Headed out the door to do a little business.

'Fore I go, Noah asked me to state an opinion and I thought about it a while.
Can't find the thread it was attached to. Sorry.

The NG belongs to everybody. It's a public forum. The value of a forum is that
it functions as a place where ideas can be freely exchanged. Our topic is
supposed to be "boating," yet many of the people here do not own a boat or
never comment about any boating they might do. The question before us is: "Do
we restrict the NG to boaters and wannabe boaters only?" (or at least people
who want to discuss only topics rather directly related to boating). Arguments
can be made for and against, with some merit in either case.

My opinion is that if the majority of the participants want the content
restricted, moderated, censored, and policed by individual ISP's, then that is
exactly what should be done. I would be among the minority in such a decision,
and would regret the turn the NG was taking. At the same time, enough people
participate here who lack the self respect to exert any self control over the
tone, content, and
intent of the petty or offensive posts they produce that it is understandable
how many people are put off by the so-called discussions. Some of these people
are truly "poison pens." Would those people who lack the necessary self respect
somehow miraculously respect a list of "rules and regulations"? Likely not.
Is there a danger of deteriorating (even more so) into a group of
bridge-playing dowagers, staring accusatorialy across the top of little
bifocals to make sure
"so and so" isn't cheating somehow?

The more unrestricted rec.boats can be, the closer it resembles the real world.
The world where arguments are more often impassioned than logical. A world
where insult, slander, gossip and personal attack are common currency. A world
where many feel it is more important to "win" an argument than to be right.
Should there be places in such a world where everybody agrees to behave in a
civil manner and exchange ideas restricted to subjects agreed upon in advance?
Yes, that would be nice.....but is it realistic?

Know what's missing from most of the censored and moderated sites, IMO?
They aren't at all dynamic. While they reflect a greater concentration of
on-topic material, reading through them is a boring as watching a tortise race.

So, Noah, and the other people who even give a rat's behind about my opinion
(both of you, maybe), the group should take rec.boats whatever direction the
group wants it to go. There will be some who would not stay with the changed
group, but that's the general point, right? Whatever losses the group suffers
from dropouts will likely be made up by enthusiastic newcomers when the
transition to a more highly restricted format is complete.

Yeah, it's a public forum but the subject is recreational boating.
I've blocked several senders because I don't think they have ever made a
contribution and I have blocked messages that have OT or Off Topic in the
subject.
Even so, it seems that there is less boating info than ever, and I am more
selective than ever in what I read.
Should it be a moderated NG? I don't know who the moderator would be. And I
don't know if a moderator could be trusted to only eliminate OT stuff.
So, I'll continue to screen the subject line and only read the few posts
that may actually have something positive to contribute and ignore all the
other stuff.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Headed out the door to do a little business.

'Fore I go, Noah asked me to state an opinion and I thought about it a
while.
Can't find the thread it was attached to. Sorry.

The NG belongs to everybody. It's a public forum. The value of a forum is
that
it functions as a place where ideas can be freely exchanged. Our topic is
supposed to be "boating," yet many of the people here do not own a boat or
never comment about any boating they might do. The question before us is:
"Do
we restrict the NG to boaters and wannabe boaters only?" (or at least
people
who want to discuss only topics rather directly related to boating).
Arguments
can be made for and against, with some merit in either case.

My opinion is that if the majority of the participants want the content
restricted, moderated, censored, and policed by individual ISP's, then
that is
exactly what should be done. I would be among the minority in such a
decision,
and would regret the turn the NG was taking. At the same time, enough
people
participate here who lack the self respect to exert any self control over
the
tone, content, and
intent of the petty or offensive posts they produce that it is
understandable
how many people are put off by the so-called discussions. Some of these
people
are truly "poison pens." Would those people who lack the necessary self
respect
somehow miraculously respect a list of "rules and regulations"? Likely
not.
Is there a danger of deteriorating (even more so) into a group of
bridge-playing dowagers, staring accusatorialy across the top of little
bifocals to make sure
"so and so" isn't cheating somehow?

The more unrestricted rec.boats can be, the closer it resembles the real
world.
The world where arguments are more often impassioned than logical. A world
where insult, slander, gossip and personal attack are common currency. A
world
where many feel it is more important to "win" an argument than to be
right.
Should there be places in such a world where everybody agrees to behave in
a
civil manner and exchange ideas restricted to subjects agreed upon in
advance?
Yes, that would be nice.....but is it realistic?

Know what's missing from most of the censored and moderated sites, IMO?
They aren't at all dynamic. While they reflect a greater concentration of
on-topic material, reading through them is a boring as watching a tortise
race.

So, Noah, and the other people who even give a rat's behind about my
opinion
(both of you, maybe), the group should take rec.boats whatever direction
the
group wants it to go. There will be some who would not stay with the
changed
group, but that's the general point, right? Whatever losses the group
suffers
from dropouts will likely be made up by enthusiastic newcomers when the
transition to a more highly restricted format is complete.

Gould 0738 wrote:

So, Noah, and the other people who even give a rat's behind about my opinion
(both of you, maybe), the group should take rec.boats whatever direction the
group wants it to go.

The fact is, the group 'is' taking rec.boats in the direction it "wants"
to go. The recent proliferation of OT posts is a reflection of the
current interests of the group who post and read. The very popularity of
those posts is all the justification required. When someone has an "on
topic" question or contribution it fits quite well between the other
posts. It is the contributor, not the topic which provides the
continuity in this group.

All readers are welcome to ignore those posts which are of no interest.
I find the discussion about how to change the windshield on a speedboat
off the topics I am interested in reading about. Does that mean I should
read them and complain about their existence? That would be a bit
arrogant and elitist wouldn't it?

No one has yet to hold me down and force me to read a single post on
this newsgroup or any other. I find the complaint posts as odious and
boring as the complainers feel about the posts that generated them. Is
there a hierarchy of complaint and offense? Does Noah's disgust trump my
interest? When I tire of reading the complaints or the noxious
utterances of certain posters I simply ignore them and find other more
interesting threads.

Rick

Rick wrote:


When I tire of reading the complaints or the noxious utterances
of certain posters I simply ignore them and find other more
interesting threads.

Which is why I come here to begin with. This forum is like a used boat
stuff store, it is crowded with stacks of worthless crap but rummaging
among the piles is often very rewarding.

Rick

Being a non-moderated group, the off-topic posts in rec.boats will never
stop.
That being said, I believe that-

1- All off topic posters should show enough respect to always preface their
posts with "OT" and to always post with the same ID.

2- The subscribers of this group who are unhappy because some
topics/posts/posters offend them, or don't fit *their* vision of how
rec.boats should be, should take the initiative themselves and configure
their newsreaders accordingly. This group can look anyway you want it to.

Also, I find it quite hilarious how most of the "Good bye cruel world, I
can't take it anymore" type posts complaining about the off-topic posts are
some of the worst offenders. I don't block anyone, or any topic, but I am
thinking of blocking posts containing "Obit: rec.boats", RIP.boats", "I'm
outa here", "what does this have to do with boats" etc, etc, etc.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

The more unrestricted rec.boats can be, the closer it resembles the real
world.

Not even close.

The world where arguments are more often impassioned than logical. A world
where insult, slander, gossip and personal attack are common currency.

In the real world 99% of these people don't have the intestinal
fortitude to face
the possible physical ramifications of insulting personal attacks on a
complete
stranger. I have never been in a Marina or at a Drop Zone or in a
hunting camp
where a political conversation broke down into name calling and did not
result in
1 or more of the participants paying with blood or real personal
embarrasment
by slinking out with their tail between their legs. I know the left does
not agree
with having to back what you say but that is the world that I know. As
John Wayne
said in the shootist " I will not be insulted, I will not be stolen from
and I will not
be laid a hand upon. I don't do these things to other men and I require
the same
from them."

Should there be places in such a world where everybody agrees to behave in
a
civil manner and exchange ideas restricted to subjects agreed upon in
advance?
Yes, that would be nice.....but is it realistic?


I lurk and post on a couple of other newsgroups that are moderated to
ensure all
posts are "On-Topic" and I love them. I had some luck earlier this year
when
people were using the OT in front of these posts and with the use of the
killfile I
was able to make it look almost like a boating newsgroup, but it seems
even that
little piece of etiquette has gone by the wayside. As others have said
there are so
many places meant for those posts that there is no need for them to be
here. I have
also been drawn in here a couple of times myself and really try not to.
There would
be no temptation to get drawn in if those posts were in the group they
belong in.

Terry

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Headed out the door to do a little business.

'Fore I go, Noah asked me to state an opinion and I thought about it a
while.
Can't find the thread it was attached to. Sorry.

The NG belongs to everybody. It's a public forum. The value of a forum is
that

Snip
So, Noah, and the other people who even give a rat's behind about my
opinion
(both of you, maybe), the group should take rec.boats whatever direction
the
group wants it to go. There will be some who would not stay with the
changed
group, but that's the general point, right? Whatever losses the group
suffers
from dropouts will likely be made up by enthusiastic newcomers when the
transition to a more highly restricted format is complete.

The problem is that a few can pollute the group by posting off topic and
hijacking threads even using assumed names or ever changing ID so that they
spoil it for the rest of the folks. I don't know why they do it or what
they hope to accomplish, but it seems to be a fact.

Other groups don't seem to be bothered to this extent. So it is just a
small group of selfish idiots who have chosen this group for whatever
reason.

del cecchi

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:45:31 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

Being a non-moderated group, the off-topic posts in rec.boats will never
stop.
That being said, I believe that-

1- All off topic posters should show enough respect to always preface their
posts with "OT" and to always post with the same ID.

Even if the problem really were OT posts (it's not), prefacing each post with
"OT" does nothing; many newsreaders (OE, for example) strip this out in
followups, anyway.

2- The subscribers of this group who are unhappy because some
topics/posts/posters offend them, or don't fit *their* vision of how
rec.boats should be, should take the initiative themselves and configure
their newsreaders accordingly. This group can look anyway you want it to.

You might get a different perspective if you read some of my recent posts on the
subject.

Also, I find it quite hilarious how most of the "Good bye cruel world, I
can't take it anymore" type posts complaining about the off-topic posts are
some of the worst offenders. I don't block anyone, or any topic, but I am
thinking of blocking posts containing "Obit: rec.boats", RIP.boats", "I'm
outa here", "what does this have to do with boats" etc, etc, etc.

We all have a choice as to what we read and don't read. I believe most people
simply unsubscribe and quietly go away. This is Usenet, after all--no one can
see whether you read a newsgroup or not.

But in spite of your apparent attempt to portray my articulation of my feelings
about rec.boats as some sort of self-pitying plaint, I've spent the time to
write what I have because I think this newsgroup is an important resource--and
it is a resource that is in danger of going the way of many other newsgroups.

That's quite a bit different from what you characterize as "good bye cruel
world."

Joe Parsons

In article f_Rqb.139562$Tr4.357895@attbi_s03,
says...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

The more unrestricted rec.boats can be, the closer it resembles the real
world.

Not even close.

The world where arguments are more often impassioned than logical. A world
where insult, slander, gossip and personal attack are common currency.

In the real world 99% of these people don't have the intestinal
fortitude to face
the possible physical ramifications of insulting personal attacks on a
complete
stranger. I have never been in a Marina or at a Drop Zone or in a
hunting camp
where a political conversation broke down into name calling and did not
result in
1 or more of the participants paying with blood or real personal
embarrasment
by slinking out with their tail between their legs.


That's a very interesting "real world" you have there Terry. Have you
personally shot or stabbed or punched someone for their political
thoughts?

Do you count as your friends people who would shoot, stab or punch
someone for their political beliefs?

I know the left does not agree with having to back what you say but
that is the world that I know.

Exactly who is it on the "left" that established the policy of not
having to back what you say?

Was it Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter? I
don't think they're "left." Was it Karl Marx, John Kennedy, Martin
Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Maureen Dowd?

What leftist can you identify who claims not to have to back up what you
say?

Are you talking about backing it up with facts or "them are shootin'
words?"

"Joe" wrote in message news:fLRqb.18311 I don't block anyone, or any topic, but I am
thinking of blocking posts containing "Obit: rec.boats", RIP.boats", "I'm
outa here", "what does this have to do with boats" etc, etc, etc.


Wow, you're quite special there, JoeTechnician............not.