|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
|
Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
wrote:
Skipper wrote:
Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.
I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be.
ad·mo·ni·tion
n.
1- Mild, kind, yet earnest reproof.
2- Cautionary advice or warning.
Middle English amonicioun, from Old French amonition, from Latin
admonitio, admonition-, from admonitus, past participle of admonere, to
admonish.
Sorry to see you take this mendacious tack again, Chuck. Your post was
clearly a veiled admonition to JimH. Old habits, huh?
Jim has every right to express his opinion. I have every right to disagree.
JimH presents as obtuse. Suppose that's not a crime, but his 30 or so
daily mindless musings only clutter and degrade the NG, IMO.
As he points out, as long as we avoid personal insults and name calling,
that's not such a bad thing.
You contend he avoids the personal insults? Take a closer look...or
check out a.politics.
The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.
I believe it's a sign that some just don't have the ability or bent to
discuss boats and boating to the degree of their 'contributions' here.
They simply go that route to mask their boating ignorance.
If we want to be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer
total posts per day in order to attract a greater number of particpants
and posts. As we were, we were seeing example after example of new people
coming to the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running
for the exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?
And as I stated above, we must follow the example set in the cruising NG
if we're going to be successful in having a useful forum.
Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?
Yes, they do.
--
Skipper
|