| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, :o) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. :o) |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah
wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
noah wrote:
There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, :o) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ...as you were. :o) If it's a vote thing Noah?? can you mark me down as a nay. I agree the OT stuff is a pain & I've been as guilty as anyone at times, same with the abuse I'm a bit ashamed to admit. Trouble is most of us have looked at other groups, the so called moderated groups & they're just not acceptable. I'm sure the players would argue, but for me anyway they're just commercial sites, of course if people disagree they can always go join them as some have. However they mostly come back, unless they were just spammers here anyway (which a few were). Nothing is for nothing & if putting up with a few total dipsticks, OT posts & a nasty liar or two is the price I pay for rec.boats it's cheap enough, particularly when I know they have to pay their price in putting up with the likes of me:-) K |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
I think an FAQ or charter is a good idea. Here is a google link to the
can.rec.boating newsgroup charter. http://www.google.ca/groups?q=group:...0ncf.ca&rnum=2 There are hundreds or possibly thousands of politics newsgroups both moderated and unmoderated for these guys to move to so I don't see the need for the creation of something new. If you feel like doing it and have the time/energy then fill your boots although they're probably perfectly capable of doing that if they want it. Policing the group then becomes easy because with a charter a serial OT poster can get reported to his ISP's abuse@ address and have his connection yanked. As for the thought that this OT stuff is like dockside chatter I have to admit that I haven't seen any bickering or name calling in my marina. Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without effort, to safe waters. So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like dockside chatter. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
While the efforts and sugggestions are laudable, I don't believe any of them will have much effect. REC.BOATS.LOUNGE would only work if the offenders abided by posting only there...but they WANT the audience, so that's unlikly. A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it. The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. AGREED TO CODE OF CONDUCT is a nice idea too, but this could easily degenerate into even MORE useless bickering about "Hey, that's a personal attck." Answered by, "Well if that is than what you said yesterday is too." Bla...bla..bla. But mostly, who cares? It it SO easy to skip the posts that aren't about boating. Even without blocking anyone, you can just not read OT posts or posts that have topic titles that aren't about boats. It really is easy to skim them and not read. It's also very easy to notice when the posters step off the road of debate and into the battlefield. Then stop reading that thread. This group is great. It's a wonderful source of boating knowledge, it's entertaining, and in politics it can even be informing. It's very interesting to see how both sides think of issues - whether that be depth finders or deficits. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it.
The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
This should be researched I guess.
My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most outrageous flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony screen names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report to anybody? Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address would go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would be reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice about some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with their posts. 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. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
|
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
Well I never really looked into how many of the posters are using anonymous
proxies, if many of the OT posters are doing that then yes, it would be a problem. I had assumed (without checking) that only the recent extremely abusive posts were done by anonymous proxies. These abusive posts are clearly a result of OT petulance spilling out -- remove the OT and those abusive posts would disappear as they would have no trigger. If that initial premise is correct then the proxies are a non-issue. Other than that, the fake e-mail address is no problem, all the info required to track down a poster is included in the message header. Nobody would be required to give their real name or email address, there's more than enough info in your header already. ISPs getting multiple complaints from whiners is something the ISP will have to handle themselves, it's not my problem. I'm pretty confident they can figure it out -- buncha smart people there. I'm guessing that the policing would only have to happen at the beginning. I'm also guessing that regardless of the language they use to express themselves, the people behind those posts are actually decent people. I would be surprised if one of them were to refuse to take their posts to another newsgroup. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most outrageous flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony screen names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report to anybody? Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address would go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would be reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice about some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with their posts. 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. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
"Paul" wrote in message .rogers.com...
A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it. The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's don't give a crap at all. If you actually find a spammer on their network, and he happens to have a dedicated server there, they will tell you "go call a cop or something", trust me, I know. Spam is big business, costs all of you a lot of money, too! Scotty |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
Backyard Renegade wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message .rogers.com... A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it. The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's don't give a crap at all. Oh. I thought you built rowboats for a living. But now you tell us you are a professional spam blocker... Is there much money in it? |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
I'm not talking about spam. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's don't give a crap at all. If you actually find a spammer on their network, and he happens to have a dedicated server there, they will tell you "go call a cop or something", trust me, I know. Spam is big business, costs all of you a lot of money, too! Scotty |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:14:57 GMT, "Paul" wrote:
I think an FAQ or charter is a good idea. Here is a google link to the can.rec.boating newsgroup charter. http://www.google.ca/groups?q=group:...0ncf.ca&rnum=2 There are hundreds or possibly thousands of politics newsgroups both moderated and unmoderated for these guys to move to so I don't see the need for the creation of something new. If you feel like doing it and have the time/energy then fill your boots although they're probably perfectly capable of doing that if they want it. Policing the group then becomes easy because with a charter a serial OT poster can get reported to his ISP's abuse@ address and have his connection yanked. Hate to burst your bubble, but ISPs are in general quite uninterested in Usenet abuse--for that matter, they are quite uninterested in Usenet in general. And in the unlikely some miscreant *did* get TOSed off by his ISP, there's always Teranews and Altopia, who really don't give a rat's ass about newsgroup charters, FAQs, topicality or appropriateness. Hear me now, believe me later. It's true. I've been through it. As for the thought that this OT stuff is like dockside chatter I have to admit that I haven't seen any bickering or name calling in my marina. Gee. Why do you suppose that is? Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without effort, to safe waters. Amazing, isn't it? Joe Parsons So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like dockside chatter. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
|
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:13:55 GMT, "Paul" wrote:
A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it. The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, By and large, other than clear instances of spam, they really don't care. they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The They still would have to devote time to it. Most ISPs just don't have those resources--and really don't care if they did. research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. Your idealism is appealing--but it just doesn't work like that. Sorry. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. News flash: we live in an imperfect world--and ISPs really don't care about squabbles on Usenet. I did manage, after several months, to get one guy TOSed for violating my copyright--but it cost me legal fees to do it. And that was a *very* clear cut case. Joe Parsons |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother! If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. You are indeed a wise man. Joe Parsons Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Backyard Renegade wrote: "Paul" wrote in message .rogers.com... A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it. The only way to enforce is by reporting people to their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious and continuous problem. But even then, the person can so easily get a different email or news-service and be right back here. This should be researched I guess. My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not screwing around. In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal warning phase. Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's don't give a crap at all. Oh. I thought you built rowboats for a living. But now you tell us you are a professional spam blocker... Is there much money in it? Thanks to the Clinton recession, I have to keep two jobs now! |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb bb, What you descscribe can be accomplished through a "new", officially adopted, FAQ. It does require a submission to the "powers that be", and a vote. I do love this group, but I do not want to be "police". My opinion is no better than anyone else's. It would be good, in my opinion, if the group controlled itself. Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. :o) |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote: On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote: On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother! If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. You are indeed a wise man. Joe Parsons Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb Joe, I *think* by now that you know that I listen to your opinion. The problem comes in when some people take the postings and topics way off from "rec.boats", and way off from civil discussion. I have no desire to "police" rec.boats, and I admit enjoying discussions that waver from "boating" from time to time, but there is a lot of political nonsense and bashing here. I submit to you that it does not belong here. Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. :o) |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:17:16 +1100, K Smith wrote:
noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, :o) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ...as you were. :o) If it's a vote thing Noah?? can you mark me down as a nay. I agree the OT stuff is a pain & I've been as guilty as anyone at times, same with the abuse I'm a bit ashamed to admit. Trouble is most of us have looked at other groups, the so called moderated groups & they're just not acceptable. I'm sure the players would argue, but for me anyway they're just commercial sites, of course if people disagree they can always go join them as some have. However they mostly come back, unless they were just spammers here anyway (which a few were). Nothing is for nothing & if putting up with a few total dipsticks, OT posts & a nasty liar or two is the price I pay for rec.boats it's cheap enough, particularly when I know they have to pay their price in putting up with the likes of me:-) K K, thanks for the reply. I have no interest in "moderation". The posters to this group should feel free to speak their minds, and suffer the consequences of their ignorance. :o) (just kidding, people). What concerns me is the volume of political posting which has nothing to do with boating. I do enjoy an intelligent argument, and there are appropriate groups for any argument conceivable. Why tear his group up with vehemence, egos, and bad manners when there are other places to do this? Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. :o) |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On 14 Nov 2003 19:53:09 -0600, noah wrote:
[snip] Joe, I *think* by now that you know that I listen to your opinion. The problem comes in when some people take the postings and topics way off from "rec.boats", and way off from civil discussion. I have no desire to "police" rec.boats, and I admit enjoying discussions that waver from "boating" from time to time, but there is a lot of political nonsense and bashing here. I submit to you that it does not belong here. No argument there! It is a *very* small number of people who instigate these kinds of rancorous threads, but then there's a sort of "pile-on" mentality once the discussion gets up a head of steam. One thing that could help at least a bit is when one of these kinds of threads accidentally veers back into some "boaty" area, those who followup should edit their subject line to reflect the change. This will give at least the appearance that there are a few discussions here that are other than highly unpleasant personal attacks and insults. Joe Parsons |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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. Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. :o) |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
|
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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. 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?) 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. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
|
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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. And lastly, their a few people who are actually interested in seriously discussing the subject. Those normally are not regulars, because the topic soon degrades into a flame war, and they bow out of the topic. This group is what the regulars want it to be, a forum to make their opposition look stupid. In reality, it makes all who participate in the discussion look bad. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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. 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?) 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. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
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 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). 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. 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. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative, emotionally charged and polarizing articles. 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. They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of anything. Joe Parsons Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ...as you were. :o) |
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
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com