Jim wrote:
In other words, you are trying to censure, for us, material you don't
approve of. Thanks but no thanks.


Not at all. You can read whatever you want. You should also be capable
of viewing more than a single page on the internet and navigating to
the groups where the material you hope to read is on-topic.

If a guy is out to f up the entire newsgroup by attracting like-minded,
politically OT, non-boaters and he or she should be allowed to
continue, I certainly should have an equal right to f up a disruptive
OT post.

There's a huge difference between "I'm telling you that you *can't*
post your crap here" and
"I don't think you should post your crap here."

I have no problem with the KKK, the Socialist Workers Party, the
Democrats, the Republicans, the Muslims, the Christians, or anybody
else posting messages on the Internet. I would staunchly defend the
right of even those people I disagree with to do so.
However, it is a reasonable assumption that people viewing the
rec.boats site are doing so to discuss boats or view boating related
discussions. There are appropriate forums for all of the conservative,
liberal, racist, inclusive, or other groups to post to.

How about it, Jim. Do you go to the KKK website looking for boating
topics? If not, why not?
Does it make any more sense for the KKK (or extremist groups from any
side of the aisle) to post political crap on a boating site?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:44:23 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:

It's less likely to suppress it than it is to discourage it.

We're loaded with OT posts. But there's a difference between using the
group as a sort of "myspace" with stuff like: "OT, My kids spent $6000
on me for Christmas so neener, neener" (especially when posted by a
regular) and OT stuff that is only brought here to start political
fist fights or foster divisive prejudices.

I missed this the first time around because I generally ignore Chuckie
Dots.

And perhaps I should ignore this one too, but I can't.

Chuck's whole purpose here is to control - he wants to be the final
arbiter of what is acceptable and what isn't. And what he can't
attempt to control, he denigrates.


So it's your opinion that merely expressing my own opinion asserts some
sort of "control"?
If so, you give me way too much credit.

Sorry that you consider my opinion so significant that anybody would
pay attention to it, (too much credit once again) but shall we restrict
the expression of opinions to

1) only those persons we agree with?

or

2) only those persons we are personally certain will be unlikely to
exert any influence?



And for the record Chuck, that camera was for a lifetime of adopting,
giving and parenting troubled kids and giving them a chance to make
something of themselves. They gave Mrs. Wave something that she has
long wanted also. It was touching and important to me and Mrs. Wave
and that you believe it was a simple statement of superiority shows
exactly how shallow and jealous you are deeming everything that
doesn't meet your criteria of acceptable relevance. That was more
about them, but in your limited world

??????????????????

All I can figure is that you must have self-identified with a comment
about people using the NG as a "myspace" page. I was merely using that
as a recent example, but if you want to think you have been called out
on the issue specifically then I guess you are entitled to do so.

Obviously you blew right past the part where I recognized a distinction
between the harmless "myspace" chat room stuff and the OT political
nonsense or the cut-n-pastes.




I'm proud of my kids, successful professionals every one, who started
off with nothing, literally, and become highly skilled engineers,
doctors and cops. That they gave Mrs. Wave and myself something to
recognize our sacrifices to help them should be something that you
should be able to recognize because I've made no secret of how my
family was structured over the years.

Like 99% of the rec.boats readers, I probably haven't paid any
attention to how anybody's specific family was structured.

Since we're sharing opinions, you would have done a more effective job
of communicating what you now claim is your primary message, had you
written something like: "Some of the adopted and foster kids I have
cared for over the years got together and bought me a very nice gift
for Christmas, and it was very touching to have them say "thank you" in
a truly meaningful way." Instead, we got three or four "build-up"
posts all commenting on the "way cool" merchandise you received and
then finally a link to the Haselblad site. It would have been very
easy, as a result, to assume that the significance was in the gift
itself, rather than the givers. It shouldn't be up to the readers to
sleuth around "between the lines" and try to figure out what you might
actually mean instead of whatever you have posted.


Unfortunately, you are stuck in the tedium of mandating Usenet
behavior and attempting to impose your brand of civility on the rest
of us.

I've got no power to mandate or impose a damn thing. Here's a newsflash
for you, however;
if you post something on a public forum you need to be able to
withstand public comment and criticism, and its best if you can do so
like an adult. As part of the public, some of that comment and
criticism will once in a while be mine. It won't always be positive,
regardless of the parties commenting.


And quite frankly, I've had enough of you and several others in this
little corner of the Usenetverse and destroying perfectly good threads
for no other reason that you can.


Once again, Shortwave, how does expressing an opinion "destroy" a
perfectly good thread about your new camera, or anything else? The only
comment I made in your camera thread had to do with getting four movie
tickets and a chance to go to the movies with my kids. I thought that
was a "really cool" holiday gift. Didn't you want feedback when you
posed your headline as a question, or was the whole thread constructed
as a means for you to announce your new camera?

Maybe I destroyed your enjoyment of that thread by holding up a mirror
in this one? Certainly wasn't my intention.


So, to put paid to this, shove it where the sun don't shine.


I'm sure that if I did, there's probably a special setting on your new
camera that could still manage to snag a photo of it up there.


I don't need this - I'm Ota here.

Well, let's hope not. But if you're going to hang around you need to
toughen up a bit.
You ought to be able to withstand personal comments at least as pointed
as (for example) "he wants to control everything and what he can't
control he will denigrate" without wilting like a dried up old orchid.

Perhaps I misread your "Who got something way cool for Christmas?, (I
Did!)" series of posts. If, as you claim, they were intended to be
tributes to the accomplishments of your kids and comments on the close
family bonds you have forged with them then I certainly failed to get
that impression. (Maybe I was distracted by the link to the Haselblad
web site?)

If your series of posts was intended to describe the love between your
family members then my indirect comments were out of line and I hereby
offer an apology. If your series of posts
was intended to describe your new camera, then there is nothing to
apologize for and I stand behind my comments (which merely described
threads similar to the one you posted about your gift) as totally
appropriate.

Harry Krause wrote:
On 12/26/2006 7:04 PM, Chuck Gould wrote:

.

Harry, it works best if you put the period on the subject line. :-)

See above.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 12/26/2006 8:00 PM, Chuck Gould wrote:


.

(More egomanical netcopping b.s.)

Exactly. Well said.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:49:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 12/26/2006 6:33 PM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:44:23 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:

It's less likely to suppress it than it is to discourage it.

We're loaded with OT posts. But there's a difference between using the
group as a sort of "myspace" with stuff like: "OT, My kids spent $6000
on me for Christmas so neener, neener" (especially when posted by a
regular) and OT stuff that is only brought here to start political
fist fights or foster divisive prejudices.

I missed this the first time around because I generally ignore Chuckie
Dots.

And perhaps I should ignore this one too, but I can't.

Chuck's whole purpose here is to control - he wants to be the final
arbiter of what is acceptable and what isn't. And what he can't
attempt to control, he denigrates.

And for the record Chuck, that camera was for a lifetime of adopting,
giving and parenting troubled kids and giving them a chance to make
something of themselves. They gave Mrs. Wave something that she has
long wanted also. It was touching and important to me and Mrs. Wave
and that you believe it was a simple statement of superiority shows
exactly how shallow and jealous you are deeming everything that
doesn't meet your criteria of acceptable relevance. That was more
about them, but in your limited world

I'm proud of my kids, successful professionals every one, who started
off with nothing, literally, and become highly skilled engineers,
doctors and cops. That they gave Mrs. Wave and myself something to
recognize our sacrifices to help them should be something that you
should be able to recognize because I've made no secret of how my
family was structured over the years.

Unfortunately, you are stuck in the tedium of mandating Usenet
behavior and attempting to impose your brand of civility on the rest
of us.

And quite frankly, I've had enough of you and several others in this
little corner of the Usenetverse and destroying perfectly good threads
for no other reason that you can.

So, to put paid to this, shove it where the sun don't shine.

I don't need this - I'm Ota here.



And so, the netcopping a**holes diminish the ranks further.

I hope you realize you're one of the nails in the coffin, Harry.

Jack Goff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:49:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


On 12/26/2006 6:33 PM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:44:23 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:


It's less likely to suppress it than it is to discourage it.

We're loaded with OT posts. But there's a difference between using the
group as a sort of "myspace" with stuff like: "OT, My kids spent $6000
on me for Christmas so neener, neener" (especially when posted by a
regular) and OT stuff that is only brought here to start political
fist fights or foster divisive prejudices.

I missed this the first time around because I generally ignore Chuckie
Dots.

And perhaps I should ignore this one too, but I can't.

Chuck's whole purpose here is to control - he wants to be the final
arbiter of what is acceptable and what isn't. And what he can't
attempt to control, he denigrates.

And for the record Chuck, that camera was for a lifetime of adopting,
giving and parenting troubled kids and giving them a chance to make
something of themselves. They gave Mrs. Wave something that she has
long wanted also. It was touching and important to me and Mrs. Wave
and that you believe it was a simple statement of superiority shows
exactly how shallow and jealous you are deeming everything that
doesn't meet your criteria of acceptable relevance. That was more
about them, but in your limited world

I'm proud of my kids, successful professionals every one, who started
off with nothing, literally, and become highly skilled engineers,
doctors and cops. That they gave Mrs. Wave and myself something to
recognize our sacrifices to help them should be something that you
should be able to recognize because I've made no secret of how my
family was structured over the years.

Unfortunately, you are stuck in the tedium of mandating Usenet
behavior and attempting to impose your brand of civility on the rest
of us.

And quite frankly, I've had enough of you and several others in this
little corner of the Usenetverse and destroying perfectly good threads
for no other reason that you can.

So, to put paid to this, shove it where the sun don't shine.

I don't need this - I'm Ota here.



And so, the netcopping a**holes diminish the ranks further.


I hope you realize you're one of the nails in the coffin, Harry.

Harry is to much of a narcissist to realize that

Animal wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:49:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


On 12/26/2006 6:33 PM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:44:23 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:


It's less likely to suppress it than it is to discourage it.

We're loaded with OT posts. But there's a difference between using the
group as a sort of "myspace" with stuff like: "OT, My kids spent $6000
on me for Christmas so neener, neener" (especially when posted by a
regular) and OT stuff that is only brought here to start political
fist fights or foster divisive prejudices.

I missed this the first time around because I generally ignore Chuckie
Dots.

And perhaps I should ignore this one too, but I can't.

Chuck's whole purpose here is to control - he wants to be the final
arbiter of what is acceptable and what isn't. And what he can't
attempt to control, he denigrates.

And for the record Chuck, that camera was for a lifetime of adopting,
giving and parenting troubled kids and giving them a chance to make
something of themselves. They gave Mrs. Wave something that she has
long wanted also. It was touching and important to me and Mrs. Wave
and that you believe it was a simple statement of superiority shows
exactly how shallow and jealous you are deeming everything that
doesn't meet your criteria of acceptable relevance. That was more
about them, but in your limited world

I'm proud of my kids, successful professionals every one, who started
off with nothing, literally, and become highly skilled engineers,
doctors and cops. That they gave Mrs. Wave and myself something to
recognize our sacrifices to help them should be something that you
should be able to recognize because I've made no secret of how my
family was structured over the years.

Unfortunately, you are stuck in the tedium of mandating Usenet
behavior and attempting to impose your brand of civility on the rest
of us.

And quite frankly, I've had enough of you and several others in this
little corner of the Usenetverse and destroying perfectly good threads
for no other reason that you can.

So, to put paid to this, shove it where the sun don't shine.

I don't need this - I'm Ota here.



And so, the netcopping a**holes diminish the ranks further.


I hope you realize you're one of the nails in the coffin, Harry.

Harry is to much of a narcissist to realize that

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 12/26/2006 8:00 PM, Chuck Gould wrote:


.

(More egomanical netcopping b.s.)

No kidding. Not only does Gould try to control *what* we write about, he
now is trying to define *how*.

Maybe he's related to Al Gore in some distant way?

Eisboch

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:49:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


And so, the netcopping a**holes diminish the ranks further.

Harry! You are so neat!

I think the total is about four hundred twelve name-calling posts in a row.
Wow! You add so much to this group.
--
John