Boatered is still operating?

To a degree.

What an interesting study in how a highly disciplined group structure
ultimately decays to reflect the personal prejudices of the moderator.

I used to post there on rare occasion. At first, there was no political
discussion. Everything was on-topic, and the biggest annoyance was the non-stop
spamming for the moderator's commercial activities.

About two years ago, the tone changed.
Suddenly, there were a fair number of political commentaries and most of them
were conservative. I challenged one of the more outrageous conservative
statements, only to find my post deleted later the same day and my posting
"privileges" cancelled.
The reason? "Political commentary is not allowed on the group." Reading between
the lines: "political commentary that does not agree with the site owner and
moderator's philosophy is not allowed....."
Sounds like some folks' version of Nirvana, doesn't it?

During my last brief visit, (they are extremely infrequent), there were a few
dissenting opinions, but dissenting opinions on a forum with an obvious agenda
are always a joke. It's like listening to right wing radio. Once in a while,
the
host will take a call from some poor schmuck wearing his Don Quixote armor
and sitting astride his philosophical plow horse. Any "liberals" allowed on
such shows have to go through the screener before being allowed on the air, and
(miracle of miracles) only a few liberals with poorly developed arguments,
irritating whiny voices, and maybe even a speech impediment that involves
excessive stammering and stuttering ever manage to get through.

After the liberal is shredded by the host, (who will simply hang up when and if
the liberal starts to make a point too effectively), the closing comment is
usually along the line of, "There. See how *all* these people think? You think
we're hard on liberals on this show? Calls like that just prove our point! What
a waste, that our brave men and women in Iraq are dying everyday to help our
heroic president defend free speech in America when we trun around and see the
privilege being so abused by the leftist Socialists!"

Be sure that any thoughts or opinions presented by somebody other than a
conservative on boatered are not very well presented......or they would have
been "edited" out.

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
Boatered is still operating?

To a degree.

What an interesting study in how a highly disciplined group structure
ultimately decays to reflect the personal prejudices of the moderator.

30s Germany?

"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?

Yeah, and it came from the left liberal press and whatever other source you
can cite to discount the point based on your inability to argue the point.

It happened during plenty of other periods in history.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?

Yeah, and it came from the left liberal press and whatever other source
you
can cite to discount the point based on your inability to argue the point.

It happened during plenty of other periods in history.



Was I talking to you?

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Who gives a crap who you were talking to?

You cannot argue the point, neither can the worm.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:52:03 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

It's unfortunate that so few people are familar with (and observe) Mike Godwin's
convention, commonly referred to as "Godwin's Law." Briefly, Godwin's Law goes
like this:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper
bound on thread length in those groups.

The first part is Godwin's Law, while the second part can be thought of as a
sort of "Godwin's Rule." (Jargon File)

Joe Parsons

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:52:03 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

It's unfortunate that so few people are familar with (and observe) Mike Godwin's
convention, commonly referred to as "Godwin's Law." Briefly, Godwin's Law goes
like this:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper
bound on thread length in those groups.

The first part is Godwin's Law, while the second part can be thought of as a
sort of "Godwin's Rule." (Jargon File)

Joe Parsons


It's meaningless bullship.

--
Email sent to is never read.