Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JimH wrote:
The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.


Yes, "participation" is down and thank heavens for small favors. There
are entire threads missing. In fact, there are entire categories of
threads missing. Gone are the conservative cut 'n pastes, the liberal
cut 'n pastes, the duelling presidential popularity polls, the f'd up
debates about the "heroic liberation" or "political colonization" of
Iraq (take your pick). Gone are the "Harry Krause is a ________"
threads. Gone are the "Liberals are destroying the Christian religion"
threads. Missing from most posts of all types are the vicious name
calling and the endless Jr. High School "neener/neener's". Certain
posters, with little or nothing to contribute to discussions about
boating, are indeed missing in action. Too darn bad- they can take the
naming and flaming somewhere else as it should be a reasonable
expectation (when one visits a NG titled "rec.boats") that most of the
discussion should center around boating.

But check this out, please, Jim. Discussion of boating topics is way
*up* from what it has been.




I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.


If the atmosphere is "improved", how can it simultaneously be stale?
The challenge didn't impose any restrictions, it was a call to the
worst offenders
(that would include you and me) to modify our behavior and see if the
tone of the group changed as a result. It did. I'm sorry to hear that
you prefer the previous atmosphere that prevailed here- but that's your
call to make and you are free to conduct yourself here as you see fit.



Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)


Is this a continuation of last week's argument that "Everything is
appropriate in rec.boats, except any comments by anybody questioning
whether something is appropriately boating related or not. Any comment
suggesting that some posts are inappropriate for rec.boats
is.............. inappropriate for rec.boats" ?


There are no "rules" here. Never have been. There are common courtesies
that most people will follow in order to promote the smoothest
conversational interaction- and then there will always be a group of
people who feel that their personal compulsion to express themselves
however they see fit trumps any general desire among the group for
civil discourse and rational polite discussion. If some people are
feeling "tense" or unduly restricted by the general group attitude
toward anti-social behavior, there is nothing and nobody who can or
will stop them from dumping load after load of crap into the NG as far
too many of us have done in the past.


2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.

Who or what, other than peer pressure, prevents anybody from posting
whatever they want here- marked OT or not?


3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments


Here's where things get a bit blurry on my radar screen, so help me out
please.
If people should be "allowed" (and they are) to post "anything they
want" (and they can)
what happens when Poster X decides that what he really wants to post is
a long personal attack on Poster Y?

Question: Would you then suggest that Poster X do items 1,2,and 3
above? Would that be "netcopping"? Why can't Poster X post "anything
he wants" without somebody else saying anything?


6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.


You think? You don't see a difference in the type of posts, the tone of
the posts, an increase in the number of boating related posts? The
group is no better than it was in November? Interesting analysis.



:-)

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

PS:

Here's a copy of the topic list from the day the challenge began.

See any difference?

« Newer topics Viewing titles only View with message text

Family of Four lost at sea 2 new of 2 JohnH (2 authors) Dec 20 2005

Five Day Chatroom Challenge 23 new of 35 JohnH (10 authors) Dec 20
2005

The America's Cup - Team Swiss 6 new of 7 Smithers one of 1000's (3
authors) Dec 20 2005

OT Bush Uses Poll Selectively 8 new of 8 JohnH (5 authors) Dec 20
2005

Here's a Story You Will Never See On Fox News 41 new of 56 jabadoodle
(11 authors) Dec 20 2005

Happy Whatever 3 new of 3 JimH (2 authors) Dec 20 2005

Boating Movie Trivia Contest. 17 new of 32 Martin Schöön (7
authors) Dec 20 2005

OT: Christmas Card Disclaimer 2 new of 2 (2
authors) Dec 20 2005

fuel line hose clamps 4 new of 4 (4 authors)
Dec 20 2005

free Happy Henry eBook 1 new of 1 (1
author) Dec 20 2005

Liberals in mourning 72 new of 78 Doug Kanter (9 authors) Dec 20 2005

Our Fuhrer has done it again 34 new of 40 P Fritz (11 authors) Dec 20
2005

OT--Rasmussen no longermy favorite pollster ;-) 1 new of 1 NOYB (1
author) Dec 20 2005

OT: American Gestapo 84 new of 85 Doug Kanter (11 authors) Dec 20
2005

And then, you have this.. 1 new of 2 Doug Kanter (1 author) Dec 20
2005

God of wind 6 new of 13 brianM (4 authors) Dec 20 2005

OT: Inkjet Refill Kit Warning 6 new of 8
(6 authors) Dec 19 2005

Solution to nausea-thanks bush 7 new of 7 Dixon (4 authors) Dec 19
2005

New England ice fishing 37 new of 56 P. Fritz (13 authors) Dec 19
2005

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE 84 new of 94 Dan Krueger (12
authors) Dec 19 2005

omc thermostat housing gasket sealing 2 new of 2 ben (1 author) Dec
19 2005

Ear to ear grin, holiday suprise 14 new of 16 Wayne. B (8 authors)
Dec 19 2005

OT: Better than multiplication tables 1 new of 1 JohnH (1 author) Dec
19 2005

OT: Nikon customer service. 22 new of 42 JohnH (3 authors) Dec 19
2005

OT: Understanding the NSA 3 new of 3 Bert Robbins (3 authors) Dec 19
2005

A War Without Heroes 1 new of 1 Mule (1 author) Dec 19 2005

Do flares expire? 14 new of 16 (10 authors) Dec 19
2005

A Soldier's Story About Life in Iraq 16 new of 17 Doug Kanter (6
authors) Dec 19 2005

OT: Cool greeting for Cheney

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?


Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has
not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that
this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules*
here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as
OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at
alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?


Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H


Agreed.

And none of us should insult, personally attack or flame
others.............agreed?

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has
not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that
this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules*
here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as
OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H
So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at
alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?

Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H


Agreed.

And none of us should insult, personally attack or flame
others.............agreed?

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?


JimH,
Let me cut and paste your last two sentences and see if you see yourself
in this:

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right
to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?

In the first sentence you tell everyone that no one should be telling us
what is right to post here. In the very next sentence you are telling
everyone what they can post in here.

Chucks recommendations that was supported by 99% of the regulars is the
correct path to follow.


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************

Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.
************************************************** *************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Skipper wrote:


Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be. Jim has every right to express
his opinion. I have every right to disagree. As he points out, as long
as we avoid personal insults and name calling, that's not such a bad
thing. The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.

Are we a chatroom, or a newsgroup?

As I have said all along, if we want a chatroom we've had a dandy and
there is no need for anybody to change anything from the late November,
early December model where the majority of threads were OT, and even
the on topic threads quickly devolved into flame fests. If we want to
be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer total posts per
day in order to attract a greater number of particpants and posts. As
we were, we were seeing example after example of new people coming to
the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running for the
exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?

Why are OT threads a problem, even when the original poster avoids
calling names, etc?
In my opinion and observation, it's because 99% of the bitchy behavior
in this group occurs in OT threads. People then carry those personal
disputes into the on-topic threads and we suddenly have the Hatfields
and the McCoys all over hell. It's because I know darn well, (or
should), that even posting "George Bush did this yesterday" in as
objective a manner as I could manage, to *this* group, is going to
rally a half dozen people to declare that Bush is an idiot who stole
two elections and another half dozed to proclaim that he will be
remembered as the greatest president since Lincoln, at least, and given
the remainder of his second term he could easily eclipse ol' Abe. Who
needs that?

Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:
Skipper wrote:

Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be. Jim has every right to express
his opinion. I have every right to disagree. As he points out, as long
as we avoid personal insults and name calling, that's not such a bad
thing. The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.

Are we a chatroom, or a newsgroup?

As I have said all along, if we want a chatroom we've had a dandy and
there is no need for anybody to change anything from the late November,
early December model where the majority of threads were OT, and even
the on topic threads quickly devolved into flame fests. If we want to
be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer total posts per
day in order to attract a greater number of particpants and posts. As
we were, we were seeing example after example of new people coming to
the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running for the
exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?

Why are OT threads a problem, even when the original poster avoids
calling names, etc?
In my opinion and observation, it's because 99% of the bitchy behavior
in this group occurs in OT threads. People then carry those personal
disputes into the on-topic threads and we suddenly have the Hatfields
and the McCoys all over hell. It's because I know darn well, (or
should), that even posting "George Bush did this yesterday" in as
objective a manner as I could manage, to *this* group, is going to
rally a half dozen people to declare that Bush is an idiot who stole
two elections and another half dozed to proclaim that he will be
remembered as the greatest president since Lincoln, at least, and given
the remainder of his second term he could easily eclipse ol' Abe. Who
needs that?

Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?


Why don't you, Skipper, Smithers, et al, take this to Herring's group
for bitching, and stop cluttering up this newsgroup with these same,
repetitive sermons? I think you guys are burning up more space with this
than we've had heated off-topic discussions lately, eh?

Really. Give it a rest.
I think you are talking to the wrong person. JimH asked the question
and Chuck responded with his ideas.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************

Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.
************************************************** *************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JimH wrote:
The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

The only decrease in participation is from people who's ONLY agenda
here was to harass, lie about others, and otherwise be obnoxious. If
you noticed, those people are never heard from anymore. I personally
think that's a good thing.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.,

I don't think it's more confrontational! Seriously, I think the people
who are now never posting, are the ones who's only agenda was to be
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)

Jim, you've sure got on this anti-"netcopping" thing. I wonder why,
when you used to be the worst offender of this? Why the sudden change?
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT

Thank you!!

3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.

Again, I think the worst offenders of #3 are the one's that are gone,
thus the decreased participation. That's a good thing.
4. Stop the flaming.

That'd be good, but with SOME of the people here, that will never stop!

5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.

6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

Agreed with exceptions stated above!

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

The only decrease in participation is from people who's ONLY agenda
here was to harass, lie about others, and otherwise be obnoxious. If
you noticed, those people are never heard from anymore. I personally
think that's a good thing.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has
not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.,

I don't think it's more confrontational! Seriously, I think the people
who are now never posting, are the ones who's only agenda was to be
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)

Jim, you've sure got on this anti-"netcopping" thing. I wonder why,
when you used to be the worst offender of this? Why the sudden change?
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT

Thank you!!

3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.

Again, I think the worst offenders of #3 are the one's that are gone,
thus the decreased participation. That's a good thing.
4. Stop the flaming.

That'd be good, but with SOME of the people here, that will never stop!

5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.

6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

Agreed with exceptions stated above!


Good points.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


JimH wrote:
The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

The only decrease in participation is from people who's ONLY agenda
here was to harass, lie about others, and otherwise be obnoxious. If
you noticed, those people are never heard from anymore. I personally
think that's a good thing.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.,

I don't think it's more confrontational! Seriously, I think the people
who are now never posting, are the ones who's only agenda was to be
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)

Jim, you've sure got on this anti-"netcopping" thing. I wonder why,
when you used to be the worst offender of this? Why the sudden change?
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT

Thank you!!

3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.

Again, I think the worst offenders of #3 are the one's that are gone,
thus the decreased participation. That's a good thing.
4. Stop the flaming.

That'd be good, but with SOME of the people here, that will never stop!

5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.

6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

Agreed with exceptions stated above!

Some good points there. Thanks bassie.

Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:

The only decrease in participation is from people who's ONLY agenda
here was to harass, lie about others, and otherwise be obnoxious. If
you noticed, those people are never heard from anymore. I personally
think that's a good thing.

That's mostly correct. Smithers, of course, is still here, as is
Skipper...

And then there's Krause. He does not harass, lie, or exhibit obnoxious
behavior. He's special, being of the chosen class. Few possess his
talent and depth of knowledge.

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........

--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Reggie Smithers wrote:

I agree, rec.boats is a much better place when we use it as a place to
meet and chat...

Today, most of us enjoy the camaraderie. The few that are looking for
an argument are easy to ignore.

Just for grins, you ought to count up all the words you've posted
regarding boats since you were "born again," and all the words you've
posted about "manners."

Damn it hurts when I have to agree with you. I'd really like to see the
three musketeers from a.politics talk boats 'n boating. That could be
*very* telling.

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Skipper wrote:
wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be.

ad·mo·ni·tion
n.
1- Mild, kind, yet earnest reproof.
2- Cautionary advice or warning.

Middle English amonicioun, from Old French amonition, from Latin
admonitio, admonition-, from admonitus, past participle of admonere, to
admonish.

Sorry to see you take this mendacious tack again, Chuck. Your post was
clearly a veiled admonition to JimH. Old habits, huh?

Jim has every right to express his opinion. I have every right to disagree.

JimH presents as obtuse. Suppose that's not a crime, but his 30 or so
daily mindless musings only clutter and degrade the NG, IMO.

As he points out, as long as we avoid personal insults and name calling,
that's not such a bad thing.

You contend he avoids the personal insults? Take a closer look...or
check out a.politics.

My reference was to this specific post, where he did indeed avoid any
name calling or personal insults. If somebody is behaving differently
in a different group, that's not actually an issue in rec.boats. I've
never visited a.politics, but it sounds like a great sounding board for
the type of posts and posting styles that until very recently prevailed
in this group.






The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.

I believe it's a sign that some just don't have the ability or bent to
discuss boats and boating to the degree of their 'contributions' here.
They simply go that route to mask their boating ignorance.


Well, there's ignorance and then there's differences of opinion. One
thing that it has taken me a lifetime to learn, and most days I am
probably still working on it some, is that the people who don't agree
with me on a lot of things aren't underinformed, misinformed, or stupid
(most of the time)... they have simply looked at questions where there
might be more than one workable answer and maybe no absolutes and for
whatever reasons decided that some answer other than the one I might
prefer is the most appealing.





If we want to be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer
total posts per day in order to attract a greater number of particpants
and posts. As we were, we were seeing example after example of new people
coming to the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running
for the exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?

And as I stated above, we must follow the example set in the cruising NG
if we're going to be successful in having a useful forum.

Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?

Yes, they do.

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:


Why don't you, Skipper, Smithers, et al, take this to Herring's group
for bitching, and stop cluttering up this newsgroup with these same,
repetitive sermons? I think you guys are burning up more space with this
than we've had heated off-topic discussions lately, eh?

Really. Give it a rest.

Good morning, Harry.

As long as we're trudging through JimH's "state of the NG" post, allow
me to commend you on your important contribution to the improved tone
in the NG. A sincere "thanks" is in order, so consider it extended. We
all could do more, of course, but you have done as much as anybody to
reduce the flaming and the political posts here.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Skipper wrote:


Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be.


I did not take it that way either Chuck.

Old Man Skippy has to find some reason to complain. That is what he is
best at.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Reggie Smithers wrote:

I think you are talking to the wrong person. JimH asked the question
and Chuck responded with his ideas.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************


If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact. It's a very democratic
process, (relax, small "d") :-) These discussions may be unpleasant
and they're only semi-topical, but unless there's a censor in place we
need to exercise self control and some general sense of the group's
expectations is important.

Graffiti. We used to have graffiti. Each of us would take a turn
walking up to the rec.boats wall and spraying the most outrageous thing
we could possible think of, and then stepping back while others
contended to outdo the first. No wonder we wound up with a messy wall,
no useful messages, two or three "gangs" instead of a group, and a
bunch of po'd people covered in paint.

The "dock talk" analogy that often surfaces has some merit, but can't
be directly applied. How many people pull up to a transient moorage or
yacht club dock and intentionally introduce topics of conversation
designed to make others angry or upset? How many of us call anybody
harsh names when we go boating, particularly total strangers?

Give the new atmosphere a few months, especially as spring comes on,
and it's my prediction that rec.boats will be busier than ever with
on-topic, interesting, boating related threads and posts. It took a
long time to put the group into the disrepair where it had been, and we
can't expect it to bloom immediately upon voluntarily reducing the
amount of "fertilizer" we dumped into the pot.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a
lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds
nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
John H

I doubt kevin gets the irony of his post.



******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Reggie Smithers wrote:

I think you are talking to the wrong person. JimH asked the question
and Chuck responded with his ideas.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************


If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact. It's a very democratic
process, (relax, small "d") :-) These discussions may be unpleasant
and they're only semi-topical, but unless there's a censor in place we
need to exercise self control and some general sense of the group's
expectations is important.

Graffiti. We used to have graffiti. Each of us would take a turn
walking up to the rec.boats wall and spraying the most outrageous thing
we could possible think of, and then stepping back while others
contended to outdo the first. No wonder we wound up with a messy wall,
no useful messages, two or three "gangs" instead of a group, and a
bunch of po'd people covered in paint.

The "dock talk" analogy that often surfaces has some merit, but can't
be directly applied. How many people pull up to a transient moorage or
yacht club dock and intentionally introduce topics of conversation
designed to make others angry or upset? How many of us call anybody
harsh names when we go boating, particularly total strangers?

Give the new atmosphere a few months, especially as spring comes on,
and it's my prediction that rec.boats will be busier than ever with
on-topic, interesting, boating related threads and posts. It took a
long time to put the group into the disrepair where it had been, and we
can't expect it to bloom immediately upon voluntarily reducing the
amount of "fertilizer" we dumped into the pot.

Some good analogies.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JohnH wrote:
On 25 Jan 2006 07:57:51 -0800, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2006 04:50:05 -0800, wrote:


Chuck's Challenge has done much to help clean up the place. The folks
who've left have been more than replaced by new names who've added a lot
to
the group.

We don't need the acerbic, antagonistic, name-calling that adds nothing.

I agree as well........


Well, there you have it. If Fritz is converted, the experiment has
succeeded. If he IS truly converted, he'd agree that he once was one of
the worst offenders of the "acerbic, antagonistic, name calling" that
John was talking about.

We were *all* worst offenders!

No names are necessary.
--
Some were worse than others. Some NEVER, EVER posted anything about
boats, nor offered anyone else any advice about boats. But, as you can
see below, Fritz is still insistent on being antagonistic.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:

If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact...

Is that not what a NG charter is for? This NG was formed for the
discussion (primarily) of recreational boats and boating. What
percentage of current NG posts have anything at all to do with charter
compliant topics? That says a lot about the current health of the NG.
Should this problem not be corrected, the NG will retain its reputation
as a bad joke and continue to drive serious contributors away, IMO. Half
the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic contributions.
The real problem is that fully another half is not, again IMO.

It will be interesting to see who prevails in this NG tug-o-war.

Whoever it is, it ain't gonna be you.

What you are doing:

http://tinyurl.com/bvnds

Yes, that could well be true. It also says a lot about the current crop
of contributors if true.

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:05:45 -0600, Skipper wrote:

wrote:

If our unmoderated group is going to be a group, it is useful every so
often to hash out some understandings (no, not rules) about how the
majority of the group prefers to interact...

Is that not what a NG charter is for? This NG was formed for the
discussion (primarily) of recreational boats and boating. What
percentage of current NG posts have anything at all to do with charter
compliant topics? That says a lot about the current health of the NG.
Should this problem not be corrected, the NG will retain its reputation
as a bad joke and continue to drive serious contributors away, IMO. Half
the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic contributions.
The real problem is that fully another half is not, again IMO.

It will be interesting to see who prevails in this NG tug-o-war.

Skipper, my boat is in storage. I can't even look at it. It will be that
way until early April, unless I can get them to take it out in late March.
I'm not doing any fishing, but when I do, I'll talk about it. Honest.

The boating questions are being answered, in a pretty complete fashion from
what I can tell. I haven't been to Mexico, Alaska, Puget Sound, or any
other exotic place in my boat, so I can't talk about any of that. I don't
plan to buy anything boating related, so I can't talk about that.

Neutral topics of interest should not be excluded from discussion. We
*know* what starts the name-calling.

Rule # 1. Be nice.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:05:45 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Half
the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic contributions.
The real problem is that fully another half is not, again IMO.

I'm sure we'd all get a chuckle out of seeing who you've got in column
A, and who's in column B. Don't hold back, tell us how you really
feel.

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JohnH wrote:

Skipper, my boat is in storage. I can't even look at it. It will be that
way until early April, unless I can get them to take it out in late March.
I'm not doing any fishing, but when I do, I'll talk about it. Honest.

There is still a vast menu of on-topic items to be discussed in the off
season. Do you really think 99% off-topic is healthy for the NG?

Neutral topics of interest should not be excluded from discussion.

I completely agree, but not when off-topic consumes the NG. Best course
for the NG is keeping the *primary* focus on boating, IMO. Look at
today's NG content. Do you really believe that's the kind of content to
draw in and retain boaters?

On another note, check out the charter and voting summary for
rec.boats.cruising. I do find it interesting that only two of the
original voters still participate in that group:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...newgroups/rec/



--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

"Wayne.B" wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Half the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic
contributions. The real problem is that fully another half is not,
again IMO.

I'm sure we'd all get a chuckle out of seeing who you've got in column
A, and who's in column B. Don't hold back, tell us how you really
feel.

Yes, I bet we would. But then I'd also bet you know the primary
candidates for column A. The NG would benefit if they'd stand up by the
content of their posts to reidentify themselves.

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Harry Krause wrote:

I promise not to insult you about your choice of boat.

I've got to get this framed!

--
Skipper

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:55:22 -0600, Skipper wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Skipper, my boat is in storage. I can't even look at it. It will be that
way until early April, unless I can get them to take it out in late March.
I'm not doing any fishing, but when I do, I'll talk about it. Honest.

There is still a vast menu of on-topic items to be discussed in the off
season. Do you really think 99% off-topic is healthy for the NG?

Neutral topics of interest should not be excluded from discussion.

I completely agree, but not when off-topic consumes the NG. Best course
for the NG is keeping the *primary* focus on boating, IMO. Look at
today's NG content. Do you really believe that's the kind of content to
draw in and retain boaters?

On another note, check out the charter and voting summary for
rec.boats.cruising. I do find it interesting that only two of the
original voters still participate in that group:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...newgroups/rec/

If a new person subscribes to this group and gets all the headers available
(almost 12,000 on my server), they'll find lots of boating stuff and lots
of acrimonious name-calling stuff. No newbie is going to see just 'today's'
posts.

I have no problem with the percentages, as long as the off-topic posts are
not those which cause bad behavior, and we all know what that is.

Start a boating thread! Pick a subject and let fly!
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Skipper wrote:
Half
the current contributors are capable of lucid on-topic contributions.
The real problem is that fully another half is not, again IMO.


Gee, really?

Wayne.B wrote:
I'm sure we'd all get a chuckle out of seeing who you've got in column
A, and who's in column B. Don't hold back, tell us how you really
feel.


I got one from your comment... thanks for one good laugh so
far today.

DSK

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

Skipper wrote:
JohnH wrote:

Skipper, my boat is in storage. I can't even look at it. It will be that
way until early April, unless I can get them to take it out in late March.
I'm not doing any fishing, but when I do, I'll talk about it. Honest.

There is still a vast menu of on-topic items to be discussed in the off
season. Do you really think 99% off-topic is healthy for the NG?

Neutral topics of interest should not be excluded from discussion.

I completely agree, but not when off-topic consumes the NG. Best course
for the NG is keeping the *primary* focus on boating, IMO. Look at
today's NG content. Do you really believe that's the kind of content to
draw in and retain boaters?

On another note, check out the charter and voting summary for
rec.boats.cruising. I do find it interesting that only two of the
original voters still participate in that group:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...newgroups/rec/



--
Skipper
Skipper,
Why don't you start another thread with a boating topic you think we be
of interest?

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

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

Lighten up folks: A Revisit of the *Challenge*
 

JohnH wrote:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...newgroups/rec/

Start a boating thread! Pick a subject and let fly!

I found reviewing the boating group petitions interesting. You can see
which ones succeeded and the voting history of those that failed. Also
interesting is the voting list for the failed NG rec.boats.engines.

--
Skipper