P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

Skipper wrote:
wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be.

ad·mo·ni·tion
n.
1- Mild, kind, yet earnest reproof.
2- Cautionary advice or warning.

Middle English amonicioun, from Old French amonition, from Latin
admonitio, admonition-, from admonitus, past participle of admonere, to
admonish.

Sorry to see you take this mendacious tack again, Chuck. Your post was
clearly a veiled admonition to JimH. Old habits, huh?

Jim has every right to express his opinion. I have every right to disagree.

JimH presents as obtuse. Suppose that's not a crime, but his 30 or so
daily mindless musings only clutter and degrade the NG, IMO.

As he points out, as long as we avoid personal insults and name calling,
that's not such a bad thing.

You contend he avoids the personal insults? Take a closer look...or
check out a.politics.

My reference was to this specific post, where he did indeed avoid any
name calling or personal insults. If somebody is behaving differently
in a different group, that's not actually an issue in rec.boats. I've
never visited a.politics, but it sounds like a great sounding board for
the type of posts and posting styles that until very recently prevailed
in this group.






The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.

I believe it's a sign that some just don't have the ability or bent to
discuss boats and boating to the degree of their 'contributions' here.
They simply go that route to mask their boating ignorance.


Well, there's ignorance and then there's differences of opinion. One
thing that it has taken me a lifetime to learn, and most days I am
probably still working on it some, is that the people who don't agree
with me on a lot of things aren't underinformed, misinformed, or stupid
(most of the time)... they have simply looked at questions where there
might be more than one workable answer and maybe no absolutes and for
whatever reasons decided that some answer other than the one I might
prefer is the most appealing.





If we want to be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer
total posts per day in order to attract a greater number of particpants
and posts. As we were, we were seeing example after example of new people
coming to the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running
for the exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?

And as I stated above, we must follow the example set in the cruising NG
if we're going to be successful in having a useful forum.

Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?

Yes, they do.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:


Why don't you, Skipper, Smithers, et al, take this to Herring's group
for bitching, and stop cluttering up this newsgroup with these same,
repetitive sermons? I think you guys are burning up more space with this
than we've had heated off-topic discussions lately, eh?

Really. Give it a rest.

Good morning, Harry.

As long as we're trudging through JimH's "state of the NG" post, allow
me to commend you on your important contribution to the improved tone
in the NG. A sincere "thanks" is in order, so consider it extended. We
all could do more, of course, but you have done as much as anybody to
reduce the flaming and the political posts here.

On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

wrote in message
ups.com...

Skipper wrote:


Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be.


I did not take it that way either Chuck.

Old Man Skippy has to find some reason to complain. That is what he is
best at.

Reggie Smithers wrote:

I think you are talking to the wrong person. JimH asked the question
and Chuck responded with his ideas.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************


If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact. It's a very democratic
process, (relax, small "d") :-) These discussions may be unpleasant
and they're only semi-topical, but unless there's a censor in place we
need to exercise self control and some general sense of the group's
expectations is important.

Graffiti. We used to have graffiti. Each of us would take a turn
walking up to the rec.boats wall and spraying the most outrageous thing
we could possible think of, and then stepping back while others
contended to outdo the first. No wonder we wound up with a messy wall,
no useful messages, two or three "gangs" instead of a group, and a
bunch of po'd people covered in paint.

The "dock talk" analogy that often surfaces has some merit, but can't
be directly applied. How many people pull up to a transient moorage or
yacht club dock and intentionally introduce topics of conversation
designed to make others angry or upset? How many of us call anybody
harsh names when we go boating, particularly total strangers?

Give the new atmosphere a few months, especially as spring comes on,
and it's my prediction that rec.boats will be busier than ever with
on-topic, interesting, boating related threads and posts. It took a
long time to put the group into the disrepair where it had been, and we
can't expect it to bloom immediately upon voluntarily reducing the
amount of "fertilizer" we dumped into the pot.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a
lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds
nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
John H

I doubt kevin gets the irony of his post.



******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

wrote in message
oups.com...

Reggie Smithers wrote:

I think you are talking to the wrong person. JimH asked the question
and Chuck responded with his ideas.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************


If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact. It's a very democratic
process, (relax, small "d") :-) These discussions may be unpleasant
and they're only semi-topical, but unless there's a censor in place we
need to exercise self control and some general sense of the group's
expectations is important.

Graffiti. We used to have graffiti. Each of us would take a turn
walking up to the rec.boats wall and spraying the most outrageous thing
we could possible think of, and then stepping back while others
contended to outdo the first. No wonder we wound up with a messy wall,
no useful messages, two or three "gangs" instead of a group, and a
bunch of po'd people covered in paint.

The "dock talk" analogy that often surfaces has some merit, but can't
be directly applied. How many people pull up to a transient moorage or
yacht club dock and intentionally introduce topics of conversation
designed to make others angry or upset? How many of us call anybody
harsh names when we go boating, particularly total strangers?

Give the new atmosphere a few months, especially as spring comes on,
and it's my prediction that rec.boats will be busier than ever with
on-topic, interesting, boating related threads and posts. It took a
long time to put the group into the disrepair where it had been, and we
can't expect it to bloom immediately upon voluntarily reducing the
amount of "fertilizer" we dumped into the pot.

Some good analogies.

JohnH wrote:
On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
Some were worse than others. Some NEVER, EVER posted anything about
boats, nor offered anyone else any advice about boats. But, as you can
see below, Fritz is still insistent on being antagonistic.

wrote:

If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact...

Is that not what a NG charter is for? This NG was formed for the
discussion (primarily) of recreational boats and boating. What
percentage of current NG posts have anything at all to do with charter
compliant topics? That says a lot about the current health of the NG.
Should this problem not be corrected, the NG will retain its reputation
as a bad joke and continue to drive serious contributors away, IMO. Half
the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic contributions.
The real problem is that fully another half is not, again IMO.

It will be interesting to see who prevails in this NG tug-o-war.

--
Skipper