..................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK. Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography, dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?

JimH wrote:
.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK. Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography, dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?

How about *do unto others as you would have them do unto you*?
One of your problems, Jim, is that you preach to the choir, then don't
heed your own advice.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:30:25 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:

.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK. Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography, dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?


Gosh, could you post the official reprimand?

He

Suggested new and improved rules---

1.Be nice.
2. When a thread becomes acrimonious, acerbic, or filled with asperity,
move on.
3. As political threads soon lead to 2, above, don't start them.

--
John H.

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

On 11 Jan 2006 05:32:50 -0800, wrote:


JimH wrote:
.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK. Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography, dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?

How about *do unto others as you would have them do unto you*?

I agree with that line!

--
John H.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:30:25 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:

.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK.
Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography,
dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those
posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?


Gosh, could you post the official reprimand?


Sure. From my thread titled "OT: Not political but it will make you
mad..."

1. "The group has made a drastic turnaround, and will continue as long as
we
refuse to participate in the trolls."

2. "You'll probably find a lot more people interested in discussing sex
crimes at: http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/ "

" JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com wrote in message
news
.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK.
Fair enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography,
dogs, pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those
posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?


There are no rules, silly. It's an unmoderated group.


Of course, some of us observe the common courtesy of putting an OT in the
subject line when we post off-topic threads like this one.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

" JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com wrote in message
news
.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK.
Fair enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography,
dogs, pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about
those posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?


There are no rules, silly. It's an unmoderated group.

Agreed.




Of course, some of us observe the common courtesy of putting an OT in the
subject line when we post off-topic threads like this one.




I try to when it is OT. My original post to this thread had everything to
do with rec.boats and was therefore not OT.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:09:57 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:30:25 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:

.................inconsistent.

I was *officially* reprimanded by some folks here for posting a non
political article about a current event. Everyone participating in the
discussion offered reasonable comments and there were not flames. OK.
Fair
enough. This is a boating NG.

I continue to read numerous posts/threads about cameras, photography,
dogs,
pigs, etc. (non boating). However, I read no reprimands about those
posts.

A bit confusing. Very inconsistent.

Could someone please explain what the new and improved *rules* of this NG
are?


Gosh, could you post the official reprimand?


Sure. From my thread titled "OT: Not political but it will make you
mad..."

1. "The group has made a drastic turnaround, and will continue as long as
we
refuse to participate in the trolls."

2. "You'll probably find a lot more people interested in discussing sex
crimes at: http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/ "




Where's the rest of my post?

--
John H.

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

JimH wrote:

Gosh, could you post the official reprimand?


Sure. From my thread titled "OT: Not political but it will make you
mad..."

1. "The group has made a drastic turnaround, and will continue as long as
we
refuse to participate in the trolls."

2. "You'll probably find a lot more people interested in discussing sex
crimes at: http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/ "


????

You're combining two different comments, if I'm not mistaken. You might
consider constructing your message a bit more carefully so that people
don't think you are representing those two combined remarks as a single
"reprimand."

I take credit for statement #2. If it was preceded by statement #1, I
must have been out of my mind at the moment (always a possiblity) as I
don't remember making statement #1, at least not in the same post as
statement #2.

It's not a reprimand, it's a helpful suggestion. You must have felt
very passionately about the issue to introduce a subject that
(according to your own thread title) was certain to make people "mad".
Had you followed the link I provided, you would have found hundreds of
people equally mad about sex criminals and a huge number who would have
expressed feelings consistent with your own. Nobody condones the
sexual victimization of others, most especially children. Why start a
thread that you admit is going to make people mad?
Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss sex crimes with a group of
people who have come together for that exact purpose?

This forum is supposed to be about recreational boating. We have raped
and abused it so badly in the past that we must surely be on the
"habitual offenders list". :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

Gosh, could you post the official reprimand?


Sure. From my thread titled "OT: Not political but it will make you
mad..."

1. "The group has made a drastic turnaround, and will continue as long
as
we
refuse to participate in the trolls."

2. "You'll probably find a lot more people interested in discussing sex
crimes at: http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/ "


snip
This forum is supposed to be about recreational boating.

Not by the variety of posts I read here.

But who cares, as long as there is no name calling and personal attacks.
Stop this and you have accomplished something.

Heck, even today someone who suggested a kinder and gentler "do unto
others.." approach personally attacked me a couple of times.

Go figure.