Chuck Gould wrote:

A dynamic boating newsgroup would be a group where different people
contribute from their own unique perspective, allowing everybody to
gain a wider perspective and appreciation of the pastime. If you feel
that my particular boating experiences or perspectives aren't of
interest to you, they may be of interest to somebody else.

That's true. And, for the record, I've never once said that your posts
weren't germane to the nature of the newsgroup. In fact, I think you
would find quite the opposite. And, if you care to check, I have been
more than effusive in recommending your magazine as a good read full of
talented writers and edited by a pro.

My point was this - you want something that is unachievable in a group
in which the participants are, but their very nature, interested in
everything from soup to nuts. It is of no benefit to you to constantly
rail against the tide and all it does is create the very situation that
you abhor by attracting to you the very ones whose existence here is
fold, spindle and mutilate.

In essence to share differing interests is a natural function in a
community where individual life experience varies from the sublime to
the outrageous. Should you have taken your posts on bagpipes to
rec.music.bagpipes.annoying.the.neighbors.suicide. to.the.point.of?

Put it another way. If you go to your yacht club holiday celebration
(pick a holiday - any holiday) do you just discuss boats, cruising, the
latest in GPS technology or does the discussion among groups scattered
about wander to concerts, local events, shools, politics?

Consider this that type of party - a place where discussions are
curiosities that should be enjoyed - if they are specific to the
purpose, fine - if not, who cares.

90% of what
you post here is entirely OT and profoundly uninteresting to me, but
IMO as long as you aren't actively trolling for a fight (as some of
the other OT specialists prefer to do) your activity is harmless
clutter. Your daily links to You-tube videos always seem to find one
or two interested respondents. Even if your posts were "harmful"
clutter, beyond expressing an opinion there would be nothing that
could be done about it.

I beg to differ. It's actually about 50/50 and where appropriate, in
threads where I might have knowledge or insight to share, I certainly do
so without reservation.

What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.

Perhaps we won't ever see eye to eye on this issue, but that doesn't
have to mean that either one of us is a bad guy.

I would agree with that.

Don't like my stuff, don't read it.

Well, I might say the same.

Surely you must have a filter?

Why yes I do, but that's the difference between you and me. I don't
censor myself to "boating" - I like to see what others think, how they
express themselves, how they behave in a confrontation - it's endlessly
fascinating and often amusing - the follies of social interaction if you
will. You get a sense of personality - it's an endless theater of the
mind almost as good as old time radio.

You can't beat it.