Yeah, it's a public forum but the subject is recreational boating.
I've blocked several senders because I don't think they have ever made a
contribution and I have blocked messages that have OT or Off Topic in the
subject.
Even so, it seems that there is less boating info than ever, and I am more
selective than ever in what I read.
Should it be a moderated NG? I don't know who the moderator would be. And I
don't know if a moderator could be trusted to only eliminate OT stuff.
So, I'll continue to screen the subject line and only read the few posts
that may actually have something positive to contribute and ignore all the
other stuff.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Headed out the door to do a little business.

'Fore I go, Noah asked me to state an opinion and I thought about it a
while.
Can't find the thread it was attached to. Sorry.

The NG belongs to everybody. It's a public forum. The value of a forum is
that
it functions as a place where ideas can be freely exchanged. Our topic is
supposed to be "boating," yet many of the people here do not own a boat or
never comment about any boating they might do. The question before us is:
"Do
we restrict the NG to boaters and wannabe boaters only?" (or at least
people
who want to discuss only topics rather directly related to boating).
Arguments
can be made for and against, with some merit in either case.

My opinion is that if the majority of the participants want the content
restricted, moderated, censored, and policed by individual ISP's, then
that is
exactly what should be done. I would be among the minority in such a
decision,
and would regret the turn the NG was taking. At the same time, enough
people
participate here who lack the self respect to exert any self control over
the
tone, content, and
intent of the petty or offensive posts they produce that it is
understandable
how many people are put off by the so-called discussions. Some of these
people
are truly "poison pens." Would those people who lack the necessary self
respect
somehow miraculously respect a list of "rules and regulations"? Likely
not.
Is there a danger of deteriorating (even more so) into a group of
bridge-playing dowagers, staring accusatorialy across the top of little
bifocals to make sure
"so and so" isn't cheating somehow?

The more unrestricted rec.boats can be, the closer it resembles the real
world.
The world where arguments are more often impassioned than logical. A world
where insult, slander, gossip and personal attack are common currency. A
world
where many feel it is more important to "win" an argument than to be
right.
Should there be places in such a world where everybody agrees to behave in
a
civil manner and exchange ideas restricted to subjects agreed upon in
advance?
Yes, that would be nice.....but is it realistic?

Know what's missing from most of the censored and moderated sites, IMO?
They aren't at all dynamic. While they reflect a greater concentration of
on-topic material, reading through them is a boring as watching a tortise
race.

So, Noah, and the other people who even give a rat's behind about my
opinion
(both of you, maybe), the group should take rec.boats whatever direction
the
group wants it to go. There will be some who would not stay with the
changed
group, but that's the general point, right? Whatever losses the group
suffers
from dropouts will likely be made up by enthusiastic newcomers when the
transition to a more highly restricted format is complete.