On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:


"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You refer to others as 'his obsessed nemesi' (sic).

Does either of those sound a little more derogatory than the other?

Are those who lambaste Harry any more obsessed than Harry is with those he
lambastes?

You are not as unbiased as you give yourself credit for, Chuck.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,
I read Chuck's post to include Harry's personal attacks after every post you
make.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's
****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Chuck,

You must need read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read are
personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a day,
making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible reason.

I do not think the Mini-Harry adds anything to the boating discussions, but
I do find his spoof of Harry to right on. The big difference between
Mini-Harry and the real Harry is: Mini-Harry is funny, the real Harry is
not.





wrote in message
oups.com...
It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

JohnH,
Every few months, Chuck will scold Harry in a good natured manner, what
Chuck refuses to understand is Harry set the tone of rec.boats years ago.


"John H" wrote in message
news
On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:


"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You refer to others as 'his obsessed nemesi' (sic).

Does either of those sound a little more derogatory than the other?

Are those who lambaste Harry any more obsessed than Harry is with those he
lambastes?

You are not as unbiased as you give yourself credit for, Chuck.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

You must NOT read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read
are personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a day,
making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible reason.

I do not think the Mini-Harry adds anything to the boating discussions,
but I do find his spoof of Harry to right on. The big difference between
Mini-Harry and the real Harry is: Mini-Harry is funny, the real Harry is
not.





wrote in message
oups.com...
It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:13:49 -0500, "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote:

JohnH,
I read Chuck's post to include Harry's personal attacks after every post you
make.


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's
****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


As there've been no 'exchanges' between Harry and I, I wonder if that makes 'me'
the obsessed nemesis, or Harry the obsessed nemesis.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...

You must NOT read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read
are personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a
day, making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible
reason.


You have more identities here than BaskinRobbins has flavors. You mention
Krause frequently yet I haven't seen more than one or two posts where he
even acknowledges you exist.

I really do believe there are at least a dozen posters in here who are as
Krause claims obsessed with him. There's you, Mr. Tuuk, the poster who sighs
herself Karen Smith, Jimh, and others and some of you your target ignores
completely.

It must be tough to be so ignored by your enemy no matter how hard you try.

Harry,

Didn't you used to support banning all handguns?

Why are you now bragging about always keep a "6" close by.

No sane reasonable person would ever conclude that JohnH would wish harm
upon anyone, including yourself. For you to insinuate that he would
actually try to harm you, shows how delusional you are.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:



"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?


Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You're really stuck on me, Herring. I guess if I ever see you following me
into Deale, I should keep a close watch on my "six," because you obviously
are after my butt.



See How We've Spent Our
Homeland Defense Grant:

http://urlsnip.com/290935


--
Bush and the NeoConvicts who control him
are destroying the once-great United States.