Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Chuck,
Very good post, I think you've phrased the situation very well. I think
a lot of the "bad" posters are just looking for attention rather than an
exchange of ideas. I don't ALWAYS agree with you (most of the time I do),
but I appreciate your restraint and not sinking to the level of some of the
attackers, in short you take the high road. I believe that the first step to
changing someone's mind about something, you have to have that person
receptive to change, and you'll never get that by directly attacking them as
a person.
Paul

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
Do you find the majority of the OT posters interests are in flaming and
enjoying the insults instead of actually discussing any subject matter
seriously? While there are a few who enjoy the discussion, most are
interested in calling the people "trash" republican Nazis, liberal
bedwetters, doctor killers, baby

killers or my personal favorites "stupid
technician" and liar.

IMO, this group is not interested in discussing anything except how
ignorant
their opposition is.
Then you have a few who enjoy trolling for subjects just to see how easy
it
is to start a long running off topic thread.

Making rec.boats no different than the rest of the planet. :-)

Very few people are able to carry on an issues oriented discussion beyond
a
single, basic point or two. Some struggle to get that far. We modern folk
have
little regard for developing our minds through philosophical discourse. We
acquire our ideas ready made from various televangelizing and political
gurus,
and although few of us understand why we hold certain opinions, most of us
are
very loyal to our chosen brand of philosophy. Still, we all *feel* (as
oppopsed
to think or know) that certain things must somehow be right- and it's
human
nature to perceive ideas and people we can't understand as a threat. There
are
two customary ways to respond to the threat- one being to eliminate the
threat
by fostering understanding and the other to
attempt to drive the threatening element away by making the environment
unpleasant.

We all learn how to call names and argue at a very early age. 2 and 3 year
old
kids squabble over toys, and one of the first words used in social
interaction
between little babies is "mine!" Not everybody learns to reason and
evaluate
ideas separately from personalities, and not everybody learns to treat the
"opposition" with at least minimal courtesy, if not respect. It can be
difficult for any of us to summon up the maturity required to admit that
we are
often wrong, that none of our positions or opinions are unquestionable,
and
that the horrible person on the "wrong" side of a question probably has a
few
valuable points that would help us to grow if we considered them. Even so,
I do
believe there are a number of socially productive reasons for all of us to
endeavor to rise above whacking one another with stuffed animals and
hollering'"Mine!" all the time.

Childish insult and flame fests are going to make boring reading, whether
on-topic or off. IMO, the most unpleasant people in a group like this
aren't
those who think or believe certain things about boats, politics,
religion, or etc.....the most unpleasant people are those who choose to
behave
unpleasantly and have never learned, (or choose to ignore), the basic
conventions of
civil discussion.

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

On 15 Nov 2003 15:39:20 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

[reluctant snip]

Childish insult and flame fests are going to make boring reading, whether
on-topic or off. IMO, the most unpleasant people in a group like this aren't
those who think or believe certain things about boats, politics,
religion, or etc.....the most unpleasant people are those who choose to behave
unpleasantly and have never learned, (or choose to ignore), the basic
conventions of
civil discussion.

Chuck, thank you for a thoughtful--and, I think, dead accurate--post.

Joe Parsons

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.


I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.


I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?


There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.


And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.


They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Chuck, do you enjoy the level of OT posting found here?

I don't mind it. If I go to a marine trade event or a yacht club meeting,
everybody is discussing a wide variety of subjects that certainly include
boats. It has been my practice to avoid being among the leaders in initiating
OT posts, but I'm not shy about contributing an opinion to the pot once it's
boiling.

You and I are both guilty of that. But that's a cop out answer. The "I
didn't start it" defense, may justify it to oneself, but the ensuing
banter is equally culpable. It takes two to tango (or debate). Not that
I'm not excluding myself in this catergory either.



Do you enjoy the personal attacks that outnumber the boating-related
posts?

No, of course not. That's a separate issue from the OT posts. In most cases,
the people who resort to personal attack are either not particularly adept in
social discourse, or (more often) become frustrated with a lack of mental or
verbal ability to discuss a subject on an issues basis. That frustration is
often manifest by name-calling and flaming. Such behavior is more commonly
encountered in emotionally charged topics like politics and religion- but it is
also a regular element in on-topic posts.
(Bayliner, anyone?)

Right. So what you're really saying is that off-topic posts would be
welcomed as long as they were handled with some modicum of composure and
decency.

Posting cut and paste Op-Ed articles just to provoke the
all-too-predictable result, is one of the most flagrent forms of
reckless violations of civil discussions.


It's the tone of so many of the posts that is disturbing, more so than the
subject matter. Too many times the group forgets how to disagree without
becoming disagreeable. I'm sure we have all been guilty at times.

Amen to that!

Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

I would ask you, though, if you think it
reasonable to keep the topics either related to boating, or respectful
in nature if OT?

Most of the time, I support respectful posting. Other than that, I'm for as few
rules as we can get away with.

but I gotta' ask
why you don't seem to take a position, or offer an alternative,
regarding blatant OT posting.

because I'm not one of the 2 or 3 people postin to the NG who can claim any
sort of
virginity in the OT category. When it comes to OT, I'm a whore- not a maiden.

Sometimes you appear to have no
opinion, other times you seem to protest against "moderation". As a
born Irishman, I assure you that I have no interest in "moderation".

IMO, it's not within my rights to dictate what another person can say or where
they can say it. I have stated a preference for *how* people should try to
exchange ideas, but nobody died and left me in charge. Each of us has to be
responsible for him or herself.

Those who believe its OK to do nothing but
flame, troll, pick fights, etc under the current system (or lack of same) won't
feel any differently if there are more stringent rules in place. The
determining factor is how each of us see ourselves and our place in the world,
rather than what we think the rules of the NG are, or ought to be.

I sincerely believe the outrage about OT posts would be less if there were a
more manageable number of them and if people
behaved respectfully toward one another.

From a personal standpoint, I always feel particularly badly when somebody from
the left side of the spectrum gets mean and nasty and starts calling names,
etc.
It's a fundament precept of liberalism that other people are entitled to their
ideas, too, and that there is no danger in comparing and contrasting
perspectives and opinions.
The left should encourage debate, discussion, and dissent.

It's more understandable when folks who feel that above all else we must stick
with what they believe is "tried and true" get nervous about ideas that are
somewhat otside the main stream, but: any idea that cannot withstand a
challenge from an opposite concept is so extremely weak it
should be reevaluated in any event. Personally, I don't feel threatened when a
partisan from the right expresses an opinion.

We each have things we could learn from one another, but the entire process is
frustrated when our counterpoints are
cloaked in flame and insult.


I knew there was a reason why I respect you Chuck. Thank you for helping
to re-enforce it.....


Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Paul Garcia wrote:
Gould,
Do you find the majority of the OT posters interests are in flaming and
enjoying the insults instead of actually discussing any subject matter
seriously? While there are a few who enjoy the discussion, most are
interested in calling the people "trash" republican Nazis, liberal
bedwetters, doctor killers, baby killers or my personal favorites "stupid
technician" and liar.
IMO, this group is not interested in discussing anything except how ignorant
their opposition is.

Yep. Same old asswiper who's been here before under other IDs.

Plonk.



Here's a prime example of what causes a civil discussion to derail.

Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Gould,
Do you find the majority of the OT posters interests are in flaming and
enjoying the insults instead of actually discussing any subject matter
seriously? While there are a few who enjoy the discussion, most are
interested in calling the people "trash" republican Nazis, liberal
bedwetters, doctor killers, baby

killers or my personal favorites "stupid
technician" and liar.

IMO, this group is not interested in discussing anything except how ignorant
their opposition is.
Then you have a few who enjoy trolling for subjects just to see how easy it
is to start a long running off topic thread.

Making rec.boats no different than the rest of the planet. :-)

Very few people are able to carry on an issues oriented discussion beyond a
single, basic point or two. Some struggle to get that far. We modern folk have
little regard for developing our minds through philosophical discourse. We
acquire our ideas ready made from various televangelizing and political gurus,
and although few of us understand why we hold certain opinions, most of us are
very loyal to our chosen brand of philosophy. Still, we all *feel* (as oppopsed
to think or know) that certain things must somehow be right- and it's human
nature to perceive ideas and people we can't understand as a threat. There are
two customary ways to respond to the threat- one being to eliminate the threat
by fostering understanding and the other to
attempt to drive the threatening element away by making the environment
unpleasant.


Then there are those of us who understand both sides of the issue, and
attempt to rationalize it through logic and an understanding of human
nature based on historical performance data and make our choice based on
that rationalization.


We all learn how to call names and argue at a very early age. 2 and 3 year old
kids squabble over toys, and one of the first words used in social interaction
between little babies is "mine!" Not everybody learns to reason and evaluate
ideas separately from personalities, and not everybody learns to treat the
"opposition" with at least minimal courtesy, if not respect. It can be
difficult for any of us to summon up the maturity required to admit that we are
often wrong, that none of our positions or opinions are unquestionable, and
that the horrible person on the "wrong" side of a question probably has a few
valuable points that would help us to grow if we considered them. Even so, I do
believe there are a number of socially productive reasons for all of us to
endeavor to rise above whacking one another with stuffed animals and
hollering'"Mine!" all the time.

Childish insult and flame fests are going to make boring reading, whether
on-topic or off. IMO, the most unpleasant people in a group like this aren't
those who think or believe certain things about boats, politics,
religion, or etc.....the most unpleasant people are those who choose to behave
unpleasantly and have never learned, (or choose to ignore), the basic
conventions of civil discussion.

I've often stated that people who result to insults, are either insecure
in their own position, are unwilling to consider other options, or
simply have no rational response to superior debate skills.


Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"

Joe Parsons

They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

The rights of people to express themselves in public (within limts) is
guaranteed. However a private company can set rules to restrict certain
behaviors. Thus begins the tug of war between the right to express an
opinion in a public place (a newgroup forum), and the private company
who provides the access right to set limitations. That doesn't stop the
endless debates on the subjectivity used in determining when someone
"crosses the line".



I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

Like I've always said, it takes two to tango. If someone put up an
inflammatory OT post, and no one responded to it, it would wither and
die. We need to collectively exersise more self control when we respond
to, and unwittingly perpetuate these OT posts, which usually degenerate
into name-calling sessions.



There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"


Based on the position where the thought came forth in your post.

Dave

Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
 

Dave,
Well said.
Paul

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
deleted
I've often stated that people who result to insults, are either insecure
in their own position, are unwilling to consider other options, or
simply have no rational response to superior debate skills.


Dave