Can you follow a thread, John?

I responded to SallyRd, and deliberately avoided the peeing contest
that included 46 posts from:

atl-m
Snapper Trapper
*JimH*
John H
Harry Krause
Jack Goff
bb
Freddy the Troll
Alfredo
Flaky Foo
Ferdinand
Tony
NOYB
Netsock
FOA

That's not "jumping into the middle", it's walking around the edge to
the other side of the pile.

One thing that would help, in general,would be if those who
have appointed themselves the arbiters of the NG would observe the same
standards they demand from others.

On 25 May 2005 11:34:46 -0700, wrote:

Can you follow a thread, John?

I responded to SallyRd, and deliberately avoided the peeing contest
that included 46 posts from:

atl-m
Snapper Trapper
*JimH*
John H
Harry Krause
Jack Goff
bb
Freddy the Troll
Alfredo
Flaky Foo
Ferdinand
Tony
NOYB
Netsock
FOA

That's not "jumping into the middle", it's walking around the edge to
the other side of the pile.

One thing that would help, in general,would be if those who
have appointed themselves the arbiters of the NG would observe the same
standards they demand from others.

I gave up. No one seemed interested. Now you can carry the torch a while. If you
decide to try, I'll support you. Get Harry convinced, and basskisser.

--
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!)

I gave up. No one seemed interested. Now you can carry the torch a
while. If you
decide to try, I'll support you. Get Harry convinced, and basskisser.

*********

There's no reason to carry any sort of torch. At all.
Every person here has the capacity to constructively influence the
group. It's simple:
We simply need to:

1) Take conscious control of and responsibilty for the tone and content
of our *own* posts. Nobody else can force us to behave badly, it's a
choice we make and need to be responsible for.

2) Avoid reading posts from people we find inflammatory. If we can't
read a from Person XXX without getting so upset that we react
shamefully, why read posts from Person XXX at all?
Sometimes, Person XXX only posts because he or she is hoping for a
ridiculous, emotional reaction from almost anybody. Responding with
insults and getting into a peeing contest with
such a person is like trying to douse a fire with gasoline. Wrong
tactic.

There is no way that any type of bad and/or destructive behavior by
anybody will turn this group around. If several people contest to see
who can be the biggest butthole, even if the stated purpose is to
"discourage others from behaving like a butthole," we wind up with a
group of contentious buttholes.

AFAIAC, the rest of the group can post whatever it wants. While I might
comment about certain practices, that stops well short of insisting
that everyone else should behave according to my preferences.(or taking
crazy steps when the group does not confrom to my wishes) Most of
these people are adults. More of the group could behave on an adult
level if it simply decided to do so.

Maybe you should consider picking the torch back up, but instead of
struggling to be torch-bearer for the entire community use it to light
your own way? :-)

You don't like Harry and basskisser? Don't read their stuff. It will
make a huge difference. The fact tha they exist on the same planet
shouldn't ruin your day.

wrote in message
ups.com...
You don't like Harry and basskisser? Don't read their stuff. It will
make a huge difference. The fact tha they exist on the same planet
shouldn't ruin your day.


Since rec.boats has become such a wreck, the only fun left is to see what
Basskisser will say next. ; )

You do have to admit, he is very humorous.

On 25 May 2005 12:49:26 -0700, wrote:

I gave up. No one seemed interested. Now you can carry the torch a
while. If you
decide to try, I'll support you. Get Harry convinced, and basskisser.

*********

There's no reason to carry any sort of torch. At all.
Every person here has the capacity to constructively influence the
group. It's simple:
We simply need to:

1) Take conscious control of and responsibilty for the tone and content
of our *own* posts. Nobody else can force us to behave badly, it's a
choice we make and need to be responsible for.

2) Avoid reading posts from people we find inflammatory. If we can't
read a from Person XXX without getting so upset that we react
shamefully, why read posts from Person XXX at all?
Sometimes, Person XXX only posts because he or she is hoping for a
ridiculous, emotional reaction from almost anybody. Responding with
insults and getting into a peeing contest with
such a person is like trying to douse a fire with gasoline. Wrong
tactic.

There is no way that any type of bad and/or destructive behavior by
anybody will turn this group around. If several people contest to see
who can be the biggest butthole, even if the stated purpose is to
"discourage others from behaving like a butthole," we wind up with a
group of contentious buttholes.

AFAIAC, the rest of the group can post whatever it wants. While I might
comment about certain practices, that stops well short of insisting
that everyone else should behave according to my preferences.(or taking
crazy steps when the group does not confrom to my wishes) Most of
these people are adults. More of the group could behave on an adult
level if it simply decided to do so.

Maybe you should consider picking the torch back up, but instead of
struggling to be torch-bearer for the entire community use it to light
your own way? :-)

You don't like Harry and basskisser? Don't read their stuff. It will
make a huge difference. The fact tha they exist on the same planet
shouldn't ruin your day.

You're doing a great job. Keep it up! Carry your own torch also! If Jim bothers
you, don't read his posts. 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?



--
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!)

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.

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?

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.

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!)

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"?