When I first found rec.boats, I was thrilled (it doesn't take much
anymore) at the idea of "fellow boaters" to talk with.

Soon after, after wading through the political and personal bashing, I
mentioned this in the group, and was told (about 3:1), to "get used to
it". I have.

I have researched the rec.boats Charter and,basically, the founders
never anticipated that the group would be used for anything *but*
boating posts, therefore did not include any language concerning OT
posts. C'est dommage.

I admit to joining the OT posts now and then. It's like a "free
brunch". How can you resist? ) Sometimes, they are interesting.

As regular posters to this group, would you support an amendment to
the FAQ requiring that the letters "OT" precede any off-topic post?
This would not limit any discussion, but would enable the boating
purists to filter the background noise. The political warriors would
remain free to eviscerate each other.

As it stands, some do, some don't, "OT". Some posters have left the
group, or have become "lurkers", because they are annoyed and
frustrated with the OT postings. Perhaps a compromise is appropriate?

I can appreciate the idea that rec.boats is like "the bar at the yacht
club". I can also understand the plight of the weekend boater who
comes here looking for boating info, and finds reps and dems ripping
each others viscerals out. Viscerals are good, especially with garlic
and wine sauce, but this isn't a cooking newsgroup.

Is it worth the minimal effort to try to resolve these differences? I
think so, but then again, I married my ex-wife. My judgement is
suspect.

I would appreciate the comments of the entire group on this issue.

Regards,
noah

The missing ingredient is often civility.
While I've locked horns with every conservative on this group and will do so an
any time they advance their agenda, there is really only one one right winger
here who routinely accuses me of name calling. The posts usualy go something
like, "Gould is a #%@%&^! because he calls names in the NG all the time!" I
think
that sort of post is bogus from the outset, and neither the opinon of the
person who would post such a ridiculous statement nor the opinions of anybody
willing to believe it are of any consequence or importance.

There is a general lack of civility from both the left and the right. There are
any number of threads started every day just to
"tweak" the other side, and many include a lot of stereotypical name calling.
That's really too bad. One of the first signs that a poster doesn't believe his
own schtick is when the name calling and personal issues are introduced. Some
posters, left and right, are unable to make a post without a personal attack.
So, in those cases, what is important? Is it a question of closely held
principle and conscience or just a cheap shot at an opportunity to call names
and make comments that the same poster would *never* make if we really were
sitting around some beers at a waterfront bar.

Grownups know how to disagree without becoming disagreeable. There is room for
some of our rec.boats participants to do a little growing.

Furthermore, I suspect that some of the complaint against OT posting has more
to do with the positions expressed by some of the OT posters than the fact that
OT posts exist. How hard can it be to skim past a post titled "Democrats Say I
Got Mine, Screw You", or "Bush and Cheney
Lied Again- Hi, Ho, Halliburton, Away!"?

Would there be any correlation between the propensity for any given individual
to complaing about the OT posts and however recently that same individual had
his be-hind gift wrapped and shipped back to him in a flame war?

IMO, debate is a nautral consequnce of two opposing intelligences in the same
place at the same time. A flame war, OTOH, is completely useless and denigrates
all who participate.

There is virtually nothing posted by the rabid right-wingers here that
deserves a tempered response. I'm constantly amazed at your good nature
in this things, Chuckster, but my feeling is that if you "debate" the
hardline right-wingers on anything, you give them some credibility
they'd never have on their own.

Screw them.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

I don't know any of the right leaners here 'bout, so it would be silly for me
to comment on whatever personal attributes or defects each might have.

I wouldn't recgonize most of the right leaners if I met them. It's pretty easy
to recognize dangerous ideas, however. It is the dangerous ideas, (not the
unwitting victims of a powerful propaganda machine), that must be countered.
Each time a dangerous and ill considered idea is advanced, somebody needs to
point out why the idea may not be as beneficial as first represented.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism of an idea based on logic and
facts and ciritcising an idea only because
Jim, jps, Harry K, Noyb, Gould, or California Bill has expressed it.

That's fair, and works from both ends, as it should.

Some of the ideas from the left are dangerous too. I drove past a highly
energized "Impeach Bush" rally this afternoon. Bad idea. Look at his successor.

Like I say, civil debate is a natural consequence of conversation. Flame
throwing is a waste of time. But that's just my own opinion. I'm entitled, and
other opinions will vary (as they should).

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

I'm also sure it doesn't help when he reads about
non-union Wal-Mart's record profits...and the fact that union membership
has
fallen 60% since the 50's.

Wow, learning how to frame an argument from right wing radio?

Record profits?

People forced to work overtime without compensation? I hope that's not how
you treat your employees.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

I'm also sure it doesn't help when he reads about
non-union Wal-Mart's record profits...and the fact that union membership
has
fallen 60% since the 50's.

Wow, learning how to frame an argument from right wing radio?

Record profits?

People forced to work overtime without compensation? I hope that's not
how
you treat your employees.

My "profits" fell last year vs. the prior year...but my employees all got 5%
raises. Small businesses don't operate the same as large corporations.
When profits drop, the top paid guy gets stung...not the bottom paid ones.
Hell, their pay raise is one of the reasons "profits" fell...despite
production increasing slightly.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

People forced to work overtime without compensation? I hope that's
not how you treat your employees.

My "profits" fell last year vs. the prior year...but my employees all got
5%
raises. Small businesses don't operate the same as large corporations.
When profits drop, the top paid guy gets stung...not the bottom paid ones.
Hell, their pay raise is one of the reasons "profits" fell...despite
production increasing slightly.

That's right. Execs in big corporate entities are insulated from reality
since there's so much money floating around. How do they keep their large
salaries and bonuses when corporate performance is questionable? By
scamming the employees of course.

Walmart is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to people working
overtime for no additional pay, characterizing them as "management." It's a
pyramid scheme where those at the bottom pay for the cream skimmers at the
top.

On 30 Aug 2003 21:18:17 -0500, noah wrote:

When I first found rec.boats, I was thrilled (it doesn't take much
anymore) at the idea of "fellow boaters" to talk with.

Soon after, after wading through the political and personal bashing, I
mentioned this in the group, and was told (about 3:1), to "get used to
it". I have.

I have researched the rec.boats Charter and,basically, the founders
never anticipated that the group would be used for anything *but*
boating posts, therefore did not include any language concerning OT
posts. C'est dommage.

Noah, I'm sure you know my feelings on this matter from reading my (probably
too-long) about the "political" threads. Someone recently asked, "Aren't there
groups chartered for discussing politics?" and the answer came back, "Sure--but
when you go into a politics discussion group, they know when you're blowing
smoke out your ass." Or words to that effect.

I thought that was a very perceptive observation--and an accurate one. I've
seen many, many posts here--from both extremes of the political spectrum--that
display a truly appalling level of ignorance. I'm not going to throw stones on
someone because they hold opinions based on faulty data or fallacious
reasoning--but these discussions invariable descend into namecalling and
ill-will.

Rec.boats is an unmoderated newsgroup, but those who seem driven to start and
continue these acrimonious threads ought to keep in mind that in so doing, they
create a certain kind of atmosphere--a "vibe"--in the newsgroup that can be very
off putting. In the several years that I've been participating to one extent or
another, I've had the experience of having to rework a favorable impression of
someone because of some statement that was mean spirited, hateful or ignorant.
Those kinds of statements seem to appear *only* in the context of these
political discussions.

Believe it or not, there are good, honorable, intelligent and well informed
people on both sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, you wouldn't
know that from most of the "political" argument here (I write "political" that
way because these discussions have long since ceased to be about politics).

Absent a moderator, the only way this situation is going to change is by
implementing the solution of a separate rec.boats.lounge newsgroup where
anything goes; the common denominator would be that the combatants...er,
participants would own, like to own, or know someone who owns or would like to
own a boat.

Agreeing to "OT" designations typically doesn't work, because 1) some
newsreaders strip out the "OT"; and 2) Some people will feel as though they'll
lose their audience if they have to designate their posts that way.

If there was enough of a consensus about this kind of solution, then it would be
a matter of getting everyone to suggest (gently) that flagrantly non-boating
articles belong in the companion newsgroup.

I'll help in this effort whatever way I can.

Joe Parsons

I admit to joining the OT posts now and then. It's like a "free
brunch". How can you resist? ) Sometimes, they are interesting.

As regular posters to this group, would you support an amendment to
the FAQ requiring that the letters "OT" precede any off-topic post?
This would not limit any discussion, but would enable the boating
purists to filter the background noise. The political warriors would
remain free to eviscerate each other.

As it stands, some do, some don't, "OT". Some posters have left the
group, or have become "lurkers", because they are annoyed and
frustrated with the OT postings. Perhaps a compromise is appropriate?

I can appreciate the idea that rec.boats is like "the bar at the yacht
club". I can also understand the plight of the weekend boater who
comes here looking for boating info, and finds reps and dems ripping
each others viscerals out. Viscerals are good, especially with garlic
and wine sauce, but this isn't a cooking newsgroup.

Is it worth the minimal effort to try to resolve these differences? I
think so, but then again, I married my ex-wife. My judgement is
suspect.

I would appreciate the comments of the entire group on this issue.

Regards,
noah

What, pray tell, is "a truly appalling level of ignorance". Is that good or
bad? Do we want that or want that to go away? Do we want a high level? Or
a low level? Hmmm you pick words carelessly I think. You should consider
sticking to OT. We are more forgiving there.
Jim

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On 30 Aug 2003 21:18:17 -0500, noah
wrote:

snip

I thought that was a very perceptive observation--and an accurate one.
I've
seen many, many posts here--from both extremes of the political
spectrum--that
display a truly appalling level of ignorance. I'm not going to throw
stones on
someone because they hold opinions based on faulty data or fallacious
reasoning--but these discussions invariable descend into namecalling and
ill-will.