Bert Robbins wrote:
snip...

So, Chuck, what are you going to do to elevate the level of discussion? Are
you going to go on one of your self imposed sabbaticals and come back just
as angry and nasty as your were before?



Well, I guess we know what Bert is "going to do to elevate the level of
discussion"!

Don,

To be honest, neither the nice guy or bad guy actually makes any difference
in Usenet. Very few people care what anyone says to them or about them.

So while you might be "playing the bad guy", my guess is you are probably a
good guy.

The pendulum swings both ways, so you can expect the extreme right wing will
swing back towards the center. I don't think we will be as socialistic as
Canada, but the anti-Canada rhetoric you hear in rec.boats is not reflective
of the vast majority of American citizens or the US government. I think
most Americans' view Canada as family, and you are allowed to disagree with
family.


"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Don,
No one in rec.boats spends more time striking out at people
than Harry Krause.

I don't think he was talking about you, because you are really just
seeking Harry's approval. Your real objective is not to insult others.
I would guess that in the real world you are probably a nice guy.


Tried that 'nice guy' routine..didn't work.

My objective is to do a small part balancing the scales, trying to hold
back the darkness that's enveloping the US and could possibly spread to
Canada. These are trying times re George W, terrorists etc.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don most likely drives a cash register at a fast food restaurant for a
living and seeks acceptance by those that he feels have succeeded beyond his
wildest dreams but believes they started where he currently is.

I rest my case...
What kind of liquor are you sampling this weekend Bert?
Still swilling the wine of back guzzling the beer?
BTW as stated here many times, I have retired from a Crown Corporation
after 32 years of service to the Canadian public.

Bert,

I have no idea what Don does for a living, he has liberal philosophies, so
he aligned himself with the liberals in rec.boats. There is nothing wrong
with liberals or those who disagree with your conservative philosophy. It
is actually beneficial that we have opposing views. I only find a few
(maybe 3) of the liberals in rec.boats to be offensive, Don is not one of
them.

When I heard Don was taking care of his mother in her old age, he moved up
in my book. It is very easy for people to talk the talk, but another thing
to actually walk the walk.


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don most likely drives a cash register at a fast food restaurant for a
living and seeks acceptance by those that he feels have succeeded beyond
his wildest dreams but believes they started where he currently is.

"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Don,
No one in rec.boats spends more time striking out at people
than Harry Krause.

I don't think he was talking about you, because you are really just
seeking Harry's approval. Your real objective is not to insult others.
I would guess that in the real world you are probably a nice guy.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Chuck,
Your summary of Harry Krause is dead nuts accurate.


You sure that's who he was talking about?

Starbuck wrote:
Don,

To be honest, neither the nice guy or bad guy actually makes any difference
in Usenet. Very few people care what anyone says to them or about them.

So while you might be "playing the bad guy", my guess is you are probably a
good guy.

The pendulum swings both ways, so you can expect the extreme right wing will
swing back towards the center. I don't think we will be as socialistic as
Canada, but the anti-Canada rhetoric you hear in rec.boats is not reflective
of the vast majority of American citizens or the US government. I think
most Americans' view Canada as family, and you are allowed to disagree with
family.


Sounds good. Now tell George W. to give back the $5 billion he swindled
from us over the softwood lumber dispute.

Don,
GWB doesn't listen to me, but I actually had to Google up what the softwood
dispute was. I think the dispute is over a 27% tariff imposed due to claims
of dumping. Where did the $5 billion dollar "swindle" come from? Do you
mean $5 billion in lost income?


"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Don,

To be honest, neither the nice guy or bad guy actually makes any
difference in Usenet. Very few people care what anyone says to them or
about them.

So while you might be "playing the bad guy", my guess is you are probably
a good guy.

The pendulum swings both ways, so you can expect the extreme right wing
will swing back towards the center. I don't think we will be as
socialistic as Canada, but the anti-Canada rhetoric you hear in rec.boats
is not reflective of the vast majority of American citizens or the US
government. I think most Americans' view Canada as family, and you are
allowed to disagree with family.


Sounds good. Now tell George W. to give back the $5 billion he swindled
from us over the softwood lumber dispute.

PS - The softwood labor dispute is over 20 yrs old, so it really isn't a GWB
thing. It appears that NAFTA will side with Canada.
"Starbuck" wrote in message
. ..
Don,
GWB doesn't listen to me, but I actually had to Google up what the
softwood dispute was. I think the dispute is over a 27% tariff imposed
due to claims of dumping. Where did the $5 billion dollar "swindle" come
from? Do you mean $5 billion in lost income?


"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Don,

To be honest, neither the nice guy or bad guy actually makes any
difference in Usenet. Very few people care what anyone says to them or
about them.

So while you might be "playing the bad guy", my guess is you are
probably a good guy.

The pendulum swings both ways, so you can expect the extreme right wing
will swing back towards the center. I don't think we will be as
socialistic as Canada, but the anti-Canada rhetoric you hear in
rec.boats is not reflective of the vast majority of American citizens or
the US government. I think most Americans' view Canada as family, and
you are allowed to disagree with family.


Sounds good. Now tell George W. to give back the $5 billion he swindled
from us over the softwood lumber dispute.

Bert Robbins wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Charlie Brown wrote:
As I read this board, I don't understand why so many people seem to
hate each other so much. People on both sides seem to be
knowledgeable about boats. Is it just political differences that are
creating the animosity? Do you guys just enjoy bashing each other?
Some people sound like they are really upset when posting.

Quote from another thread (about Darwin) on this forum:

"I don't come here for approval. I just come here to **** a few people
off."

If you are going to quote me then you need to give me attribution.



Was that you?

A lot of the content here is pretty interchangeable from party A to
party B and its pretty easy to lose track of names since most people
don't use a real name or change it every douple of days.

Sorry I didn't give you full credit for admitting that your purpose for
participating here is "to **** a few people off". The honesty of such a
statement is commendable.



It has nothing to do with boating. These people would behave the same
way if this were a sports, zoology, or foreign language newsgroup.
I suspect many of them are anti-social misfits that go out into the
world each day, routinely get the emotional or psychological crap
kicked out of them, and look for almost any venue where they can become
anonymous or semi-anonymous and "strike back" at total strangers. Too
bad.

The problems all started in early Nov. 2000. This is when the newsgroup
devolved into a partisan political cesspool. All factions the
liberal/progressives, "moderates", "independents" and conservatives are to
blame.


The problem will continue until we individually choose to remove our
own bad
acting from the scene. Too many guys reason, "BS. As long as XXXXX
XXXXX is posting hateful crap here, I have to do my share to get or
stay even with that negative and anti social behavior and I won't stop
until he/she does!" IOW, certain people have no control over their own
lives, and allow other people to determine the standards for their
behavior. Wowzers. To me, that's a scary sceanario.


So, Chuck, what are you going to do to elevate the level of discussion? Are
you going to go on one of your self imposed sabbaticals and come back just
as angry and nasty as your were before?

1) Continue my effort to refrain from name calling.
2) If I choose to disagree on an issue, do so from a fact or
opinion-based perspective rather than launch a long harangue listing
the past and present shortcomings of some person in the NG, calling
names, and otherwise operating from the personal attack and insult
level.
3) Resist the temptation to start a lot of OT threads. (When I really
get up to speed, I'll work on resisting the temptation to participate
in them as well).
4) Try to introduce some threads that are boating related.
5) Turn the other cheek. If in doing so, a few people notice that it
happens to be the cheek of my arse I guess that's a personal
imperfection.
6) Try to avoid ever getting to the point where I have to admit that my
purpose for clicking into the NG is simply to "**** a few people off."

Does this work?

I would submit my improved on-line relationship with a former nemesis
in this group as an example. Only a few months ago, another person and
I were at each other every day. Who knows whose fault it was? Who
cares? After a long, bitter battle we were always in a perpetual
stalemate. Our feud was simply one of many stinking up the NG. The
other party and I somehow mutually and informally agreed to give the
whole mess a rest, and so far it's working. I'm as big as jackass as I
ever was, but that individual has now chosen not to continuously point
out "you're a jackass!" (no need, it's obvious) in every thread in
which I participate. I have made a serious effort to extend a similar
courtesy in return. The other party and I have some major philosophical
and political disagreements, and that has not and most likely will not
ever change. In that particular case, two people who were acting like
(nasty) children simply elected to begin acting like intelligent
adults. I believe that option is probably open to just about everybody.
How sad it would be if the "side" of
some people we see displayed in this forum turned out to be an accurate
profile of who they are in "real life."

My own behavior here is far from perfect, but I can honestly say I make
an effort. I am trying not to sink to the level of the lowest common
denominator in this forum. How about you?

wrote:
snip...........
5) Turn the other cheek. If in doing so, a few people notice that it
happens to be the cheek of my arse I guess that's a personal
imperfection.
snip.....

There you go Bert...
couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

Starbuck wrote:
Don,
GWB doesn't listen to me, but I actually had to Google up what the softwood
dispute was. I think the dispute is over a 27% tariff imposed due to claims
of dumping. Where did the $5 billion dollar "swindle" come from? Do you
mean $5 billion in lost income?

note: the tariffs have only been applied since 'the International
Outlaw' took over Washington.
see:
http://www.senioryears.com/dispute.html
http://www.globalgeorgia.com/newsMAN...=1209&zoneid=1
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...T_OUR_WAY_.asp
http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...26030/-1/MONEY