basskisser wrote:
on't you agree that silly name calling can get very old very fast?

Again, you are failing to get the point. It wouldn't be so bad, if
Chuck ruled his rec.boats kingdom with an even hand. The trouble is, he
doesn't. If it's one of his buds, life is good, they can post whatever
whenever. If not, then you instantly get ****ed on.

I disagree with your assesment, for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG, without any bias. He does have a tendency to highlight those who
seem to be contributing the greatest noise to signal ratio, but does not
have a list of "buds".

What do you think about posting political post, in a political NG and
using rec.boats to discuss boats and non inflamatory posts? You and I
both know that politics and religion in rec.boats will always end up in
a long boring flamefest.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
on't you agree that silly name calling can get very old very fast?

Again, you are failing to get the point. It wouldn't be so bad, if
Chuck ruled his rec.boats kingdom with an even hand. The trouble is, he
doesn't. If it's one of his buds, life is good, they can post whatever
whenever. If not, then you instantly get ****ed on.

I disagree with your assesment, for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG, without any bias. He does have a tendency to highlight those who
seem to be contributing the greatest noise to signal ratio, but does not
have a list of "buds".

I call bull****. Look at how many off topic posts Tom posts. Now look
at how many off topic posts from Tom that Chuck doesn't dot or re-name.
Same with Calif Bill. Same with JohnH. Same with some others.

basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
on't you agree that silly name calling can get very old very fast?
Again, you are failing to get the point. It wouldn't be so bad, if
Chuck ruled his rec.boats kingdom with an even hand. The trouble is, he
doesn't. If it's one of his buds, life is good, they can post whatever
whenever. If not, then you instantly get ****ed on.
I disagree with your assesment, for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG, without any bias. He does have a tendency to highlight those who
seem to be contributing the greatest noise to signal ratio, but does not
have a list of "buds".

I call bull****. Look at how many off topic posts Tom posts. Now look
at how many off topic posts from Tom that Chuck doesn't dot or re-name.
Same with Calif Bill. Same with JohnH. Same with some others.

Bass,

Why don't you call his bluff then. Stop making political and religious
posts and see if he doesn't move onto the next guy who is trolling for a
fight or flamefest? I have to be honest, I really don't read many of
the OT political posts so I don't know what Tom is or is not saying in
his posts, but the posts I do read from Tom are normally tongue in
cheek, and are not flamefests. The few times I have seen Tom get into
a ****ing contest with someone, he normally has apologized very quickly.

You might not agree with what Chuck is doing, but his objective is to
encourage more on topic discussion and less argumentative threads that
only create animosity among the NG regulars and chase away new boaters.

Why don't you give it a try, take a break from OT political posts or
posts them in a political NG. If you decide to continue making OT
political posts, then why don't you ignore Chuck.

On 18 Oct 2006 13:02:54 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
on't you agree that silly name calling can get very old very fast?

Again, you are failing to get the point. It wouldn't be so bad, if
Chuck ruled his rec.boats kingdom with an even hand. The trouble is, he
doesn't. If it's one of his buds, life is good, they can post whatever
whenever. If not, then you instantly get ****ed on.

I disagree with your assesment, for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG, without any bias. He does have a tendency to highlight those who
seem to be contributing the greatest noise to signal ratio, but does not
have a list of "buds".

I call bull****. Look at how many off topic posts Tom posts. Now look
at how many off topic posts from Tom that Chuck doesn't dot or re-name.
Same with Calif Bill. Same with JohnH. Same with some others.


Bass, the difference is "for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG". Tom's posts aren't imflammatory, just off topic.

In other words, Tom's OT posts aren't designed to start an argument.
Nearly every single thing *you* post *is*.

Surely you recognize the distinction?

Jack Goff wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 13:02:54 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
on't you agree that silly name calling can get very old very fast?

Again, you are failing to get the point. It wouldn't be so bad, if
Chuck ruled his rec.boats kingdom with an even hand. The trouble is, he
doesn't. If it's one of his buds, life is good, they can post whatever
whenever. If not, then you instantly get ****ed on.

I disagree with your assesment, for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG, without any bias. He does have a tendency to highlight those who
seem to be contributing the greatest noise to signal ratio, but does not
have a list of "buds".

I call bull****. Look at how many off topic posts Tom posts. Now look
at how many off topic posts from Tom that Chuck doesn't dot or re-name.
Same with Calif Bill. Same with JohnH. Same with some others.


Bass, the difference is "for almost a year Chuck has been
emphasizing the importance of keeping the inflamatory posts out of the
NG". Tom's posts aren't imflammatory, just off topic.

In other words, Tom's OT posts aren't designed to start an argument.
Nearly every single thing *you* post *is*.

Surely you recognize the distinction?

Bull****. pure and simple double standards.