On May 17, 11:10Â*am, wrote:
On May 17, 1:22Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On May 17, 9:06�am, wrote:

I have now been banned from the other group after one post, asking why
a thread trashing us had been allowed to go on for days while the
thread origionator was also over here calling us names. Remember, this
is the same monitor that asked me not to mention "other groups" (not
even by name) here in our forum.. I have to admit, I am pretty ****ed
off and especially dissappointed in all those folks I thought were
friends who seem to have thrown me under the bus as it were. I have to
question the character of folks who have stood back and not said
anything when they can not be missing the hyprocracy, kind of like
another pet peeve of mine

*************

Something told me you would make an issue of this on rec.boats.

Â*Didn't take long for you to air your own dirty laundry, did it? Why
do you think that anybody on this board gives a rip what happens in
another group?

Only because you choose to misrepresnt some important facts will I
waste any time rebutting you assertions.

********

So here you are, crying to another discussion group that after
becoming a member of a different forum and making one post that
flagrantly violated the clearly stated conventions against personal
attacks, etc, you were tossed out on your arse. You should be neither
surprised nor outraged, you got exactly the result you were trolling
for.
Congrats. Now you can whine endlessly that the big bad moderator at
some other group threw innocent little you into the gutter but
continues to tolerate the presence of folks who have posted disruptive
content to other boards, elsewhere on the net, in the past.

You seem to believe that the mere presence on another forum of people
with checkered posting histories elsewhere is hypocritical within the
context of a "monitored" (actually, the correct term is "moderated")
group. Here's the important functional difference; the other
discussion group you refer to doesn't moderate past behavior, it
moderates the present. The folks you seem to have such negative
passion for have, in the largest sense, conducted themselves on the
other board in a civil and polite manner. The moderator's job isn't to
be some sort of "nanny" and head off every minor disagreement, but
merely to keep the general discourse relatively civil and free of
personal attacks. We strive to disagree without becoming personally
disagreeable.

Why are you so obsessed with trying to start trouble between rec.boats
and another discussion group? Get over it. There is no reason to be
"****ed". Your "friends" haven't "thrown you under the bus" by posting
elsewhere, they are obviously free to post here (as am I) if they
choose to do so. I can't imagine that anybody choosing one group over
the other is doing so because Scottie posts to rec.boats.

Your troll characterized the thread as filled with name calling
directed at individuals within rec.boats. Nonsense. It is a very long
thread. One post
condemned an unidentified group apparently intent on destroying
rec.boats with OT trolls as "snarks", and there are many, many posts
thereafter from various members encouraging one another not to even
mention rec.boats in the forum. The "snark" post was questionable, but
the response and overall tone of the thread was constructive and
nothing in the thread prior to your appearance was anything close to
as negative and nasty as the tone you adopted or the personal attack
content you posted. Except for your vicious little jab, the rest of
the thread is standing for anybody and everybody to see. Both people
here who might be able to stifle a yawn long enough and would
otherwise care to check out the tread in question will find it in the
"Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel" (OT) classification of the forum
you trolled.

Does it bother you at all to misrepresent the nature, content, and
tone of the thread you were bitching about or the post that got you
86'd? (Apparently not). If you were looking for an example of the kind
of behavior that certain boards won't tolerate- you found it.

You ended your vicious little troll with "I won't be back!" Get out
your red crayon and draw a circle around today's date on the calendar,
Scottie. Remember that as the first time we ever agreed on anything.
Should you try to sneak back in and attempt to stir up further
trouble, you will find that it takes a lot more than a new "handle".

I'm going back over to where the actual boaters hang out. As always,
the welcome mat is out over there for anybody who wants to talk about
*boats* (not other boaters), or who can participate in the OT section
of the forum without making personal attacks on other posters. Good
news for you, Scottie- anybody who left this group for the other forum
and who repeats your oscar-winning trolling performance of earlier
today will be back here to join you. (We moderate the present behavior
within the forum, not past behavior somewhere else).

Whatever chuck, you asked me to stop something here, you allowed on
your own board, justify it any way you want. The post you found
offensive here of mine did not even mention the name of any group,
then you let a thread go on your site directly addressing and calling
us names. It's all good Chuck, it's all good.. And as far as my
lifetime ban, don't tempt me, I have been in the business for a
loooooooong time. You are a hypocrite, nothing has changed...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would invite anybody inclined to pay serious attention to your
hysteria to visit the other group and view the thread you feel is
"calling us (rec.boaters) names". I think the offensive line is
something similar to
"It looks like the snarks intent on destroying rec.boats have finally
succeeded. Too bad." Maybe anybody who considers him or herself a
"snark" or somebody "intent on destroying rec.boats" should view the
actual remark in question and see if they feel as personally targeted
as you apparently do. I must agree, anybody "intent on destroying
rec.boats" was called a "snark", but unless you are addressing a group
known to be intent on destroying rec.boats its ridiculous to complain
that the thread "is calling us names." Merely accepting your version
of reality rather than investigating the actual facts would lead folks
otherwise underinformed to the wrong conclusion- (which, of course, is
your deliberate intent).

What business have you been in for a long time? Anonymously trolling
discussion groups? Raising hell on line? I'm sure you can sneak back
in if you're dedicated to doing so- but additional bad actions under a
new name, new email, and posted from a new computer will garner the
same results you experienced today. Why would you bother doing so? You
continue to proclaim your disdain for the other group and many of the
people associated with it, so why not remain where you are comfortable
and happy, and where chaos is the order of the day?

I'm done "contributing" to your friendly little banter here- for at
least another while, so take whatever dirty little shot you care to,
knowing full well that my back is turned. Insert the last word he

__________________________________________________ ________

On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On May 17, 11:10*am, wrote:
On May 17, 1:22*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

some snipped

"It looks like the snarks intent on destroying rec.boats have finally
succeeded. Too bad." Maybe anybody who considers him or herself a
"snark" or somebody "intent on destroying rec.boats" should view the
actual remark in question and see if they feel as personally targeted
as you apparently do. I must agree, anybody "intent on destroying
rec.boats" was called a "snark", but unless you are addressing a group
known to be intent on destroying rec.boats its ridiculous to complain
that the thread "is calling us names." Merely accepting your version
of reality rather than investigating the actual facts would lead folks
otherwise underinformed to the wrong conclusion- (which, of course, is
your deliberate intent).

Bull****!

Harry has called a certain group of people in rec.boats 'snarks' for
months. Perhaps you missed it? If he calls three people here 'snarks' and
then refers to the 'snarks' in your group, you can rationalize it?

You're good with words, but not that good.
--
John *H*

On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:13:43 -0400, "Jim" wrote:


wrote in message
...
Scotty, and I will try to leave this at that for now..

Hey! how many are you? I count Scotty, Floyd, Just Wait, and You.
Pay no never mind to what is said on Chuck's group. It's his group to deal
with as he sees fit. Be patient. Justice will be served.

Keep counting.
--
John *H*