I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats. It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible, even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal," those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.

These "discussions" are not about politics, at all. They are about saying
whatever you can think of to insult, demean and degrade the other "side."
"Liberals" are accused of desiring the failure of our country's economy so as to
further their party's political agenda; "conservatives" are said to be cynically
aligning themselves with a war that was initiated for financial gain.

Know what? There's some merit to each of these beliefs; people of good will and
patriotism can and do believe that the current administration's course and
policies are justified and correct. And people of good will and patriotism also
happen to believe just the opposite. But here, where the combatants are for the
most part masked in comforting anonymity, there is a near-perfect lack of
civility. That's understandable, given that the constraints in face-to-face
conversation that act as a sort of governor in "real life" don't exist here.

Newsgroup veterans will say, "Just ignore the people and threads you don't
like," and they'd be right--but the sheer volume of these consistently nasty
threads creates a certain kind of atmosphere that is almost palpable. And there
is a certain kind of morbid fascination that seems to drive us--any of us--to
read some of these threads, if only to see just how far they will descend.

I am every bit as guilty as anyone else of perpetrating (and perpetuating) these
threads. Sure, my complaints are somewhat general--about the chronic logical
fallacies, factual errors (especially about certain aspects of finance), and the
fact that this kind of bickering serves only to reveal more unsavory aspects of
people's personality than we might like to see.

Yesterday, there was a post from an anonymous, thoroughgoing coward, attacking
one of the regular participants here in the crudest personal terms. It is clear
that this person--probably another rec.boats "regular" posting from an anonymous
remailer--holds a different political view from the target of his abuse, even
though his screeds are purely personal, delivered while cowering behind his
remailer.

People like this are part of the Usenet landscape, and easily ignored; there is
no way that any reasonable person can condone this sort of behavior. Yet in
that thoroughly ridiculous thread, there were posts from other people who
identify themselves as being of the opposite political view from the target of
the abuse--one of those even seemed (to my eye) to relish the abuse being heaped
on another. To me, that's tantamount to condoning it.

But that has become par for the course in rec.boats. It is about being able to
score "points" against one's adversary--and, having done so, to gloat. It is
certainly not about boats and boating.

Will the newsgroup recover? I have no idea--but I do know that, for the time
being, at least, it will go in whatever direction it will without me.

Some of you may say, "No big loss;" but for each person like me, who has
bothered to write about this when unsubscribing, don't you wonder how many
others--people who might actually be interested in boats--have taken a quick
look at the tenor of these posts, and simply split? Doesn't the conspicuous
dearth of boating content bother anyone? One person acting alone cannot turn
that around.

Rec.boats has a long history as one of the first newsgroups on Usenet. Like
most other newsgroups, it has been through its changes. Maybe it will be about
boats again one day. I hope someone will drop me a line to tell me, should that
happen.

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some
good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I
hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated
newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly
involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly
discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats.
It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of
many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone
holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible,
even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal,"
those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.


Joe,

I'm sorry about the signal-to-noise ratio going off the charts but there's a
reason. We're in a highly charged period of deep division in the country
and the it's precipitating exaggerated partisan politics. It started with
the 2000 election and, subsided for a while after 911. But the country is
heading in a direction that's causing more division than I've experienced
since the mid-sixties.

I, for one, can't help arguing the points. I'm really sorry we're losing
you as you've been a voice of reason. Those among us who are more extreme
in our views are likely to drive moderates out of the discussion no matter
the forum and that's a problem.

Here's an article from the LA Times that talks about what's happening in the
country according to the Pew Research Center. I hope this improves before
it gets worse but I'm not hopefull. The injection of religious themes into
politics and public policy has served to polarize the country further.



Survey Finds Americans Are Increasingly Divided

Republicans make gains as their differences with Democrats on key issues
grow more pronounced.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON - Across a range of domestic and foreign policy issues, the gap
between the views of Republican and Democratic partisans is now wider than
at any point in the last 16 years, a major new survey has found.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, portrays a nation profoundly polarized between two political camps
that are virtually identical in size but inimical in their beliefs on
virtually all major questions.

The center, which began measuring public opinion in 1987, found in its new
poll that the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats was greater
than ever on topics such as national security, the social safety net, big
business and equal rights for minorities.

"The extraordinary spirit of national unity that followed the calamitous
events of Sept. 11, 2001, has dissolved amid rising polarization and anger,"
said Andrew Kohut, Pew's director.

Since the terrorist attacks, according to the new poll, the share of
Americans who consider themselves Republicans has increased to the point
that the GOP, for the first time since the party's takeover of Congress in
1994, has drawn even with Democrats in public support.

The poll also found voters split almost exactly in half on whether they
intend to support President Bush or a Democrat in the 2004 presidential
race - and dividing along the same lines of class, race, gender and
religious attitudes as in the razor-thin election of 2000.

"It is still the 50-50 nation," Kohut said.

The poll measured the views of 2,528 adults, an unusually large sample, from
July 14 through Aug. 5. The group polled another 1,515 adults from Oct. 15
through Oct. 19 to update opinions on Bush and the war in Iraq. It has a
margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for the October survey,
and 2 percentage points for the questions posed in the summer.

The survey captures several long-term shifts in the currents of U.S.
politics. Among the key trends:

Polarized Views

Across a battery of 24 questions measuring political and policy attitudes,
the survey found that the average difference between Republican and
Democratic attitudes is about 50% larger than in the late 1980s.

On specific issues, 72% of Democrats now say government should do more to
help needy people even if that means a bigger federal budget deficit, while
39% of Republicans agree. That 33-point difference is the largest the poll
has recorded.

Likewise, while 69% of Republicans say the best way to ensure peace is
through military strength, 44% of Democrats agree. That 25-point gap is also
the largest the poll has recorded - and nearly triple the difference in
polls taken as recently as 1997.

The gap is also the widest it's been on the question of whether corporations
make too much profit: Nearly three-quarters of Democrats agree, compared
with just less than half of Republicans.

Looking solely at white voters, the poll found 55% of Republicans compared
with 34% of Democrats agreed that "we have gone too far in pushing equal
rights in this country" - that, too, is the largest gap the survey has
recorded.

On other policy choices, the poll reported that more than four-fifths of
Republicans believed preemptive war was often or sometimes justified,
compared with half of Democrats. Similarly, while 85% of Republicans
believed it was the right decision to invade Iraq, 54% of Democrats said it
was wrong.

On virtually all of these issues, independents typically take positions that
fall in between the attitudes expressed by partisans. But there is some
evidence in the survey that independents also are polarizing between those
who lean toward the Democrats and those closer to the GOP. For instance, on
both the peace-through-strength and government-aid-to-the-needy questions,
attitudes among voters who lean Democratic or Republican are virtually
indistinguishable from members of each party.

Within this overall pattern of polarization, the survey found that
Democratic voters moved markedly to the left since the Clinton
administration. The percentage of Democrats who said government should do
more to help the needy has jumped by nearly a fourth since 1999, while the
share who accepted the peace-through-strength argument has plummeted by more
than a fifth since 1997.

That movement, analysts say, may reflect both the waning influence of
Clinton, who offered a mostly centrist agenda, and the sharp Democratic
backlash against Bush.

Republican attitudes on these questions, although still predominantly
conservative, have changed less in recent years.

In their attitudes toward the political parties, Americans are increasingly
dividing along lines of values.

In 1987, Pew found about 7 in 10 Republican and Democratic voters expressed
strong religious beliefs in their answers to questions meant to measure such
attitudes. Today, the figures for Democrats are the same, while the share of
Republicans with strong religious beliefs has edged up near 80%.

Division in Values

The study found religious belief is now as strong a factor as income in
predicting which party voters will support. And like other recent studies,
the poll suggests that religious practice may be an even stronger predictor
of partisan behavior than religious belief. The survey found that one of the
sharpest divides in attitudes toward Bush's reelection followed the
frequency of church attendance.

Overall, the poll found voters split evenly, 43% to 43%, on whether they
would prefer Bush or an unnamed Democrat in 2004. But Bush led by 26
percentage points among voters who attended church at least once a week, and
among those who attended either weekly or a few times a month. Those who
attended church only once or twice a year gave the Democrat a narrow margin,
while those who attended rarely or never preferred the Democrat by 24
points.

That stark division tracked almost identically the pattern found by exit
polls in the 2000 race between Bush and Democrat Al Gore.

Growing Tolerance

The poll reported greater tolerance since 1987 on several questions
involving race and homosexuality. Although gaps still exist along party and
religious lines, the trend toward tolerance is significant among both
Democrats and Republicans, and the religiously devout and the secular.

For instance, the share of Americans who believe "it's all right for blacks
and whites to date" has jumped from 48% in 1987 to 76% now. The share who
say school boards should have the right to fire known homosexuals has
dropped from 52% in 1987 to 35% today, with the declines consistent across
lines of partisanship, income and religious belief. Divisions remain greater
on abortion, with half of Republicans saying they support stricter laws
against the practice, while 70% of Democrats oppose such efforts.

Partisan Balance

Combining all of its surveys since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pew Center
found the two parties drawing almost exactly equal support from the public,
with 31% of adults calling themselves Democrats and 30% Republicans. (The
rest didn't identify with either side.)

That's an improvement for the GOP since the late 1990s, when Pew surveys
gave the Democrats a 6-percentage-point edge. Since World War II, polls by
various organizations have found Republicans even in partisan identification
with the Democrats only twice: toward the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency
in 1988 and immediately after the GOP congressional landslide in 1994.

Ominously for Democrats, Pew found gains for the GOP above the national
average in several swing states, including Iowa, Michigan, West Virginia,
Minnesota and Florida.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
snip it all

The truth is that some idiots who can't control themselves and are so
arrogant that they feel that they can do what they damn well please wherever
and whenever they want to attempt to further some dubious objective are so
seriously polluting the newsgroup that the rewards of attempting to read it
are approaching zero.

It used to just be harry and skipper, and a few entries to the kill file
alleviated that. Now it is a whole flock of idiots who have no self control
or sense of responsibility. It's like spam, no matter how one filters the
garbage swamps one.

Is there some reason that the rest of us have to be subjected to this crap?
Why don't you off topic posers take your stuff to DU or FR or talk.politics
or alt.flame or anywhere but here?

del cecchi

It really amazed me to see the number of off-topic posts in this group. I
came here to learn about boats and boating. My questions were answered and
the group was a big help. But wading through all the trash has become too
much.

I logged in this afternoon and there were 128 new posts. After deleting the
OT's there were 24. This ratio varies here but 5:1 isn't atypical.

There are other boating newsgroups and in them I don't see any OT posts so
it's not a necessary part of usenet.

I remember other other non-boating groups in the past that somehow became a
target of spammers which killed the groups. OT is spam and regardless of the
specific ratio on a given day it constantly outnumbers on-topic posts.

The "did not/did too" bickering and name calling leaks into boating related
threads, you just have to look at the "trailer tires" thread to see an
example of how the bile spreads.

The mean spirited post by the guy using the remailer should have been
ignored. It should have been left to die alone with no replies but instead
it turns into a hot thread. That speaks volumes.

Is it unpleasant enough to drive people away? Obviously it is.

It can only be stopped by those who post the OT. It can only be stopped if
they stop posting OT.

It's pretty simple.

Joe,

When you are right, you are so right!

My boat is sleeping under a tarp until spring.
I will be off the group until I am boating again.

Mark Browne


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some
good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I
hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated
newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly
involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly
discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats.
It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of
many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone
holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible,
even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal,"
those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.

These "discussions" are not about politics, at all. They are about saying
whatever you can think of to insult, demean and degrade the other "side."
"Liberals" are accused of desiring the failure of our country's economy so
as to
further their party's political agenda; "conservatives" are said to be
cynically
aligning themselves with a war that was initiated for financial gain.

Know what? There's some merit to each of these beliefs; people of good
will and
patriotism can and do believe that the current administration's course and
policies are justified and correct. And people of good will and
patriotism also
happen to believe just the opposite. But here, where the combatants are
for the
most part masked in comforting anonymity, there is a near-perfect lack of
civility. That's understandable, given that the constraints in
face-to-face
conversation that act as a sort of governor in "real life" don't exist
here.

Newsgroup veterans will say, "Just ignore the people and threads you don't
like," and they'd be right--but the sheer volume of these consistently
nasty
threads creates a certain kind of atmosphere that is almost palpable. And
there
is a certain kind of morbid fascination that seems to drive us--any of
us--to
read some of these threads, if only to see just how far they will descend.

I am every bit as guilty as anyone else of perpetrating (and perpetuating)
these
threads. Sure, my complaints are somewhat general--about the chronic
logical
fallacies, factual errors (especially about certain aspects of finance),
and the
fact that this kind of bickering serves only to reveal more unsavory
aspects of
people's personality than we might like to see.

Yesterday, there was a post from an anonymous, thoroughgoing coward,
attacking
one of the regular participants here in the crudest personal terms. It is
clear
that this person--probably another rec.boats "regular" posting from an
anonymous
remailer--holds a different political view from the target of his abuse,
even
though his screeds are purely personal, delivered while cowering behind
his
remailer.

People like this are part of the Usenet landscape, and easily ignored;
there is
no way that any reasonable person can condone this sort of behavior. Yet
in
that thoroughly ridiculous thread, there were posts from other people who
identify themselves as being of the opposite political view from the
target of
the abuse--one of those even seemed (to my eye) to relish the abuse being
heaped
on another. To me, that's tantamount to condoning it.

But that has become par for the course in rec.boats. It is about being
able to
score "points" against one's adversary--and, having done so, to gloat. It
is
certainly not about boats and boating.

Will the newsgroup recover? I have no idea--but I do know that, for the
time
being, at least, it will go in whatever direction it will without me.

Some of you may say, "No big loss;" but for each person like me, who has
bothered to write about this when unsubscribing, don't you wonder how many
others--people who might actually be interested in boats--have taken a
quick
look at the tenor of these posts, and simply split? Doesn't the
conspicuous
dearth of boating content bother anyone? One person acting alone cannot
turn
that around.

Rec.boats has a long history as one of the first newsgroups on Usenet.
Like
most other newsgroups, it has been through its changes. Maybe it will be
about
boats again one day. I hope someone will drop me a line to tell me,
should that
happen.

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:05:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats. It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible, even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal," those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.

These "discussions" are not about politics, at all. They are about saying
whatever you can think of to insult, demean and degrade the other "side."
"Liberals" are accused of desiring the failure of our country's economy so as to
further their party's political agenda; "conservatives" are said to be cynically
aligning themselves with a war that was initiated for financial gain.

Know what? There's some merit to each of these beliefs; people of good will and
patriotism can and do believe that the current administration's course and
policies are justified and correct. And people of good will and patriotism also
happen to believe just the opposite. But here, where the combatants are for the
most part masked in comforting anonymity, there is a near-perfect lack of
civility. That's understandable, given that the constraints in face-to-face
conversation that act as a sort of governor in "real life" don't exist here.

Newsgroup veterans will say, "Just ignore the people and threads you don't
like," and they'd be right--but the sheer volume of these consistently nasty
threads creates a certain kind of atmosphere that is almost palpable. And there
is a certain kind of morbid fascination that seems to drive us--any of us--to
read some of these threads, if only to see just how far they will descend.

I am every bit as guilty as anyone else of perpetrating (and perpetuating) these
threads. Sure, my complaints are somewhat general--about the chronic logical
fallacies, factual errors (especially about certain aspects of finance), and the
fact that this kind of bickering serves only to reveal more unsavory aspects of
people's personality than we might like to see.

Yesterday, there was a post from an anonymous, thoroughgoing coward, attacking
one of the regular participants here in the crudest personal terms. It is clear
that this person--probably another rec.boats "regular" posting from an anonymous
remailer--holds a different political view from the target of his abuse, even
though his screeds are purely personal, delivered while cowering behind his
remailer.

People like this are part of the Usenet landscape, and easily ignored; there is
no way that any reasonable person can condone this sort of behavior. Yet in
that thoroughly ridiculous thread, there were posts from other people who
identify themselves as being of the opposite political view from the target of
the abuse--one of those even seemed (to my eye) to relish the abuse being heaped
on another. To me, that's tantamount to condoning it.

But that has become par for the course in rec.boats. It is about being able to
score "points" against one's adversary--and, having done so, to gloat. It is
certainly not about boats and boating.

Will the newsgroup recover? I have no idea--but I do know that, for the time
being, at least, it will go in whatever direction it will without me.

Some of you may say, "No big loss;" but for each person like me, who has
bothered to write about this when unsubscribing, don't you wonder how many
others--people who might actually be interested in boats--have taken a quick
look at the tenor of these posts, and simply split? Doesn't the conspicuous
dearth of boating content bother anyone? One person acting alone cannot turn
that around.

Rec.boats has a long history as one of the first newsgroups on Usenet. Like
most other newsgroups, it has been through its changes. Maybe it will be about
boats again one day. I hope someone will drop me a line to tell me, should that
happen.

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

All of you could make a difference here. When I first offered to try
to create rec.boats.lounge (or something similar) to welcome the OT
posting, the support I got was from "average-joe" boaters. People who
didn't come here every day, but when they did, they were discouraged
by all the OT. The response was appreciated, but probably not
effective enough to make a change.

With one (1) exception, no newsgroup "reg" supported my proposal.
Since changes or additions to the newsgroup heirarchy must be
proposed, defended, and voted on, I didn't think there was enough
support to be worth the effort. I'm still not sure, since only one
"reg" has bothered to write.

If you believe that rec.boats deserves better, then speak up!
My email is valid, just get past the spamtrap.
Don't bitch about it. Do something about it.
Get off your butt and help, or at least give your opinion concerning
the group. No vote will succede without advice and support from the
regs.

Regards,
Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )

Sorry to see you go Joe.

CF

Joe Parsons wrote:

I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats. It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible, even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal," those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.

These "discussions" are not about politics, at all. They are about saying
whatever you can think of to insult, demean and degrade the other "side."
"Liberals" are accused of desiring the failure of our country's economy so as to
further their party's political agenda; "conservatives" are said to be cynically
aligning themselves with a war that was initiated for financial gain.

Know what? There's some merit to each of these beliefs; people of good will and
patriotism can and do believe that the current administration's course and
policies are justified and correct. And people of good will and patriotism also
happen to believe just the opposite. But here, where the combatants are for the
most part masked in comforting anonymity, there is a near-perfect lack of
civility. That's understandable, given that the constraints in face-to-face
conversation that act as a sort of governor in "real life" don't exist here.

Newsgroup veterans will say, "Just ignore the people and threads you don't
like," and they'd be right--but the sheer volume of these consistently nasty
threads creates a certain kind of atmosphere that is almost palpable. And there
is a certain kind of morbid fascination that seems to drive us--any of us--to
read some of these threads, if only to see just how far they will descend.

I am every bit as guilty as anyone else of perpetrating (and perpetuating) these
threads. Sure, my complaints are somewhat general--about the chronic logical
fallacies, factual errors (especially about certain aspects of finance), and the
fact that this kind of bickering serves only to reveal more unsavory aspects of
people's personality than we might like to see.

Yesterday, there was a post from an anonymous, thoroughgoing coward, attacking
one of the regular participants here in the crudest personal terms. It is clear
that this person--probably another rec.boats "regular" posting from an anonymous
remailer--holds a different political view from the target of his abuse, even
though his screeds are purely personal, delivered while cowering behind his
remailer.

People like this are part of the Usenet landscape, and easily ignored; there is
no way that any reasonable person can condone this sort of behavior. Yet in
that thoroughly ridiculous thread, there were posts from other people who
identify themselves as being of the opposite political view from the target of
the abuse--one of those even seemed (to my eye) to relish the abuse being heaped
on another. To me, that's tantamount to condoning it.

But that has become par for the course in rec.boats. It is about being able to
score "points" against one's adversary--and, having done so, to gloat. It is
certainly not about boats and boating.

Will the newsgroup recover? I have no idea--but I do know that, for the time
being, at least, it will go in whatever direction it will without me.

Some of you may say, "No big loss;" but for each person like me, who has
bothered to write about this when unsubscribing, don't you wonder how many
others--people who might actually be interested in boats--have taken a quick
look at the tenor of these posts, and simply split? Doesn't the conspicuous
dearth of boating content bother anyone? One person acting alone cannot turn
that around.

Rec.boats has a long history as one of the first newsgroups on Usenet. Like
most other newsgroups, it has been through its changes. Maybe it will be about
boats again one day. I hope someone will drop me a line to tell me, should that
happen.

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:05:42 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

It's well nigh impossible to avoid off-topic chatter in unmoderated newsgroups,
and I don't think it's necessary to limit posts to topics that strictly involve
boating. When we hang around the docks and marinas IRL, we certainly discuss
many topics there.

I have never complained about the "signal to noise ratio" in rec.boats. It
would be hypocritical of me to do so, since I often post about things that
depart from the nominal topic of the newsgroup. What I *have* complained
about--obviously with no effect--is the consistently rancorous tone of many of
these "discussions." If you identify yourself as "conservative," anyone holding
a different view is somehow morally deficient, unpatriotic, irresponsible, even
of questionable sexual orientation. If you consider yourself a "liberal," those
others are "right wing trash," warmongers, liars, exploiters, fascists and
worse.

These "discussions" are not about politics, at all. They are about saying
whatever you can think of to insult, demean and degrade the other "side."
"Liberals" are accused of desiring the failure of our country's economy so as to
further their party's political agenda; "conservatives" are said to be cynically
aligning themselves with a war that was initiated for financial gain.

Know what? There's some merit to each of these beliefs; people of good will and
patriotism can and do believe that the current administration's course and
policies are justified and correct. And people of good will and patriotism also
happen to believe just the opposite. But here, where the combatants are for the
most part masked in comforting anonymity, there is a near-perfect lack of
civility. That's understandable, given that the constraints in face-to-face
conversation that act as a sort of governor in "real life" don't exist here.

Newsgroup veterans will say, "Just ignore the people and threads you don't
like," and they'd be right--but the sheer volume of these consistently nasty
threads creates a certain kind of atmosphere that is almost palpable. And there
is a certain kind of morbid fascination that seems to drive us--any of us--to
read some of these threads, if only to see just how far they will descend.

I am every bit as guilty as anyone else of perpetrating (and perpetuating) these
threads. Sure, my complaints are somewhat general--about the chronic logical
fallacies, factual errors (especially about certain aspects of finance), and the
fact that this kind of bickering serves only to reveal more unsavory aspects of
people's personality than we might like to see.

Yesterday, there was a post from an anonymous, thoroughgoing coward, attacking
one of the regular participants here in the crudest personal terms. It is clear
that this person--probably another rec.boats "regular" posting from an anonymous
remailer--holds a different political view from the target of his abuse, even
though his screeds are purely personal, delivered while cowering behind his
remailer.

People like this are part of the Usenet landscape, and easily ignored; there is
no way that any reasonable person can condone this sort of behavior. Yet in
that thoroughly ridiculous thread, there were posts from other people who
identify themselves as being of the opposite political view from the target of
the abuse--one of those even seemed (to my eye) to relish the abuse being heaped
on another. To me, that's tantamount to condoning it.

But that has become par for the course in rec.boats. It is about being able to
score "points" against one's adversary--and, having done so, to gloat. It is
certainly not about boats and boating.

Will the newsgroup recover? I have no idea--but I do know that, for the time
being, at least, it will go in whatever direction it will without me.

Some of you may say, "No big loss;" but for each person like me, who has
bothered to write about this when unsubscribing, don't you wonder how many
others--people who might actually be interested in boats--have taken a quick
look at the tenor of these posts, and simply split? Doesn't the conspicuous
dearth of boating content bother anyone? One person acting alone cannot turn
that around.

Rec.boats has a long history as one of the first newsgroups on Usenet. Like
most other newsgroups, it has been through its changes. Maybe it will be about
boats again one day. I hope someone will drop me a line to tell me, should that
happen.

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

Joe, on a personal level, you are an asset to this group.

Aside from the fact that I like your prose, the group needs people
that care about "the group". Without advocates, this group could
easily become a total spam dump. It is happening already.

If regs want to talk OT, then let's create a welcome forum for it, not
burn down our own house because of it, or drown rec.boats in OT posts.

There is room for everyone, and every viewpoint, but only if there is
some basic cooperation and respect.

If you need a break, enjoy it. I hope that you'll come back with a
new energy and focus to help get this group back to "boating".

Regards,
Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )

"Joe Parsons" wrote...
I've been hanging out here off and on for quite some time. I've met some
good
people, made some friends, learned some things--even about boating--and, I
hope,
have contributed positively to this virtual community.

[trimmed]

But for now, I am...out of here.

Joe Parsons

Sorry to see you go Joe, I've appreciated your thoughts. Take care.
-rick-