of course not.

And, funny thing, I'll bet most of the poison pen posters don't think they're
behaving badly (by their own standards, at least). One of that crowd recently
made some very childish remarks about the sexuality of some other posters, then
tried to deny he'd done so, and in the end said "well, you would have thought
it was funny if you had a properly developed sense of humor."
Do I suspect this is the way a guy like that
behaves when not on-line? Absolutely.

in The Real World(tm), life generally goes
quite a bit more smoothly when we are courteous to others.

It's dangerous to presume that others have
any interest in life going smoothly. Some kids just love to break things.

Joe Parsons wrote:
On 07 Nov 2003 08:15:42 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If anyone would like to see rec.boats returned to "boating", then say
so. Those of us who might be willing to go through the crap of Usenet
procedure will need your support to make it worthwhile.

Rules, schmules....Any restriction will ultimately require a moderator.

Not necessarily. Do you need someone to tell you how to behave in public?
Probably not--you were most likely brought up to observe certain societal norms
and mores, and observe them because, in The Real World(tm), life generally goes
quite a bit more smoothly when we are courteous to others.

Do you observe no-wake zones even when you know there's no law enforcement
around? Bet you do--because it's the *right* thing to do--and because real
people are likely to yell at you if you don't. But more because it's the right
thing to do.

Uh, who elected *you* the Ms. Manners of usenet?

--
Email sent to is never read.

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:49:18 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Many (if not most) of these OT posts are made by non-boaters.

Hard to tell, since there's so little boating content.


You've got more than a dozen new posts here today that are totally
devoid of boating content.

--
Email sent to is never read.