Chuckie dots are a special service, sponsored by the cross posting
jerks from other newsgroups who lob in such worthy subjects as
"Deranged Mestizo Illegal Imigrants Rape Blonde White Woman on the Hood
of a Lowrider", "Blacks are unfit to breathe", "Jews are infiltrating
the government at every level!", etc.

Replacing the racist or radical political crap with a dot makes it
harder for the guy who normally posts in some other NG to find his
handiwork when he checks in with rec.boats to see how many hundreds of
responses and how much hateful name calling he has generated. There are
several posters who do not participate in most of the normal exchange
on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty contributions
to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's go shoot
some n***ers and liberals"
on the subect line, there's a better chance they will go on to scan
some of the other NG's where they look for this type of content.

If Gene's filter (and according to some in this thread there is some
doubt whether it really is Gene) is kicking out the dotted subject
lines, it would be really surprising to me to learn that Gene's filter
wouldn't kick out the entire thread, anyway.

If the original message was not posted by Gene, then it must have been
posted by somebody with a different motivation for seeing the racist
(etc) thread titles here.

Changing the subject line to a punctuation mark might screw up a post.
Posting KKK propaganda to a boating newsgroup screws up the entire
group. An individual post from the KKK isn't as damaging as the group
of people that such material routinely attracts.

And anyway, by the time somebody changes the subject line to a
punctation mark the post is already in the NG. People seeking this sort
of radical crap can simply look for the
punctuation mark in the subject line, go up thread a post or so, and
read all of the hateful, racist, or confrontationally political trolls
they would ever hope to find.

On 17 Jan 2007 07:39:53 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Chuckie dots are a special service, sponsored by the cross posting
jerks from other newsgroups who lob in such worthy subjects as
"Deranged Mestizo Illegal Imigrants Rape Blonde White Woman on the Hood
of a Lowrider", "Blacks are unfit to breathe", "Jews are infiltrating
the government at every level!", etc.

Replacing the racist or radical political crap with a dot makes it
harder for the guy who normally posts in some other NG to find his
handiwork when he checks in with rec.boats to see how many hundreds of
responses and how much hateful name calling he has generated. There are
several posters who do not participate in most of the normal exchange
on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty contributions
to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's go shoot
some n***ers and liberals"
on the subect line, there's a better chance they will go on to scan
some of the other NG's where they look for this type of content.

If Gene's filter (and according to some in this thread there is some
doubt whether it really is Gene) is kicking out the dotted subject
lines, it would be really surprising to me to learn that Gene's filter
wouldn't kick out the entire thread, anyway.

If the original message was not posted by Gene, then it must have been
posted by somebody with a different motivation for seeing the racist
(etc) thread titles here.

Changing the subject line to a punctuation mark might screw up a post.
Posting KKK propaganda to a boating newsgroup screws up the entire
group. An individual post from the KKK isn't as damaging as the group
of people that such material routinely attracts.

And anyway, by the time somebody changes the subject line to a
punctation mark the post is already in the NG. People seeking this sort
of radical crap can simply look for the
punctuation mark in the subject line, go up thread a post or so, and
read all of the hateful, racist, or confrontationally political trolls
they would ever hope to find.

Chuck, do you find you *must* get an anti-conservative jab in every one of
these posts?

"There are several posters who do not participate in most of the normal
exchange on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty
contributions to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's
go shoot some n***ers and liberals"..."

I totally agree with your motive for the post. I can't understand why you
use your post(s) to take a poke at conservatives!


--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

While you are here playing with your silly Chuckie dots, developers are
buying up your public lands and killing your recreational boating industry.
Go slay some real dragons, man.

JohnH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 07:39:53 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Chuckie dots are a special service, sponsored by the cross posting
jerks from other newsgroups who lob in such worthy subjects as
"Deranged Mestizo Illegal Imigrants Rape Blonde White Woman on the Hood
of a Lowrider", "Blacks are unfit to breathe", "Jews are infiltrating
the government at every level!", etc.

Replacing the racist or radical political crap with a dot makes it
harder for the guy who normally posts in some other NG to find his
handiwork when he checks in with rec.boats to see how many hundreds of
responses and how much hateful name calling he has generated. There are
several posters who do not participate in most of the normal exchange
on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty contributions
to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's go shoot
some n***ers and liberals"
on the subect line, there's a better chance they will go on to scan
some of the other NG's where they look for this type of content.

If Gene's filter (and according to some in this thread there is some
doubt whether it really is Gene) is kicking out the dotted subject
lines, it would be really surprising to me to learn that Gene's filter
wouldn't kick out the entire thread, anyway.

If the original message was not posted by Gene, then it must have been
posted by somebody with a different motivation for seeing the racist
(etc) thread titles here.

Changing the subject line to a punctuation mark might screw up a post.
Posting KKK propaganda to a boating newsgroup screws up the entire
group. An individual post from the KKK isn't as damaging as the group
of people that such material routinely attracts.

And anyway, by the time somebody changes the subject line to a
punctation mark the post is already in the NG. People seeking this sort
of radical crap can simply look for the
punctuation mark in the subject line, go up thread a post or so, and
read all of the hateful, racist, or confrontationally political trolls
they would ever hope to find.

Chuck, do you find you *must* get an anti-conservative jab in every one of
these posts?

"There are several posters who do not participate in most of the normal
exchange on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty
contributions to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's
go shoot some n***ers and liberals"..."

I totally agree with your motive for the post. I can't understand why you
use your post(s) to take a poke at conservatives!


You're presupposing that the only person who would want to shoot a
n***er or a liberal would be a conservative, or that any conservative
would subscribe to such an ideal.

I don't know a single conservative who would actually shoot, or
seriously threaten to shoot
a liberal. Do you?

Extremism cannot, by definition, be "conservative". Right wing
extremists responsible for posting much of the divisive, racist, poison
so commonly seen any more are hardly the "conservatives" with which you
and a high percentage of other Americans self identify.

I wouldn't call that gang of murderers in Texas responsible for
dragging that randomly selected black person down the road behind their
pickup truck "conservatives". Folks who gun down doctors outside of
abortion clinics are hardly conservative. Nor should anybody look at
the worst excesses of the radical left (eco-terrorism, etc) and attempt
to make a case that such behavior typifies all "liberals."

Could it be that your pre-awareness of my admitted bias is prompting
you to be ultra-senstitive?

On 17 Jan 2007 08:56:04 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


"There are several posters who do not participate in most of the normal
exchange on the NG, but never fail to show up and make some nasty
contributions to heated, offensively OT threads. If they don't see "Let's
go shoot some n***ers and liberals"..."

I totally agree with your motive for the post. I can't understand why you
use your post(s) to take a poke at conservatives!


You're presupposing that the only person who would want to shoot a
n***er or a liberal would be a conservative, or that any conservative
would subscribe to such an ideal.

I don't know a single conservative who would actually shoot, or
seriously threaten to shoot
a liberal. Do you?

Extremism cannot, by definition, be "conservative". Right wing
extremists responsible for posting much of the divisive, racist, poison
so commonly seen any more are hardly the "conservatives" with which you
and a high percentage of other Americans self identify.

I wouldn't call that gang of murderers in Texas responsible for
dragging that randomly selected black person down the road behind their
pickup truck "conservatives". Folks who gun down doctors outside of
abortion clinics are hardly conservative. Nor should anybody look at
the worst excesses of the radical left (eco-terrorism, etc) and attempt
to make a case that such behavior typifies all "liberals."

Could it be that your pre-awareness of my admitted bias is prompting
you to be ultra-senstitive?

Your reference was to people in the newsgroup who show up to make nasty
contributions. You referred to these people with your shooting liberals
comment. If not to the conservatives in the group, to whom in the group was
your comment directed? It was simply a cheap shot.

No, I don't think I'm being ultra-sensitive. As I said, I agree with the
motivation for your post.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

JohnH wrote:


Your reference was to people in the newsgroup who show up to make nasty
contributions. You referred to these people with your shooting liberals
comment. If not to the conservatives in the group, to whom in the group was
your comment directed? It was simply a cheap shot.


Sometimes a minor point makes a major difference. Please reread. My
reference was to people who don't ordinarily participate in the NG but
who seem to show up to participate in threads that are racist in nature
or feature other subjects more often associated with right wing
extremism. Therefore the comment was not directed to anybody normally
part of the "group" here.

Not that there aren't left wing extremist OT threads as well- but it
seems that our homegrown lefties run for most of the yardage there.
Darn few people we have never heard of before follow the left wing
extremists into the group. By way of example, there were 4-6 people in
that absurd "Gould is a Jew!" thread (as if that would be an insult
even if it were true) a few months back that had never appeared in
rec.boats or hadn't been heard from for months and months prior and
haven't been heard from since.

I think many conservatives are fine people who have thoughtfully
evaluated the issues and simply reached some different conclusions than
I have. We'll need to wait for history to show who's right, and by then
we'll all be dead anyway and it won't matter much. Of course, history
will ultimately prove the conservatives right on some issues and
liberals right on others.

It's true that I can be an insensitive *******, but I'm not out to
tarnish conservatism.





No, I don't think I'm being ultra-sensitive. As I said, I agree with the
motivation for your post.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Chuck Gould wrote:
JohnH wrote:

Your reference was to people in the newsgroup who show up to make nasty
contributions. You referred to these people with your shooting liberals
comment. If not to the conservatives in the group, to whom in the group was
your comment directed? It was simply a cheap shot.


Sometimes a minor point makes a major difference. Please reread. My
reference was to people who don't ordinarily participate in the NG but
who seem to show up to participate in threads that are racist in nature
or feature other subjects more often associated with right wing
extremism. Therefore the comment was not directed to anybody normally
part of the "group" here.

Not that there aren't left wing extremist OT threads as well- but it
seems that our homegrown lefties run for most of the yardage there.
Darn few people we have never heard of before follow the left wing
extremists into the group. By way of example, there were 4-6 people in
that absurd "Gould is a Jew!" thread (as if that would be an insult
even if it were true) a few months back that had never appeared in
rec.boats or hadn't been heard from for months and months prior and
haven't been heard from since.

I think many conservatives are fine people who have thoughtfully
evaluated the issues and simply reached some different conclusions than
I have. We'll need to wait for history to show who's right, and by then
we'll all be dead anyway and it won't matter much. Of course, history
will ultimately prove the conservatives right on some issues and
liberals right on others.

It's true that I can be an insensitive *******, but I'm not out to
tarnish conservatism.




No, I don't think I'm being ultra-sensitive. As I said, I agree with the
motivation for your post.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

When did you become a Jew? Why wasn't I invited to the ceremony?

As a Member of the Tribe, I should have been included.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:05:37 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On 17 Jan 2007 10:50:13 -0800, Chuck Gould penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


JohnH wrote:


Your reference was to people in the newsgroup who show up to make nasty
contributions. You referred to these people with your shooting liberals
comment. If not to the conservatives in the group, to whom in the group was
your comment directed? It was simply a cheap shot.


Sometimes a minor point makes a major difference. Please reread. My
reference was to people who don't ordinarily participate in the NG but
who seem to show up to participate in threads that are racist in nature
or feature other subjects more often associated with right wing
extremism. Therefore the comment was not directed to anybody normally
part of the "group" here.

Not that there aren't left wing extremist OT threads as well- but it
seems that our homegrown lefties run for most of the yardage there.
Darn few people we have never heard of before follow the left wing
extremists into the group. By way of example, there were 4-6 people in
that absurd "Gould is a Jew!" thread (as if that would be an insult
even if it were true) a few months back that had never appeared in
rec.boats or hadn't been heard from for months and months prior and
haven't been heard from since.

I think many conservatives are fine people who have thoughtfully
evaluated the issues and simply reached some different conclusions than
I have. We'll need to wait for history to show who's right, and by then
we'll all be dead anyway and it won't matter much. Of course, history
will ultimately prove the conservatives right on some issues and
liberals right on others.

It's true that I can be an insensitive *******, but I'm not out to
tarnish conservatism.


Remember when it got so bad here that I installed a news server and
offered free use of same for all those interested in "boating only"
posts? It deleted far left and far right content in the hope that
there were some posters left that still owned a boat.....

We've always tolerated "off topic" content here until it got just mean
and nasty....

Now.... can we get back to water related stuff?

Sounds good to me. Now, who's got the recipe for the chowdah mentioned in
Harry's thread?
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:05:37 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Now.... can we get back to water related stuff?

I'm on the water as we speak, anchored about 2 miles south east of Key
West, with absolutely beautiful weather. We are serving as a race
committee boat for the anual Key West sailing regatta, and are
surrounded by several hundred boats sailing in circles. What a sight.

http://news.google.com/news?q=key+we...=news&ct=title

or

http://tinyurl.com/32u7lh

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
Sounds good to me. Now, who's got the recipe for the chowdah mentioned in
Harry's thread?
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H


geez... if you want to trade recipies & cooking hints ..take it to
alt.juliachilds