On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

[snip]

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 agree: it's not likely to stop the "debate;" but just because a "debate"
exists does not mean it is a valid one.

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.

No argument there.

Joe Parsons

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:15:15 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

[snip]

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 agree: it's not likely to stop the "debate;" but just because a "debate"
exists does not mean it is a valid one.

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.

No argument there.

Joe Parsons

Joe,

I hope that you have enjoyed your conversations with Dave. I worry
about you, since Joe and Dave are the same person, but it's not my
business to break up Siamese twins, or Super-alter-egos.

Batman and Robin Live!!!
Regards,
noah

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

On 15 Nov 2003 15:39:20 GMT, (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.

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 agree with everything you have said above, with one exception.

The founders of rec.boats had in mind a discussion group about
"boats". It isn't "rec.boats.politics", "rec.left-wing boating
whiners", "rec.right-wing boating whiners", or
"rec.boats..whiners"....it is "rec.boats.".

I can live with, and even enjoy, and learn from, some amount of OT
political posting, but that subject has overtaken the focus of the
group.

I assert that there are many "named" groups for this type of
discussion. Why pervert "rec.boats" for any other purpose?
Do you go to "rec.chess" to discuss lawn equipment? I don't think so.

There are a few people here who view "rec.boats" as their personal
playground, that think that whatever they do or say is "OK", and it is
not.
Regards,
noah

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

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:23:02 -0500, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

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


Paul- I also respect Chuck's viewpoint, observations, and opinions.
He presents himself as a reasonable, experienced, and intelligent man.
I think that I would enjoy boating, or fishing, with him. Even
private political discussion.

My observation is that there is much, too much, political nonsense in
this group.

It is, after all is said and done, rec.boats.
Regards,
noah

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

I agree with everything you have said above, with one exception.

The founders of rec.boats had in mind a discussion group about
"boats". It isn't "rec.boats.politics", "rec.left-wing boating
whiners", "rec.right-wing boating whiners", or
"rec.boats..whiners"....it is "rec.boats.".

Which illustrates a philosophical challenge. Should the group be self censored
as to topic? If so, how could the censorship enforced?

None of us can control or regulate the group- but we can control or regulate
ourselves. If everybody only submitted posts that reflected their own idea of
what the tone and nature of the group should be, pretty soon it will assume a
shapoe reflecting the will of the masses. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

I agree with everything you have said above, with one exception.

The founders of rec.boats had in mind a discussion group about
"boats". It isn't "rec.boats.politics", "rec.left-wing boating
whiners", "rec.right-wing boating whiners", or
"rec.boats..whiners"....it is "rec.boats.".

Which illustrates a philosophical challenge. Should the group be self censored
as to topic? If so, how could the censorship enforced?

None of us can control or regulate the group- but we can control or regulate
ourselves. If everybody only submitted posts that reflected their own idea of
what the tone and nature of the group should be, pretty soon it will assume a
shapoe reflecting the will of the masses. :-)

I have decided that I will continue to exchange off-topic ideas, as long
as the discussion remains civil. The minute it becomes personal, I will
duck out.

I think most of us can deal with off-topic banter, as long as it isn't
presented in the same vein as a school yard brawl.

Dave