Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...

JohnH wrote:
A nice story, although I'm surprised to see you using the word
"Christmas"
in such a favorable light.


I'm not "anti-Christmas".

But I'm sure the holiday has a different meaning for me than it does
for many, maybe even most people.


Nice reply. Please, end it there. But, nooooooo.....the pot needs to be
stirred... so he adds:


If I speak of Christmas in a favorable light, perhaps I'm motivated by
respect and appreciation for something that's pretty important to a lot
of people. But let's not go there, it's likely to turn into a nasty OT
fight that the NG doesn't need. I thought the stories about the
shipwrecked Christmas tree boats and the seagoing family that refused
to accept defeat were at least marginally appropriate for a boating NG,
but we can be sure that a discussion of Christmas, almost certain to
become religious or sac-religious, will simply push this group father
and faster down the road back to a snarling flame fest. All the
political posts this week are enough to do that on their own.


Eisboch


That's not stirring the pot, Richard. That's

1) expressing that it is important to respect and appreciate things
that may be important to others

2) *declining* the opportunity to get into a debate about Christmas in
order to preserve some civility in the NG. (That's more of a refusal to
stir the pot, if anything)

I sure appreciate your "nice reply" comment, but it could just as
easily have been placed at the end of the post.

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

Eisboch wrote:

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

JohnH wrote:
A nice story, although I'm surprised to see you using the word
"Christmas"
in such a favorable light.


I'm not "anti-Christmas".

But I'm sure the holiday has a different meaning for me than it does
for many, maybe even most people.


Nice reply. Please, end it there. But, nooooooo.....the pot needs to be
stirred... so he adds:


If I speak of Christmas in a favorable light, perhaps I'm motivated by
respect and appreciation for something that's pretty important to a lot
of people. But let's not go there, it's likely to turn into a nasty OT
fight that the NG doesn't need. I thought the stories about the
shipwrecked Christmas tree boats and the seagoing family that refused
to accept defeat were at least marginally appropriate for a boating NG,
but we can be sure that a discussion of Christmas, almost certain to
become religious or sac-religious, will simply push this group father
and faster down the road back to a snarling flame fest. All the
political posts this week are enough to do that on their own.


Eisboch


That's not stirring the pot, Richard. That's

1) expressing that it is important to respect and appreciate things
that may be important to others

2) *declining* the opportunity to get into a debate about Christmas in
order to preserve some civility in the NG. (That's more of a refusal to
stir the pot, if anything)

I sure appreciate your "nice reply" comment, but it could just as
easily have been placed at the end of the post.


Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:



Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

I appreciate your insight. Right now, the group is experimenting with
being "only a little bit pregnant". Let's see how that goes, but I
know that I personally need to stay out of political and religious
discussions because when I participate it gets some people *really*
upset and screws up the tone of the group.

On 9 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:



Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

I appreciate your insight. Right now, the group is experimenting with
being "only a little bit pregnant". Let's see how that goes, but I
know that I personally need to stay out of political and religious
discussions because when I participate it gets some people *really*
upset and screws up the tone of the group.

Chuck, those two rascals wouldn't make a wart on a flea's butt. Killfile
'em and say what you want.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying we should turn this into a
political/religious flame throwing group. I'm saying you shouldn't let two
fools have any bearing on your comments.

JohnH wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:



Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

I appreciate your insight. Right now, the group is experimenting with
being "only a little bit pregnant". Let's see how that goes, but I
know that I personally need to stay out of political and religious
discussions because when I participate it gets some people *really*
upset and screws up the tone of the group.

Chuck, those two rascals wouldn't make a wart on a flea's butt. Killfile
'em and say what you want.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying we should turn this into a
political/religious flame throwing group. I'm saying you shouldn't let two
fools have any bearing on your comments.

I would disagree that Eisboch is a fool or a rascal. He's either
developed a sudden dislike for his perceived image of a total stranger
(that would be me) or decided to finally express a long standing
contempt, but that probably qualifies him as an astute judge of
character rather than a "fool". :-) I don't even know who the other
party might be that you're referring to.

On 10 Nov 2006 06:34:56 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:



Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

I appreciate your insight. Right now, the group is experimenting with
being "only a little bit pregnant". Let's see how that goes, but I
know that I personally need to stay out of political and religious
discussions because when I participate it gets some people *really*
upset and screws up the tone of the group.

Chuck, those two rascals wouldn't make a wart on a flea's butt. Killfile
'em and say what you want.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying we should turn this into a
political/religious flame throwing group. I'm saying you shouldn't let two
fools have any bearing on your comments.

I would disagree that Eisboch is a fool or a rascal. He's either
developed a sudden dislike for his perceived image of a total stranger
(that would be me) or decided to finally express a long standing
contempt, but that probably qualifies him as an astute judge of
character rather than a "fool". :-) I don't even know who the other
party might be that you're referring to.

Trust me, I wasn't referring to Eisboch, who got upset with one particular
post of yours. I was thinking of Jimmy and Harold.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2006 06:34:56 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:



Chuck ... please read your own post. You are the only one that
suggested
the potential of a religious snarling flame fest. No one else even
mentioned it. That's why sometimes it seems you are dropping little
igniters here, just to get something going. Maybe not. But
sometimes it
sounds that way.

Forget it. I don't want to preach either.

Eisboch

I appreciate your insight. Right now, the group is experimenting with
being "only a little bit pregnant". Let's see how that goes, but I
know that I personally need to stay out of political and religious
discussions because when I participate it gets some people *really*
upset and screws up the tone of the group.

Chuck, those two rascals wouldn't make a wart on a flea's butt. Killfile
'em and say what you want.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying we should turn this into a
political/religious flame throwing group. I'm saying you shouldn't let
two
fools have any bearing on your comments.

I would disagree that Eisboch is a fool or a rascal. He's either
developed a sudden dislike for his perceived image of a total stranger
(that would be me) or decided to finally express a long standing
contempt, but that probably qualifies him as an astute judge of
character rather than a "fool". :-) I don't even know who the other
party might be that you're referring to.

Trust me, I wasn't referring to Eisboch, who got upset with one particular
post of yours. I was thinking of Jimmy and Harold.

Keep stirring that pot John. Giddyup Sheriff!