Deja Vu all over again.
 

Harry Krause wrote:


Netcop Alert! Netcop Alert! Whoop! Whoop!


By validating Don's decision to dump his rant in a boating newsgroup
rather than take some actual political action to promote his cause, you
diffuse some energy that might be
useful to the progressive politics you espouse to prefer.

I suppose every group has a bunch of political hacks that pretend to
have some interest in the nominal subject- just enough to justify
hanging around to make regular dumpings of political garbage. Why
should rec.boats be different? But then again, why should a boating
newsgroup, a music newsgroup, a camping newsgroup, a quilting
newsgroup, or a family history newsgroup have to endure polito-bombs
from people too timid to take the subject up with other people well
informed and passionate about their chosen cause or from people too
stupid to locate a proper forum?

The ulitmate conceit could be "I'm so smart and clever that I can
interrupt the on-topic discussions with my political viewpoints, etc,
and most people will think their life is better as a result." I can't
think of any other expalanation for OT postings, particularly those OT
postings deliberately calculated to start long and destructive
arguments.

Think about all the political energy that is wasted in rec.boats. Not
one political opinion has ever changed, but we have started some fights
that won't stop until somebody burns his or her computer or dies. The
politically motivated would be better advised to spend the same amount
of time working for candidates and issues of their choice rather than
delving into childish personal attacks and years-long feuds in a
newsgroup organized for the discussion of boating and boating-related
issues.

But then again, some thrive on the name calling.

(You might want to see a doctor about that case of whooping cough,
Harry).

Deja Vu all over again.
 

Don White wrote:

..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.

Deja Vu all over again.
 

Don White wrote:


..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

Looks like I struck a nerve. Good.

I guess I missed Calif Bill's politically charged OT post.
Do pay more attention, however. I seem to remember discouraging jps in
one of his last political messages here. He not only lives on the "same
coast", he lives in the same city.

If you think that regionality trumps proper procedure in the NG,
fantastic! Please, post your OT political stuff to a NG that is
restricted to your own region. Post your boating-related messages here.

Deja Vu all over again.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don White wrote:

..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.


You never answered my question from yesterday Kevin. Are you still beating
your wife and kids?

Deja Vu all over again.
 

basskisser wrote:


If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.

I'm not impartial. And I admit to being more alarmed when a person of
liberal persuasion behaves stupidly than when a person of conservative
persuasion behaves stupidly. The stupid behavior reflects badly upon
the political or philosophical positions the offender is claiming to
support. (Simply because I think there is no room for politics in a
boating newsgroup doesn't mean that I don't have political opinions).

That said, I have a lot more to do every day than hang out in the NG
watching for somebody to do something stupid. Sometimes I comment,
sometimes I don't, and sometimes I'm gone for a while actually using my
boat. (Novel concept, I know).
If you have missed my comments to JimH about some of his political
posts, that's too bad.

As a matter of fact, when any two persons are trading "slanderous,
malicious" posts, the situation is already so far out of control that
virtually everybody *except* the two fools
arguing over the internet has fled the thread.

A friend of mine has proposed a funny tee shirt for dog walkers. It
would read, "My life is controlled by the bowel movements of a dog". We
could have one for OT rec.boaters as well, ""My life is controlled by
the bad behavior of __________" (insert the name of your current NG
antagonist in the blank).

Deja Vu all over again.
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Those of us who know "something" about boats initiate or comment on
boating posts as we see appropriate. and initiated or comment on other
posts as we see appropriate.

Fantastic. We're closing in on a resolution.

All I need to do now is come to an understanding of how pro-Bush,
anti-Bush, pro-war, anti-war, and political or religious posts of any
kind are "appropriate" in a group organized to discuss recreational
boating.

Clue me in, Harry. :-)

Deja Vu all over again.
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Ahh. I see your problem. You think only posts *you* think appropriate
are appropriate. The second "we" in my sentence doesn't necessarily
refer to "you."


Unfortunatly Harry, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
To me ..it's all or nothing. If we can have long posts on baking
brownies here (and I'm not complaining about that), then I feel that I
can post something that's important to me once in a while...even if it's
non-boating.
BTW I bet at least a few of that group of 30 who were injured are avid
boaters

Deja Vu all over again.
 

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

Don White wrote:

..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.


You never answered my question from yesterday Kevin. Are you still beating
your wife and kids?

I'm not Kevin, so I don't know whether he is or not. But, if you are
talking to ME, then when you answer my question to you, then I'll
answer. The question was, you have posted the question in a form that
would make one think that you have some knowledge of me beating my wife
and kids. What IS that knowledge? You see, you aren't bright enough to
form it so as to not make you look like you have some evidence of such
ie: "still". If you were a man instead of a little jerkboy, then if you
had some shred of common decency and had knowledge of me doing such,
you'd contact the proper authorities. Or, perhaps you are projecting.
Is that why your wife is sick, from you beating her too much?

Deja Vu all over again.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Don White wrote:

..and I wouldn't mind if Sir Chuck could at least be impartial.
He's actually worse than John these days. (ever see him say a word to
his west coast neighbours...such as Calif Bill?)
Surly someone as talented, experienced and knowledgeable and connected
as his self can understand that he loses all credibility if he's seen
as
partial.

If you want to see him be partial, he's tried to chastise me for off
topic posting, etc., but says absolutely nothing to JimH when he does
the same thing! As a matter of fact, JimH can post nothing but a
slanderous, malicious post to me, and if I even DARE respond, I'll get
chastised.


You never answered my question from yesterday Kevin. Are you still
beating
your wife and kids?

I'm not Kevin, so I don't know whether he is or not. But, if you are
talking to ME, then when you answer my question to you, then I'll
answer. The question was, you have posted the question in a form that
would make one think that you have some knowledge of me beating my wife
and kids. What IS that knowledge? You see, you aren't bright enough to
form it so as to not make you look like you have some evidence of such
ie: "still". If you were a man instead of a little jerkboy, then if you
had some shred of common decency and had knowledge of me doing such,
you'd contact the proper authorities. Or, perhaps you are projecting.


Going off the deep end again Kevin?

So did you stop beating your wife and kids?

Deja Vu all over again.
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Those of us who know "something" about boats initiate or comment on
boating posts as we see appropriate. and initiated or comment on other
posts as we see appropriate.

Fantastic. We're closing in on a resolution.

All I need to do now is come to an understanding of how pro-Bush,
anti-Bush, pro-war, anti-war, and political or religious posts of any
kind are "appropriate" in a group organized to discuss recreational
boating.

Clue me in, Harry. :-)



Ahh. I see your problem. You think only posts *you* think appropriate
are appropriate. The second "we" in my sentence doesn't necessarily
refer to "you."

So, I'm probably not beyond help. Please define "recreational boating"
so I can expand my understanding and appreciate just when political bs
is appropriate here. (Or is it whenever one of the usual trolls makes a
personal decision that the pro-Bush, anti-Bush, pro-war, anti-war
comment he or she just *has* to make somehwere should land in
rec.boats?)