|
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago.
Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative posts slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government influence" etc. Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would you post this liberal rant?" All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the moderator. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
|
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
You are very mistaken here. Look more closely. Boatered is not
moderated, it is censored. I believe it is owned as well as sponsored by Boatfix.com. If you found something on the internet that you think other boaters should know about, it had better be at Boatfix or don't bother posting about it. This was certainly the impression I was left with and why I left so soon. If you want to see a good boating site that is moderated and not censored, go to TheHullTruth.com. Good site, but I actually do prefer newsgroups for discussion types of forums. -JimL Gould 0738 wrote: Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago. Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative posts slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government influence" etc. Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would you post this liberal rant?" All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the moderator. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
All I can say bout this is...
The last thing I want to goto is a commercial site, and the next to last is a political site, Being a webtver I don't have the option of killfile, and wouldn't want it, Because everyone has some good/bad boating advice to give now+then. I'm at liberty to look at all of it here, whether I like it or not, "It's Free" UD http://community.webtv.net/capuglyda...inUglyDansJack |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
Gould 0738 wrote:
Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago. Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative posts slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government influence" etc. Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would you post this liberal rant?" All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the moderator. Boatered is still operating? -- Email sent to is never read. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
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. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
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? |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"jps" wrote in message 30s Germany? Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law? |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"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. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"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? |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"Joe" wrote in message
... Who gives a crap who you were talking to? You cannot argue the point, neither can the worm. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... 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? He's borderline. Good Wilbur, you're really coming up with some viscious stuff here. Maybe you should change characters again and see what kind of vile crap you can spew using your remailing techniques. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
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 |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
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 |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:17:04 -0800, "jps" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message .. . 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? He's borderline. Good Wilbur, you're really coming up with some viscious stuff here. Maybe you should change characters again and see what kind of vile crap you can spew using your remailing techniques. jps, I can say what I want to say in a straightforward way. If you want to accuse me of something, please do, but don't do it in your usual weasel style. Be a man (I can wwait until your lessons are over). Wilbur, my style is my style. You obviously have one too. I can't talk to you like a frog just because that's only language you understand. I could try vile but I'm resigned to the fact I just couldn't measure up to your standards. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:33:23 -0800, "jps" wrote: I could try vile but I'm resigned to the fact I just couldn't measure up to your standards. jps, don't be a little weasel and accuse me of something you certainly cannot support. You've reached an all-time low, even for you. Oh really, was it your son then? Son-of-worm? |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
|
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
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. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:45:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Gene Kearns wrote: On 10 Nov 2003 05:28:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago. Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative posts slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government influence" etc. Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would you post this liberal rant?" All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the moderator. This just buttresses the point I have made for self policing... via ignoring inappropriate content. I would no more want George Bush editing my postings than Bill Clinton. Heck, Gene, at least Clinton would be able to *read* your scribblings here. Harry, As I have said before, I don't think GW is either stupid nor a "nice guy" and Clinton was a stupid prick (scholarship notwithstanding), figuratively and literally. Although I stood toe to toe with you, differing, over the last election*, the present situation has me seeing your side..... extremely liberal though it is...... more favorably than I have since my college days. I find that somehow disturbing. Anyhow..... maintain your composure..... ever remembering those people here that get a lot of mileage by getting you "going." ================================================== * All things considered..... I will conceded that although we have vehemently disagreed on points in the past, you have always been a gentleman in our debates. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
boatered doesn't appear on my server!
Capt F. Gould 0738 wrote: Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago. Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative posts slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government influence" etc. Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would you post this liberal rant?" All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the moderator. |
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
|
Even a moderated forum can fall to rot.....
Chuck- I haven't heard ONE person advocate a "moderated" group. What
I have expressed, and some others have agreed to, is some "control", whether it is self-control, or FAQ, is up for grabs. Do you object to self-control? Of course not. IMO, there are a few things that could be done to improve the tone of the NG. First, some of our posters who are particularly passionate about liberal and conservative philosophies might consider reducing the number of OT threads they crank out. Particularly when they aren't offering any real opinion beyond "liberals (or conservatives) suck and this news story demonstrates just how badly....." (18 paragraph news clip follows) We can all read the news. What we can't get from AP, FAux News, or whatever is the way other people think and feel about the issues. Second, we should all realize that the signal to noise ratio of the group as a whole is the aggregate of s/n behavior of individual posters. If we have prolific posters who almost *never* contribute to on-topic discussions (and I can think of a few), that really reduces the statistical boating content accordingly. Finally, there should be some self control in the way we express ourselves. He who resorts to flaming and name calling is *losing* the debate, 99% of the time. We have some pretty consistent losers here, and that's too bad. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com