Yeah, I know I said, I'm outa here. I meant it.

But it appears that there's a worthwhile discussion going on; so, for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence, for whatever it might be worth.

Joe Parsons

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence

good

bb

bb wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence

good

bb

All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

So? I tend to like Joe's commentary. There is certainly a shortage
of people on the group who can present a reasonable debate. Agree
with them or not, I prefer to read well thought out positions. I'd
certainly rather read a well presented position that I don't agree
with than a moronic one I do agree with.

Off topic is part of what keeps this group alive. I doubt the group
would survive if the old hands were restricted to waiting for a newbie
to ask the same boating question that's been asked a 100 times before.

I have no problems with the people that see the group has the
potential to be better than it is. The group is currently ruled by
anarchy with the lowest common denominator bringing the whole thing
right down into the mud.

Harry, I personally consider you to be one of the more intelligent,
and well spoken when you want to be, posters on this group. I would
think you would have as much to gain as anyone if this group were to
move a tad in the direction of civility.

bb

Have you ever considered that many people do not want the group to be civil?

They prefer the Wild West Show, being able to throw out profanity and
insults left and right? (pun intended)

It appears that Harry and others enjoys the fight, not the discussion.

ps - Your mother wears combat boots.


"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

So? I tend to like Joe's commentary. There is certainly a shortage
of people on the group who can present a reasonable debate. Agree
with them or not, I prefer to read well thought out positions. I'd
certainly rather read a well presented position that I don't agree
with than a moronic one I do agree with.

Off topic is part of what keeps this group alive. I doubt the group
would survive if the old hands were restricted to waiting for a newbie
to ask the same boating question that's been asked a 100 times before.

I have no problems with the people that see the group has the
potential to be better than it is. The group is currently ruled by
anarchy with the lowest common denominator bringing the whole thing
right down into the mud.

Harry, I personally consider you to be one of the more intelligent,
and well spoken when you want to be, posters on this group. I would
think you would have as much to gain as anyone if this group were to
move a tad in the direction of civility.

bb

bb wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

So? I tend to like Joe's commentary. There is certainly a shortage
of people on the group who can present a reasonable debate. Agree
with them or not, I prefer to read well thought out positions. I'd
certainly rather read a well presented position that I don't agree
with than a moronic one I do agree with.

Off topic is part of what keeps this group alive. I doubt the group
would survive if the old hands were restricted to waiting for a newbie
to ask the same boating question that's been asked a 100 times before.

I have no problems with the people that see the group has the
potential to be better than it is. The group is currently ruled by
anarchy with the lowest common denominator bringing the whole thing
right down into the mud.

Harry, I personally consider you to be one of the more intelligent,
and well spoken when you want to be, posters on this group. I would
think you would have as much to gain as anyone if this group were to
move a tad in the direction of civility.

bb


Oh, I'm all for civility, but I don't believe nearly two dozen
consequtive posts on the subject of "off-topic" posting does anything
for "rec.boats" but add to the number of off-topic posts.

I, too, am weary of answering the same old basic boating questions and,
for the most part, I simply ignore the most basic ones.

Some of the more interesting posters here were driven off by the
technically inept and horribly mannered titmouse of Australia, who
typically has nothing to say, likes to split hairs, and needs 5,000
badly written words to spit out...nothing. We had a couple of really
helpful boat dealers and mechanics here, and now we are down to one, I
believe, Brave soul.

Me, I've been spending the morning trying to figure out the coverage
maps for AT&T "Next Generation" national wireless service. I've had the
Digital One Rate plan for years, but while I still travel on business,
I'm doing less of it now, and I don't need cell service with the One
Rate coverage and rates. The Next Generation coverage maps are about as
clear as Bush's exit strategies for his war against Iraq.

But, then, maybe they are intentionally oblique.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

bb wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence

good

bb

All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

Harry, is there something you find objectionable about someone else expressing
an opinion? Is there anything I have said in these threads that you can show to
be false or unreasonable?

Joe Parsons

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

bb wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence

good

bb

All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

Harry, is there something you find objectionable about someone else expressing
an opinion?

Not at all. But a double-handful of posts whining about off-topic posts
and suchlike seems a bit...off-topic.


Is there anything I have said in these threads that you can show to
be false or unreasonable?

I dunno, Joe. I only read about five words in each of the posts, since
they all seemed basically to be on the same off-topic subject.



--
Email sent to is never read.


I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 - 1965)

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 11:55:22 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

bb wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence

good

bb

All he's added today is a double-handful of off-topic commentary
expounding on what he finds acceptable in usenet behavior.

Harry, is there something you find objectionable about someone else expressing
an opinion?

Not at all. But a double-handful of posts whining about off-topic posts
and suchlike seems a bit...off-topic.

Please show me where I have *ever* complained about off-topic posts. Just one
would do it.

Is there anything I have said in these threads that you can show to
be false or unreasonable?

I dunno, Joe. I only read about five words in each of the posts, since
they all seemed basically to be on the same off-topic subject.

I find that interesting. You characterize yourself as "liberal," correct? And
one of the litmus tests that such folks (which group may or may not include
myself) self-apply is one of open-mindedness and tolerance, is it not? And yet
you say you don't bother to read what I write because you've already made up
your mind about the content?

I'll be the first to admit that my posts often tend to be longer than most. But
I also try to write economical prose that doesn't overburden the reader. I
don't know that the 750 word "rec.boats obit" was so long as to do that.

But I do find your statement interesting, indeed.

Joe Parsons

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

Yeah, I know I said, I'm outa here. I meant it.

But it appears that there's a worthwhile discussion going on; so, for the time
being, at least, I'll add my tuppence, for whatever it might be worth.

Joe Parsons
You are correct! The hush puppy discussion is most apt. Yet, we have not seen
your smiling face at the discussion table!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD