JohnH wrote:

Disagree. I wouldn't mind the politics if it didn't lead to the vulgar name-calling
and bitterness that went with it. The problem is that politics can't be discussed
without resorting to 'attack-mode', which is why *both* should be banned.

/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-

Bert Robbins wrote:


It was warm enough to walk 18 today!


Walk 18 what...miles, kilometers, furlongs...??

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:


It was warm enough to walk 18 today!


Walk 18 what...miles, kilometers, furlongs...??

Never mind...I assume it's 'holes'.

-rick- wrote:
/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-

Here's a fair question for you: if the newsgroup is vacuous and boring
without the bitchy name calling and political fights, (as that is all
that is missing from before),

1) Can you assist in providing some more stimulating boating content?

or

2) If you're not interested in the boating content, would "rec.boats"
be the best NG for you?



It would have to be acknowledged as reality that people who hung out
here simply to watch the daily stink fights must be very disappointed
with the group these last couple of weeks.

wrote:
-rick- wrote:

/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-


Here's a fair question for you: if the newsgroup is vacuous and boring
without the bitchy name calling and political fights, (as that is all
that is missing from before),

1) Can you assist in providing some more stimulating boating content?

or

2) If you're not interested in the boating content, would "rec.boats"
be the best NG for you?



It would have to be acknowledged as reality that people who hung out
here simply to watch the daily stink fights must be very disappointed
with the group these last couple of weeks.


????

Hey Chuck,

I apparently failed to make myself understood. Let's try
that again.

I did not say and don't think that the news group is vacuous
and boring without bitchy name calling and political fights.
That is a welcome change.

My point was that *if* most of us can manage self restraint
there will be no need for banned topics or any one
attempting to impose censor like control. I was drawing a
contrast between extremes and expressing my preference that
we not overshoot and become overly bland and narrow.

We likely have common goals; an enjoyable, informative and
interesting forum. I prefer that it mostly relate to boating
but have no problem with cordial tangents or even lively
debate on virtually any subject. I do appreciate the
improved tone and congratulate you for your persuasive
efforts and all posters for the results achieved.

As to your questions:

1) I try to contribute when I have something relevant to add
and also occasionally post something irrelevant as if I were
talking with friends.

2) If I were not interested in boating content I wouldn't be
here.

regards,
-rick-

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:19:57 -0800, -rick- wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Disagree. I wouldn't mind the politics if it didn't lead to the vulgar name-calling
and bitterness that went with it. The problem is that politics can't be discussed
without resorting to 'attack-mode', which is why *both* should be banned.

/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-

edit: ...*both* should be voluntarily self restrained!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:44:46 GMT, Don White wrote:

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:


It was warm enough to walk 18 today!


Walk 18 what...miles, kilometers, furlongs...??

Never mind...I assume it's 'holes'.

That's what I assumed!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Kill Files" are most effective when they are ignored.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
-rick- wrote:
/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-

Here's a fair question for you: if the newsgroup is vacuous and boring
without the bitchy name calling and political fights, (as that is all
that is missing from before),

1) Can you assist in providing some more stimulating boating content?

or

2) If you're not interested in the boating content, would "rec.boats"
be the best NG for you?



It would have to be acknowledged as reality that people who hung out
here simply to watch the daily stink fights must be very disappointed
with the group these last couple of weeks.



Most of "the stink" resides permanently in my kill file.

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
-rick- wrote:

/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-


Here's a fair question for you: if the newsgroup is vacuous and boring
without the bitchy name calling and political fights, (as that is all
that is missing from before),

1) Can you assist in providing some more stimulating boating content?

or

2) If you're not interested in the boating content, would "rec.boats"
be the best NG for you?



It would have to be acknowledged as reality that people who hung out
here simply to watch the daily stink fights must be very disappointed
with the group these last couple of weeks.


????

Hey Chuck,

I apparently failed to make myself understood. Let's try that again.

I did not say and don't think that the news group is vacuous and boring
without bitchy name calling and political fights. That is a welcome
change.

My point was that *if* most of us can manage self restraint there will be
no need for banned topics or any one attempting to impose censor like
control. I was drawing a contrast between extremes and expressing my
preference that we not overshoot and become overly bland and narrow.

We likely have common goals; an enjoyable, informative and interesting
forum. I prefer that it mostly relate to boating but have no problem with
cordial tangents or even lively debate on virtually any subject. I do
appreciate the improved tone and congratulate you for your persuasive
efforts and all posters for the results achieved.

As to your questions:

1) I try to contribute when I have something relevant to add and also
occasionally post something irrelevant as if I were talking with friends.

2) If I were not interested in boating content I wouldn't be here.


Chuck highlights the difference between liberal/progressives and
conservatives once again. Chuck wants to exert control and the other side
wants to rely upon self-control.

Bert,
I think everyone including Chuck, has recommended personal self-control.
Since this is an unmoderated NG it would be silly for anyone to recommend
anyone "exert control".


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
-rick- wrote:

/*$.02
I don't think any topics should be "banned" (as if you could). I prefer
voluntary self restraint and occasionally seeing things I don't like to
vacuous and boring.
*/$.02

-rick-


Here's a fair question for you: if the newsgroup is vacuous and boring
without the bitchy name calling and political fights, (as that is all
that is missing from before),

1) Can you assist in providing some more stimulating boating content?

or

2) If you're not interested in the boating content, would "rec.boats"
be the best NG for you?



It would have to be acknowledged as reality that people who hung out
here simply to watch the daily stink fights must be very disappointed
with the group these last couple of weeks.


????

Hey Chuck,

I apparently failed to make myself understood. Let's try that again.

I did not say and don't think that the news group is vacuous and boring
without bitchy name calling and political fights. That is a welcome
change.

My point was that *if* most of us can manage self restraint there will be
no need for banned topics or any one attempting to impose censor like
control. I was drawing a contrast between extremes and expressing my
preference that we not overshoot and become overly bland and narrow.

We likely have common goals; an enjoyable, informative and interesting
forum. I prefer that it mostly relate to boating but have no problem with
cordial tangents or even lively debate on virtually any subject. I do
appreciate the improved tone and congratulate you for your persuasive
efforts and all posters for the results achieved.

As to your questions:

1) I try to contribute when I have something relevant to add and also
occasionally post something irrelevant as if I were talking with friends.

2) If I were not interested in boating content I wouldn't be here.


Chuck highlights the difference between liberal/progressives and
conservatives once again. Chuck wants to exert control and the other side
wants to rely upon self-control.