Rec.boats ??
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:05:37 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:37:10 -0500, "Dave" wrote:

It's been many months since I visited this newsgroup. I used to check in
every few days or so, but haven't had the luxury of doing so for a long time
because of demands on my time from work. I see from the first 1000 messages
I've downloaded this morning, that a relatively small percentage of the
posts here actually have anything to do with boating. Seems a handful of
loudmouths have pretty much monopolized the group filling it with politics
and personal snipping ... very disappointing. Thanks to all you blowhards
for ruining what was supposed to be a forum for boating; maybe some of you
self-aggrandized mental giants can suggest where one might find a boating
forum that actually deals with boating?



I strongly suggest http://www.boatered.com If you can't self police
what you read here, boatered will make your decisions for you.

Indeed, Boatered is the cure. Maybe Noah should move there, too. It is
his kinda place.


Thanks for the "props", Harry, but rec.boats is fine by me.
There's much too much "boating" talk in BoaterEd.

Regards,
noah

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

Rec.boats ??
 

"noah" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:17:33 GMT, "swatcop"
wrote:




"Bill Andersen" wrote in message
news:CidDb.9687$J77.5548@fed1read07...
you're missing the point.
the point is that this newsgroup is "rec.boats" and all the other crap
is
posted here.
there shouldn't be a need for filters. except to omit Krause.
some people think they are the only ones with radio, tv or newspapers,
and
feel obligated to repeat the news here.
some people obviously have no one to talk with, so they post their
opinions
here.
Well, fortunately for us this is still a FREE country and that sort of
behavior is tolerated here without a need for "newsgroup police." It's
kinda' like a radio - if you don't like what the station is playing, then
turn the knob. Wasting your time posting a message telling everyone what
we
already know is pointless. We've already figured out how to "turn the
knob."

I find it interesting that you'd make this response.

It IS a "free country, as you stated, but a police officer, of all
people,
would understand that there are also limits to individual freedom.

Laws, rules, covenants, convention, and even simple manners, are all in
place to
help reasonable people to co-exist. This isn't the Wild West.

Are you saying that the desire and ability to post "Off-topic" legitimises
the
action?

Here in New York we have a law banning drivers from using hand-held cell
phones.
Drive down any street, and roughly two out of every ten drivers you meet
will be
on their cell phones. I guess the fact that they want to, and can, makes
it OK?

What an odd thing for a police officer to say...
Regards,
noah

The "gist" of my message was supposed to be read as "there isn't any
newsgroup police, therefore your rude and stupid posts may be legal, but
certainly not desired. The readers' options are limited, so we'll just tune
you out."

Do I think he's an idiot? You betcha.' Are the "newsgroup police" going to
make an arrest for unwanted posting? I seriously doubt it. Is he allowed to
do it? Yep, all day, everyday. Does anybody want to read his crap? Probably
not, which is why we have the ability to choose whether or not to read his
crap. Don't misinterpret my originally posted poorly worded analogy as being
on his side, I assure you that I'm not. But there's no law prohibiting him
from being an idiot (unfortunately). So I guess we'll just ignore him.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Rec.boats ??
 

I too absolutely agree with Swatcop.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I absolutely agree with this here fella.

--

Swatcop wrote: Do I think he's an idiot? You betcha.' Are the "newsgroup
police" going to
make an arrest for unwanted posting? I seriously doubt it. Is he allowed to
do it? Yep, all day, everyday. Does anybody want to read his crap? Probably
not, which is why we have the ability to choose whether or not to read his
crap. Don't misinterpret my originally posted poorly worded analogy as being
on his side, I assure you that I'm not. But there's no law prohibiting him
from being an idiot (unfortunately). So I guess we'll just ignore him.
--

Rec.boats ??
 

Jack Meholf wrote:

I too absolutely agree with Swatcop.


How much did you get for that wakeboard-ski boat?


--
Email sent to is never read.

Rec.boats ??
 

noah wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:48:17 GMT, "swatcop"
wrote:



The "gist" of my message was supposed to be read as "there isn't any
newsgroup police, therefore your rude and stupid posts may be legal, but
certainly not desired. The readers' options are limited, so we'll just tune
you out."

Do I think he's an idiot? You betcha.' Are the "newsgroup police" going to
make an arrest for unwanted posting? I seriously doubt it. Is he allowed to
do it? Yep, all day, everyday. Does anybody want to read his crap? Probably
not, which is why we have the ability to choose whether or not to read his
crap. Don't misinterpret my originally posted poorly worded analogy as being
on his side, I assure you that I'm not. But there's no law prohibiting him
from being an idiot (unfortunately). So I guess we'll just ignore him.

Actually, there are "newsgroup police", but not here.

Just so I understand you correctly, who is "he" and "him"?

You seem to be suggesting that "anything goes", but I may have it
wrong.



You're an ass, Noah. But you are entitled to be one.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Rec.boats ??
 

Harry Krause wrote:

swatcop wrote:

Well, fortunately for us this is still a FREE country and that sort of
behavior is tolerated here without a need for "newsgroup police." It's
kinda' like a radio - if you don't like what the station is playing, then
turn the knob. Wasting your time posting a message telling everyone what we
already know is pointless. We've already figured out how to "turn the knob."

I absolutely agree with this here fella.

Except that while you are against a national voter resistration card,
you are for newsgroup posters using their real names. That's hypocrisy,
and the beginning of newsgroup police.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rec.boats ??
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Jack Meholf wrote:

I too absolutely agree with Swatcop.


How much did you get for that wakeboard-ski boat?

You're still having flight of idea problems? Can't your nursemaid halp
you with this?

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rec.boats ??
 

(snip) Actually, there are "newsgroup police", but not here.

Just so I understand you correctly, who is "he" and "him"?

"He" is not you.


You seem to be suggesting that "anything goes", but I may have it
wrong.

Not ANYTHING, just things that are legal.


There are specific conventions of Usenet Protocol which discourage the
posting of off-topic material in a group. Are you suggesting that it
doesn't matter?


No, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that it's not
against the law. You yourself just said "which DISCOURAGE the posting of
off-topic material..." "Discouraged" by definition does not equal
"forbidden," so I guess things like off-topic posting are just one of life's
little annoyances that we have to deal with. It may suck, but the newsgroup
police aren't going to show up at his door and yank his computer out of the
wall.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Rec.boats ??
 

noah wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:17:33 GMT, "swatcop" wrote:




"Bill Andersen" wrote in message
news:CidDb.9687$J77.5548@fed1read07...
you're missing the point.
the point is that this newsgroup is "rec.boats" and all the other crap is
posted here.
there shouldn't be a need for filters. except to omit Krause.
some people think they are the only ones with radio, tv or newspapers, and
feel obligated to repeat the news here.
some people obviously have no one to talk with, so they post their
opinions
here.
Well, fortunately for us this is still a FREE country and that sort of
behavior is tolerated here without a need for "newsgroup police." It's
kinda' like a radio - if you don't like what the station is playing, then
turn the knob. Wasting your time posting a message telling everyone what we
already know is pointless. We've already figured out how to "turn the knob."

I find it interesting that you'd make this response.

It IS a "free country, as you stated, but a police officer, of all people,
would understand that there are also limits to individual freedom.

Perhaps, if he were to have prefaced his statement with the words
"Absent any laws which prohibit......" first, you would have had less
trouble accepting it?


Dave

Rec.boats ??
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:19:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

noah wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:48:17 GMT, "swatcop"
wrote:



The "gist" of my message was supposed to be read as "there isn't any
newsgroup police, therefore your rude and stupid posts may be legal, but
certainly not desired. The readers' options are limited, so we'll just tune
you out."

Do I think he's an idiot? You betcha.' Are the "newsgroup police" going to
make an arrest for unwanted posting? I seriously doubt it. Is he allowed to
do it? Yep, all day, everyday. Does anybody want to read his crap? Probably
not, which is why we have the ability to choose whether or not to read his
crap. Don't misinterpret my originally posted poorly worded analogy as being
on his side, I assure you that I'm not. But there's no law prohibiting him
from being an idiot (unfortunately). So I guess we'll just ignore him.

Actually, there are "newsgroup police", but not here.

Just so I understand you correctly, who is "he" and "him"?

You seem to be suggesting that "anything goes", but I may have it
wrong.



You're an ass, Noah. But you are entitled to be one.

Thanks for your consent, Harry. I don't know what I would have done without it.

You know, for a guy with your apparent intelligence, and obvious verbal skills,
you never fail to initiate name calling and personal insults. I once valued
your opinion, but no more. It is as valueless as your "debating style".

I strongly disagree with the Off-topic posting taking over this group. If that
makes me an ass, I'll live with it.
Regards,
noah

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