On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:13:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

No I didn't. OT does not necessarily equal troll. It was a post made in
good humor, nothing more.

And it was funny, if a trifle old.

On the other hand this is not a humor newsgroup, with the possible
exception of *boat* humor, and there is plenty of that at times. And
it is really not the right place to do behavioral study no matter how
entertaining it may be.

6 mpg on a power boat? Now *that* is funny...

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

JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:31:40 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:20:21 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


You two netcops should get a room and entertain yourselves with your
silliness.

Been boating yet this year, John?

BTW, what is it about anti-name calling or anti-troll posts that
bothers
you?
--
John H


I'm consistent, John. I don't like unctuousness, a quality you, Gould,
Smithers, et al, have in abundance. I've posted this before. That's for
starters.

Second, you're a facilitator of bad behavior here. Several have pointed
that out. Your constant response of "Who, me?" is recognized for the
bull**** it is.

Third, you're not clever enough with words to play Zoltan Karpathy,
John,
so your oiling and oozing your way around here only makes you
look...silly.


I score that reply a clear knock out.

It figures that you'd enjoy the insults and name calling.



sigh

You just can't stop it can you?

I thought I would give you a chance but see that all you do is continue to
try to pick fights with me and others here.

Back in the bozo bin you go Kevin.

See ya!

Until you go bipolar, huh?

NOYB wrote:

Every day I talk about a multitude of subjects with people from all walks of
life. The internet, for me, is merely a test ground. I like to see how
people respond to certain statements or comments. As you stated, it's
personal interaction without consequences. People say things here they may
or may not say in public. But that's what is great about it. People also
respond here in ways they normally wouldn't respond in public...'cause if
they did, they'd get punched in the mouth.

To me, it's a fascinating study in human nature.

There are words for people who behave differently when assured of
anonymity than they behave when their identity is known. Unfortunately,
none of them are complimentary.

You're supposedly a smart fella. Made it through dental school and all.
Ever think that
your "study of how people react to subjects" might be more
apporpriately pursued in forums organized for the discussion of those
subjects?

In fact, you're proably smart enough to remember damn well how
political subjects work
in this NG.


That's probably not true in your case, but sometimes I have
my doubts about a few others.........

I think we should stick to boats,

Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

and I will continue offering comments
to those who abuse the NG to get their personal, political rocks off.

But what if they get their rocks off by bantering with netcops?

If you don't like it- great, and if it really "didn't bother you" you
wouldn't get all grammar school silly and insulting in response.

You mean like a 50-something year old man playing hallway monitor on his
computer?

Nah, there are no hallway monitors in the NG. Whatsa matter? First you
want to post
some political horse puckey "to see how people will react" and then you
get all offended when your BS abuse of the group is called out for what
it is. Why not be specific? You wanted to see how people would react,
but you aren't prepared to accept a bad reaction.

And here's a belly laugh for you, Doc, as long as you're into humor.
Check my initial response: You claim I called you a "Troll", (and I
have, since, in this thread), but if I recall correctly all I did was
offer you some "clinical reading". Apparently you self-identified as a
troll. Would it be fair to say that only a troll would be offended by
the description of a troll's behavior? Funny study of how people
"react", isn't it?

So far: You admit posting off topic. You admit posting something
controversial purely to create a "reaction" so you can "conduct a
study" for your own purposes. You then take offense at an implication
that your activity is trolling? Seems like it meets the classic
definition. If you are offended, perhaps it is because your own
behavior is offensive.

Remind me again, when was your last on-topic post here? Check your
signal to noise ratio.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

Every day I talk about a multitude of subjects with people from all walks
of
life. The internet, for me, is merely a test ground. I like to see how
people respond to certain statements or comments. As you stated, it's
personal interaction without consequences. People say things here they
may
or may not say in public. But that's what is great about it. People
also
respond here in ways they normally wouldn't respond in public...'cause if
they did, they'd get punched in the mouth.

To me, it's a fascinating study in human nature.

There are words for people who behave differently when assured of
anonymity than they behave when their identity is known. Unfortunately,
none of them are complimentary.

You're supposedly a smart fella. Made it through dental school and all.
Ever think that
your "study of how people react to subjects" might be more
apporpriately pursued in forums organized for the discussion of those
subjects?

No. There's inherent bias if everybody knows they're under the microscope.



In fact, you're proably smart enough to remember damn well how
political subjects work
in this NG.


That's probably not true in your case, but sometimes I have
my doubts about a few others.........

I think we should stick to boats,

Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

and I will continue offering comments
to those who abuse the NG to get their personal, political rocks off.

But what if they get their rocks off by bantering with netcops?

If you don't like it- great, and if it really "didn't bother you" you
wouldn't get all grammar school silly and insulting in response.

You mean like a 50-something year old man playing hallway monitor on his
computer?

Nah, there are no hallway monitors in the NG. Whatsa matter? First you
want to post
some political horse puckey "to see how people will react" and then you
get all offended when your BS abuse of the group is called out for what
it is. Why not be specific? You wanted to see how people would react,
but you aren't prepared to accept a bad reaction.

I'm not offended in the least bit. In fact, I guess you could say that by
responding to what you characterize as a "troll", you're now officially part
of the study. I have not spent much time observing the net cop at work. My
first observation is that they seem to take their "job" very seriously. My
second observation is that they think that they're helping things, but only
worsen the groups' content by adding even additional noise.


And here's a belly laugh for you, Doc, as long as you're into humor.
Check my initial response: You claim I called you a "Troll", (and I
have, since, in this thread), but if I recall correctly all I did was
offer you some "clinical reading". Apparently you self-identified as a
troll. Would it be fair to say that only a troll would be offended by
the description of a troll's behavior? Funny study of how people
"react", isn't it?

Why would a troll get offended by a response? If, as you say, the troll is
simply out to get a response, then responding to him as the groups' netcop
only results in the prolongation of his troll.


So far: You admit posting off topic. You admit posting something
controversial purely to create a "reaction" so you can "conduct a
study" for your own purposes. You then take offense at an implication
that your activity is trolling?

No offense at all.

Seems like it meets the classic
definition. If you are offended, perhaps it is because your own
behavior is offensive.

You keep getting this silly notion that you can offend somebody by calling
him/her a troll. But if they're a troll, and you respond to the troll,
you're just providing the sustenance a troll feeds on. Ergo, you can't
offend a troll by calling him/her a troll.



Remind me again, when was your last on-topic post here? Check your
signal to noise ratio.

Mariah boats.

So what's your point.

On 26 Jun 2006 17:30:04 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Jim wrote:

Those infomercials are kind of dull without pictures, doncha think?
Jim


For $35 a year, you can read all the same "infomercials" (actually
more- an average of 3-4 boat articles per month) with pictures. :-)

Or send me an email, and I can send you photos for a specific item at
no charge.

I've always been able to put the boat manufacturer and model (copied from
your article) into Google and find all the pictures one could want.
--
John H

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

On 27 Jun 2006 07:01:30 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:31:40 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:20:21 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


You two netcops should get a room and entertain yourselves with your
silliness.

Been boating yet this year, John?

BTW, what is it about anti-name calling or anti-troll posts that bothers
you?
--
John H


I'm consistent, John. I don't like unctuousness, a quality you, Gould,
Smithers, et al, have in abundance. I've posted this before. That's for
starters.

Second, you're a facilitator of bad behavior here. Several have pointed
that out. Your constant response of "Who, me?" is recognized for the
bull**** it is.

Third, you're not clever enough with words to play Zoltan Karpathy, John,
so your oiling and oozing your way around here only makes you
look...silly.


I score that reply a clear knock out.

It figures that you'd enjoy the insults and name calling.

In the words of a better man than he, JimH has calibrated himself. Nothing
more need be said.
--
John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jun 2006 07:01:30 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:31:40 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:20:21 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


You two netcops should get a room and entertain yourselves with your
silliness.

Been boating yet this year, John?

BTW, what is it about anti-name calling or anti-troll posts that
bothers
you?
--
John H


I'm consistent, John. I don't like unctuousness, a quality you, Gould,
Smithers, et al, have in abundance. I've posted this before. That's
for
starters.

Second, you're a facilitator of bad behavior here. Several have
pointed
that out. Your constant response of "Who, me?" is recognized for the
bull**** it is.

Third, you're not clever enough with words to play Zoltan Karpathy,
John,
so your oiling and oozing your way around here only makes you
look...silly.


I score that reply a clear knock out.

It figures that you'd enjoy the insults and name calling.

In the words of a better man than he, JimH has calibrated himself. Nothing
more need be said.
--
John H

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


You and Kevin are absolutely fixated on me. The is your second post today
and the second post with me as the subject. Am I in your dreams also John?

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jun 2006 22:38:40 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:



I doubt the "fallout" makes NOYB uncomfortable. It doesn't make me
uncomfortable, either. It just makes you look unctuous.

I absolutely believe that the dedicated trolls in this NG are *not*
bothered by the fallout. (Maybe there's hope for the aspiring trolls,
but it's hard to say)
Some people could give a flying fig less about anything except their
own need to
lob crap into the NG and raise a middle finger in some sort of sick or
twisted "triumph" when they do.


This NG used to be full of liberals and conservatives, and it argued
about politics.

Now it's full of trolls and netcops, and it argues about trolling and
netcopping.

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other...

Jack

Actually the NG full of liberals and conservatives arguing about politics
was more peaceful. All you have to do is revisit yesterday and today at
rec.boats. ;-)

The several netcops we have and the one or two constantly trolling for
fights have made this group more adversarial and less enjoyable over the
past few months.

If the netcops stopped the netcopping and the trolls looking for fights
stopped their trolling..........things would be great.

I wonder if they can get the message?

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jun 2006 07:01:30 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:31:40 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:20:21 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


You two netcops should get a room and entertain yourselves with your
silliness.

Been boating yet this year, John?

BTW, what is it about anti-name calling or anti-troll posts that
bothers
you?
--
John H


I'm consistent, John. I don't like unctuousness, a quality you, Gould,
Smithers, et al, have in abundance. I've posted this before. That's
for
starters.

Second, you're a facilitator of bad behavior here. Several have
pointed
that out. Your constant response of "Who, me?" is recognized for the
bull**** it is.

Third, you're not clever enough with words to play Zoltan Karpathy,
John,
so your oiling and oozing your way around here only makes you
look...silly.


I score that reply a clear knock out.

It figures that you'd enjoy the insults and name calling.

In the words of a better man than he, JimH has calibrated himself. Nothing
more need be said.
--
John H

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


You and Kevin are absolutely fixated on me. This is your second post today
and the second post with me as the subject. Am I in your dreams also John?


Not a good day. Yet another edit. sigh

Thanks for that NOYB! Best laugh this week.
surfnturf

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


News From the Other Border


The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has
intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop
the illegal immigration.

The unflinching arrogance of the Bush Administration is prompting the
exodus
among liberal citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray,
and
agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology
professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields
at
night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a
Hollywood
producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose
acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and
hungry."He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.
When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show
him my screenplay."

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences,
but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare
Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The
liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they
wouldn't
give milk"

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals
near
the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them
across
the border and leave them to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people
are
not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I
found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a
pleasant
little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often
wailing
loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been
circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps
in
which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

Liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border.
Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap
Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans
disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began
stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers. "If
they can't
identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious
about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating
an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon
movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just
can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors
does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice
President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that
the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close
to
Cheney said. "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we
might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is
determined to reach out."