"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



OK. You serve in spite of your questions. Thinking now of Iraq, who do
you think is BEING served?


I think I've been served enough of this crap and I am kicking myself for
posting my views. It won't change a thing in the minds of many.

Yep..............and we all get involved in this crap sooner or later.
Testosterone?

Sometimes it takes a slap to the head to bring us to our senses.

Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt.

So how are the preparations going for the splash of your and your wife's
boats? ;-)

JimH wrote:

Neither posts were meant to be inflammatory or political. Unfortunately,
some chose to make them so, including you. Some also chose to get into the
gutter with name calling and other personal attacks.


Neither post had a damn thing to do with boating. Do you really think
that opening a thread denigrating the Kennedy family and referencing
scandals that go back over 30 years isn't just waving a red flag in
front of a bull?



No one can control how folks choose to react to posts Chuck. The
politicalization of the posts, as well as the name calling and personal
attacks were all from others. Direct your anger towards those who took the
posts south Chuck because it was not either of us. ;-)


So let me get this straight. "Blame the bull for charging. All I did
was wave this red flag a little bit. Who could possibly have predicted
what the reaction of the bull would be"?

Stick to boating, Jim. There are hundreds of sites where you can GD the
Kennedy family
or express some moral outrage about some politician or another (from
either side) receiving special privileges, and where that material
would be welcome.

Lest you failed to notice in the past: The reason to avoid inflammatory
threads in the NG is because the snarking and bitching doesn't confine
itself to the threads titled "Liberals are all traitors" or
"Conservatives would sell their mothers if the price were high enough."
The crap fights leak out into the on-topic threads. Great piles of
festering dung in the OT threads attract a swarm of people (who shall
remain individually unnamed) to this group who seem to go completely
away when we stay on topic. The people in this swarm have little or no
interest in boating, but they don't mind jumping into a boating related
thread to continue the naming and flaming if they see a post from
individual X or individual Y- and they thereby infect even the on-topic
threads with their hateful nonsense.

So, the next time you feel compelled to say "something" ask yourself if
the NG is better off today than it was a couple of days ago, and
whether there just might be some connection between the waving of red
flags and a lot of raging bull.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

Neither posts were meant to be inflammatory or political. Unfortunately,
some chose to make them so, including you. Some also chose to get into
the
gutter with name calling and other personal attacks.


Neither post had a damn thing to do with boating. Do you really think
that opening a thread denigrating the Kennedy family and referencing
scandals that go back over 30 years isn't just waving a red flag in
front of a bull?

Sorry Chuck but boating is not in my blood 24x7. If this NG were restricted
to such, it would soon die.

All I did was report a news item. OT? Yep, as my life does not revolve
around boating. The boaters I know have no problem talking about things
that do not necessarily involve boating. You may be the exception.

Having said that.........if you or others chose to take my initial post down
the wrong path that is your problem.

Have a good evening Chuck.

BTW: How is the restoratation going on your boat?

wrote in message
oups.com...

JIMinFL wrote:


Hey Chuck! make lemonade out of lemons for yourself. Insert some of your
infomercials into the thread. I don't mind.

Mind?

I don't believe you'd notice.

After all, 99% of my contributions relate to boating.

Something you clearly don't give a frick about, or you wouldn't take
such pride in screwing up the tone of the NG.

Didn't John Fogerty have something to say about this type of thing?
IIRC:


Lost my good job in the city
For trollin' through the groups every night and day
I've been known to lose one whole lot of sleep
Staring at the sceen to think of somethin' to say
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

Talked a lotta trash in rec.boats
Repeatin' things from PBS or FOX TV
Gotta take ahold of these usenet groups
To glorify the White House or the DNC
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

When you drop into the newsgroup
You know you're gonna find a lot of people who spin
It don't really matter if you flame or insult
It's an argument that nobody can win
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.
Trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

There you go, Florida Jim. Consider that "inserted"......(you said you
wouldn't mind). :-)

That was mighty inflammatory Chuck. You aren't going to set this ship back
on course with talk like that.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

Neither posts were meant to be inflammatory or political.
Unfortunately,
some chose to make them so, including you. Some also chose to get
into
the
gutter with name calling and other personal attacks.


Neither post had a damn thing to do with boating. Do you really think
that opening a thread denigrating the Kennedy family and referencing
scandals that go back over 30 years isn't just waving a red flag in
front of a bull?

Sorry Chuck but boating is not in my blood 24x7. If this NG were
restricted
to such, it would soon die.


When "boating isn't in your blood", would it be entirely inappropriate
to seek out a group that reflects your interests at the moment?

You must have, or should have, many other venues for self expression
besides a boating newsgroup.

For instance, if I want to indulge my interest in bagpiping I can visit
a bagpipe site.
There are places I can go where other people *welcome* political
argument, and the sites are actually set up for that purpose. Same with
most other topics.

Boating topics might "only" include fishing, exploring, navigating,
mechanical theory and adjustment, safety and first aid, ecology and
conservation, relevant rules and regulations, vessels of all types
large and small, wiring, plumbing, painting, the buying and selling of
boats, seamanship, nautical books, weather, interesting destination and
harborside attractions, recipes for food and drink served aboard,
cleaning and cosmetic maintenance, marine insurance and financing,
electronics, (and at least a dozen more that are a bit slower to come
to mind). Perhaps you are right, and when these subjects are exhausted
the NG will "die", but I personally don't sense much danger of that
happening any time soon.





All I did was report a news item. OT? Yep, as my life does not revolve
around boating. The boaters I know have no problem talking about things
that do not necessarily involve boating. You may be the exception.

Having said that.........if you or others chose to take my initial post
down
the wrong path that is your problem.

Have a good evening Chuck.

BTW: How is the restoratation going on your boat?


See the post about "unusual paint" from last week. There isn't a lot
more to report since then, but I hope to get to Bellingham later this
week and maybe spend another varnish day on Saturday.


Go pick a fight with someone else Chuck. I am done with this.

Have a great evening.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late
1960s that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was
based on. All presidents are the target of various so-called
scholars and shmexperts. Many of us figured out early on that the
North Vietnamese were not going to burn their way through the
south and invade Australia next. Do you remember this nonsense?

Doug, you are chanting a typical shallow and simplistic post mortem
of a very complex set of circumstances, alliances, and political
commitments that took place over many years, mired also in
corruption. In the end it came down to justifying the continuance of
policies that weren't working or were no longer purposeful.
If you simply believe it was all based on the "domino" theory, then
it was you that was duped.

RCE

Like the other two personal wars, it was based on weak presidents who
succumbed to bad advice, thus demonstrating their complete inability
to manage and think for themselves.

So, as it relates to Vietnam, your list of weak Presidents must
include:

Harry S Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kenney
Lyndon Johnson
Richard M. Nixon
Gerald Ford

and, then, to make everything "ok"

Jimmy Carter.

RCE

Grow up.

Good grief.

RCE


Bert is attempting to say that because Truman authorized the OSS to poke
around SE Asia as "advisors" after WWII, he's in the same category as
Johnson, who clearly made the largest committment to the Vietnam mistake.
He's saying pretty much the same thing for Eisenhower & Kennedy.

Doug focus, I did not write the above list.



What's the diff? A clone is a clone.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:43:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It helps to understand the mindset of people who
may decide to send MY son off to a war with no purpose.

Wars always have a purpose, Doug. Sometimes, like in civil wars, it's
to unify a country. Sometimes, like WWII, it is to protect our
freedoms and way of life from tyrants. Sometimes, like Viet Nam, or
Iraq, it is for profits. Wars always have a purpose. Some are always
willing to sacrifice themselves and their children, no matter what the
purpose. Some make personal choices about when to make personal
sacrifices for the general benefit of all, and when to resist making
personal sacrifices for the benefit of the privileged class. There
will always be those who severely judge those who have the treasonous
ability to make personal choices that put their own personal well
being, and those of their loved ones, above the profit motives of the
military industrial complex.

Throughout history, it's been rare to find those who resist making
sacrifices when there is a real threat to the well being of the
society as a whole.

There will always be those who blindly follow. FWER, those who
blindly follow tend to look down on those who don't blindly follow. I
have never seen any evidence to show there is any difference in the
willingness of either group to serve and sacrifice when the threat is
clear. The blind followers just seem to consider themselves to be
more patriotic, actually the only patriotic, citizens of a given
nation.

bb

On Tue, 9 May 2006 19:23:59 -0400, "JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com
REMOVETHIS wrote:

Neither posts were meant to be inflammatory or political.

Yeah, sure, jimh. wink, wink, nod, nod.

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:43:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It helps to understand the mindset of people who
may decide to send MY son off to a war with no purpose.

Wars always have a purpose, Doug. Sometimes, like in civil wars, it's
to unify a country. Sometimes, like WWII, it is to protect our
freedoms and way of life from tyrants. Sometimes, like Viet Nam, or
Iraq, it is for profits. Wars always have a purpose. Some are always
willing to sacrifice themselves and their children, no matter what the
purpose. Some make personal choices about when to make personal
sacrifices for the general benefit of all, and when to resist making
personal sacrifices for the benefit of the privileged class. There
will always be those who severely judge those who have the treasonous
ability to make personal choices that put their own personal well
being, and those of their loved ones, above the profit motives of the
military industrial complex.

Throughout history, it's been rare to find those who resist making
sacrifices when there is a real threat to the well being of the
society as a whole.

There will always be those who blindly follow. FWER, those who
blindly follow tend to look down on those who don't blindly follow. I
have never seen any evidence to show there is any difference in the
willingness of either group to serve and sacrifice when the threat is
clear. The blind followers just seem to consider themselves to be
more patriotic, actually the only patriotic, citizens of a given
nation.

bb


Not much has changed in 103 years:

We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the
largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the
matter-exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been
taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and
contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy
we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of
place-the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping.
This is patriotism on the Russian plan.
-- Mark Twain

On Tue, 9 May 2006 20:38:09 -0400, "JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com
REMOVETHIS wrote:

Sorry Chuck but boating is not in my blood 24x7. If this NG were restricted
to such, it would soon die.

You certainly have nothing to back up that claim. I frequent several
groups that stay on topic and they don't die. Boating has a very wide
following. Some of the groups that I follow, that say on topic, and
don't die by staying on topic, have a very small following. Check out
rec.gardens.orchids. It stays on topic. It doesn't die. Orchids are
certainly a much narrower interest group than boats. So, I'll say
with some authority, your claim that if this group were restricted to
topic it would die is complete horse ****. JMHO.

bb