wrote in message
ups.com...
You are doing quite well preaching at one who is not
a name-caller, but I notice you say little to those who are. Why would
this be?

**********

Because those who never contribute anything except steaming vomit are
normally unworthy of response.

Forgive the "preaching." I was merely addressing your comment (that you
have given up trying to change to tone of rec.boats) by pointing out
the one certain thing we all can do. I don't know why you should be so
personally offended by the pronoun, "we", but- whatever.

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

JohnH wrote:

If Jim bothers
you, don't read his posts

*********

When I deteriorate to launching attack threads, calling names, and
following JimH around the NG throwing in snide personal remarks after
everything he submits, you will know that he has finally "bothered" me.

And you have done that in the past.


JimH isn't such a terrible guy----he's at least consistent and you know
*exactly* what to expect when he enters a thread.


So is it that you *exactly* expect when I enter a thread Chuck?

And how did I become the focus of conversation between you and John?

On 25 May 2005 16:52:51 -0700, wrote:

You are doing quite well preaching at one who is not
a name-caller, but I notice you say little to those who are. Why would
this be?

**********

Because those who never contribute anything except steaming vomit are
normally unworthy of response.

Forgive the "preaching." I was merely addressing your comment (that you
have given up trying to change to tone of rec.boats) by pointing out
the one certain thing we all can do. I don't know why you should be so
personally offended by the pronoun, "we", but- whatever.

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

JohnH wrote:

If Jim bothers
you, don't read his posts

*********

When I deteriorate to launching attack threads, calling names, and
following JimH around the NG throwing in snide personal remarks after
everything he submits, you will know that he has finally "bothered" me.
JimH isn't such a terrible guy----he's at least consistent and you know
*exactly* what to expect when he enters a thread. He's only changed his
handle a few times over the years, his current handle can be associated
with his actual name, and in my book that gives him a lot more credit
that people using anonymous remailers to act as stupidly as possible.
Some of the worst polluters change handles several times a day- very
understandable considering how quickly they "dirty" the old ones.

Not offended. Observant. Have you ever spoke in like manner to Harry or any of
the other liberals who engage in the vulgar name-calling?

It's not offensive, but it is remarkable, i.e. worthy of remark.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote to Chuck:

You are doing quite well preaching at one who is not
a name-caller, but I notice you say little to those who are. Why would
this be?

**********

To which Chuck replied:

Because those who never contribute anything except steaming vomit are
normally unworthy of response.

Wow, Chuck. I never thought you'd say something like that about Harry.
After all, he is definitely a name-caller, and you *never* take him to task
for it. So he *is* a contributor of the "steaming" kind, huh?

Maybe this NG is about to turn a corner? Into being a *boating* NG.

Jack

So is it that you *exactly* expect when I enter a thread Chuck?

And how did I become the focus of conversation between you and John?

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

I expect you to behave as you always have. You are very consistent and
predictable. (note: I did not say that has to be a bad thing) If you
have some idea of just what you normally do here, then you are well
aware of what certainly I, and probably most others, expect when you
enter a thread.

You became part of the conversation when John brought up your name. It
wouldn't have occured to me to include you, by name, in the
conversation without John's specific reference.

Not offended. Observant. Have you ever spoke in like manner to Harry or
any of
the other liberals who engage in the vulgar name-calling?

It's not offensive, but it is remarkable, i.e. worthy of remark.


**********

Don't be silly, John. If I criticize name calling in the group in
general, I would be including everybody engaging in the practice,
right? Where did you get the idea that the left gets a "pass"?

On 25 May 2005 19:17:56 -0700, wrote:

Not offended. Observant. Have you ever spoke in like manner to Harry or
any of
the other liberals who engage in the vulgar name-calling?

It's not offensive, but it is remarkable, i.e. worthy of remark.


**********

Don't be silly, John. If I criticize name calling in the group in
general, I would be including everybody engaging in the practice,
right? Where did you get the idea that the left gets a "pass"?

I've never seen you respond in this manner to the left.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

THIS IS A REC BOATS FORUM TALK ABOUT BOATS DUMB ASS!

I've never seen you respond in this manner to the left.

*********

Hint: "The Left" seldom chooses to debate me by calling names.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:16:04 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:

wrote:
I've never seen you respond in this manner to the left.

*********

Hint: "The Left" seldom chooses to debate me by calling names.

You're an old, unaligned, salt.

So there.

Don't you mean old unaligned...er....

Never mind. :)

Later,

Tom

On 26 May 2005 07:09:36 -0700, wrote:

I've never seen you respond in this manner to the left.

*********

Hint: "The Left" seldom chooses to debate me by calling names.

Oh. Name-calling is good behavior as long as *you* aren't the recipient?

Come on, Chuck! You were complaining about the group in general just recently.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Oh. Name-calling is good behavior as long as *you* aren't the
recipient?

Come on, Chuck! You were complaining about the group in general just
recently.


********

First point, it's not directly my business if I'm not the target.
Correct. It's between the people involved.

Second point, correct. It gets tiresome wading through the name calling
and juvenile attack posts from all sides.

Nobody can stop all of it, but we each can stop a very certain part of
it, should we choose to do so.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Oh. Name-calling is good behavior as long as *you* aren't the
recipient?

Come on, Chuck! You were complaining about the group in general just
recently.


********

First point, it's not directly my business if I'm not the target.
Correct. It's between the people involved.

Second point, correct. It gets tiresome wading through the name calling
and juvenile attack posts from all sides.

Nobody can stop all of it, but we each can stop a very certain part of
it, should we choose to do so.


Why not just admit JohnH is correct and move on? Otherwise it looks like a
typical spin on your part.

The game is over.

On 26 May 2005 14:56:18 -0700, wrote:

Oh. Name-calling is good behavior as long as *you* aren't the
recipient?

Come on, Chuck! You were complaining about the group in general just
recently.


********

First point, it's not directly my business if I'm not the target.
Correct. It's between the people involved.

Second point, correct. It gets tiresome wading through the name calling
and juvenile attack posts from all sides.

Nobody can stop all of it, but we each can stop a very certain part of
it, should we choose to do so.

Chuck, who called you the names that prompted your post in the first place?

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Why not just admit JohnH is correct and move on? Otherwise it looks
like a
typical spin on your part.

The game is over.

*********
I already addressed John H's comment more accurately than a simple
"your're correct" or "you're full of crap" could accomplish.

As always, "spin" on my part is making a good case for something with
which you disagree.
Why not just admit I'm right, and move on? :-)

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
Maybe this NG is about to turn a corner? Into being a *boating* NG.

Jack

If it did, Jackoff, where would you be? You're not a "boating content"
contributor here.


This, from the King of OT posts, and name-callers? Heh, heh, heh... you'd
be lost, Krause. That's why you're fighting the normalization of this NG
tooth and nail, huh? You'll lose the NG litterbox that you crap in daily.

Counting this post, my on-topic percentage in the last 30 days is 25% (1 of
4). What's your's Krause? Is it even 2%? Doubtful. Do you even own a
boat?

Jack