On Feb 15, 4:43�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:38?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
Also sad to think that non-boaters have nothing better to do than hang
around a NG dedicated to a pastime they don't pursue.
Just out of curiosity, do you post your reviews in rec.boats.cruising?

No. That's primarily a sailing group.

sail·ing

noun 1. the activity of a person or thing that sails.
2. the departure of a ship from port: The cruise line offers sailings
every other day.
3. Navigation. any of various methods for determining courses and
distances by means of charts or with reference to longitudes and
latitudes, rhumb lines, great circles, etc.

I'm not a sailor.

sail.or

noun 1. *a person whose occupation is sailing or navigation; mariner.
2. a seaman below the rank of officer.
3. a naval enlistee.
4. a person adept at sailing, esp. with reference to freedom from
seasickness.

Hmmmm - t'would seem to me that you fit the definition of sailing and
sailor perfectly.

However, even if there are folks who use sail boats in cruising, your
whole focus is cruising rather than boats in general - thus it would be
more appropriate for you to, well, haunt rec.boats.cruising.

I mean, you earn your money editing a magazine which primarily is for
cruisers - it would seem to me that you would want to involve yourself
in a newsgroup SPECIFICALLY for cruising and those who participate in
that aspect of boating rather than a GENERAL newsgroup that relates to
boats in general and not CRUISING in particular. *:)

Interesting perspective.

So then what, in your opinion, is the difference between "general
boating" and
specific boating activities? Should fishing posts be considered out of
place at rec.boats? Lots of people boat but don't fish. I'll bet there
are fishing newsgroups out there somewhere. How about water skiing
posts?
I've never been on a water ski in my entire life. If you eliminate
every single boating activity as too specialized, all that would be
left in rec.boats would be the non-boating social chit chat. At that
point it would hardly be a boating newsgroup.

A dynamic boating newsgroup would be a group where different people
contribute from their own unique perspective, allowing everybody to
gain a wider perspective and appreciation of the pastime. If you feel
that my particular boating experiences or perspectives aren't of
interest to you, they may be of interest to somebody else. 90% of what
you post here is entirely OT and profoundly uninteresting to me, but
IMO as long as you aren't actively trolling for a fight (as some of
the other OT specialists prefer to do) your activity is harmless
clutter. Your daily links to You-tube videos always seem to find one
or two interested respondents. Even if your posts were "harmful"
clutter, beyond expressing an opinion there would be nothing that
could be done about it.

Perhaps we won't ever see eye to eye on this issue, but that doesn't
have to mean that either one of us is a bad guy. Don't like my stuff,
don't read it. Surely you must have a filter?

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


" Don't like my stuff, don't read it. Surely you must have a filter?"
-Chuck Gould- "rec.boats"


Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news

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


" Don't like my stuff, don't read it. Surely you must have a filter?"
-Chuck Gould- "rec.boats"


Eisboch


Hee Hee. Did Chuckie really say that?
Florida Jim

Chuck Gould wrote:

A dynamic boating newsgroup would be a group where different people
contribute from their own unique perspective, allowing everybody to
gain a wider perspective and appreciation of the pastime. If you feel
that my particular boating experiences or perspectives aren't of
interest to you, they may be of interest to somebody else.

That's true. And, for the record, I've never once said that your posts
weren't germane to the nature of the newsgroup. In fact, I think you
would find quite the opposite. And, if you care to check, I have been
more than effusive in recommending your magazine as a good read full of
talented writers and edited by a pro.

My point was this - you want something that is unachievable in a group
in which the participants are, but their very nature, interested in
everything from soup to nuts. It is of no benefit to you to constantly
rail against the tide and all it does is create the very situation that
you abhor by attracting to you the very ones whose existence here is
fold, spindle and mutilate.

In essence to share differing interests is a natural function in a
community where individual life experience varies from the sublime to
the outrageous. Should you have taken your posts on bagpipes to
rec.music.bagpipes.annoying.the.neighbors.suicide. to.the.point.of?

Put it another way. If you go to your yacht club holiday celebration
(pick a holiday - any holiday) do you just discuss boats, cruising, the
latest in GPS technology or does the discussion among groups scattered
about wander to concerts, local events, shools, politics?

Consider this that type of party - a place where discussions are
curiosities that should be enjoyed - if they are specific to the
purpose, fine - if not, who cares.

90% of what
you post here is entirely OT and profoundly uninteresting to me, but
IMO as long as you aren't actively trolling for a fight (as some of
the other OT specialists prefer to do) your activity is harmless
clutter. Your daily links to You-tube videos always seem to find one
or two interested respondents. Even if your posts were "harmful"
clutter, beyond expressing an opinion there would be nothing that
could be done about it.

I beg to differ. It's actually about 50/50 and where appropriate, in
threads where I might have knowledge or insight to share, I certainly do
so without reservation.

What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.

Perhaps we won't ever see eye to eye on this issue, but that doesn't
have to mean that either one of us is a bad guy.

I would agree with that.

Don't like my stuff, don't read it.

Well, I might say the same.

Surely you must have a filter?

Why yes I do, but that's the difference between you and me. I don't
censor myself to "boating" - I like to see what others think, how they
express themselves, how they behave in a confrontation - it's endlessly
fascinating and often amusing - the follies of social interaction if you
will. You get a sense of personality - it's an endless theater of the
mind almost as good as old time radio.

You can't beat it.

On Feb 15, 6:53�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing


What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. *I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. *Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
* You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.


And that is surely your privilege to do.

But, in trying to foster chaos, how is your activity any different
than mine? (Aside from the end you hope to achieve). You prefer a
group where chaos reigns, where you can be entertained by the flame
wars and "observe" personalities interacting. I feel that the group
has been there, done that, and over the years we have become less
useful as a resource for boaters as a result.

I will continue to "jawbone" for a group where we stick to boating
most of the time. You don't have to like that or agree that having a
group centered on boating is better than a group with no particular
focus at all.

You will probably continue to use the group as a blog, informing us
all about the details of your personal life and posting links to
videos you find amusing. I don't have to care much either way about
that, or agree that flame wars are useful entertainment.

None of us have any ability to "control" anybody else. How unfortunate
that anybody would interpret the expression of my personal opinion as
some sort of control mechanism. Perhaps my opinion will influence
somebody, perhaps not. Same as the opinions you express- no difference
at all.

(BTW, you asked about discussions at the yacht club; one thing that is
never, ever, ever discussed is partisan politics. In general, the
members respect one another enough to also respect individual
political perspectives. Live and let live.)

The sign over the cyber door still says "Boating Newsgroup". I fail to
see how it is wrong to try to influence content toward that end. It's
your right and privilege to disagree.

I couldn't agree more, Chuck.

--Mike

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 15, 6:53?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing


What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.


And that is surely your privilege to do.

But, in trying to foster chaos, how is your activity any different
than mine? (Aside from the end you hope to achieve). You prefer a
group where chaos reigns, where you can be entertained by the flame
wars and "observe" personalities interacting. I feel that the group
has been there, done that, and over the years we have become less
useful as a resource for boaters as a result.

I will continue to "jawbone" for a group where we stick to boating
most of the time. You don't have to like that or agree that having a
group centered on boating is better than a group with no particular
focus at all.

You will probably continue to use the group as a blog, informing us
all about the details of your personal life and posting links to
videos you find amusing. I don't have to care much either way about
that, or agree that flame wars are useful entertainment.

None of us have any ability to "control" anybody else. How unfortunate
that anybody would interpret the expression of my personal opinion as
some sort of control mechanism. Perhaps my opinion will influence
somebody, perhaps not. Same as the opinions you express- no difference
at all.

(BTW, you asked about discussions at the yacht club; one thing that is
never, ever, ever discussed is partisan politics. In general, the
members respect one another enough to also respect individual
political perspectives. Live and let live.)

The sign over the cyber door still says "Boating Newsgroup". I fail to
see how it is wrong to try to influence content toward that end. It's
your right and privilege to disagree.

Mike wrote:
I couldn't agree more, Chuck.

One vote for Chuck. :)

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:53�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing

What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. �I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. �Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
� You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.

And that is surely your privilege to do.

But, in trying to foster chaos, how is your activity any different
than mine? (Aside from the end you hope to achieve). You prefer a
group where chaos reigns, where you can be entertained by the flame
wars and "observe" personalities interacting. I feel that the group
has been there, done that, and over the years we have become less
useful as a resource for boaters as a result.

I would posit that it's finished it's intended purpose long ago. There
are more resources on the Web, more detail, more expertise - everything
from boating blogs to discussion forums on manufacturer's sites to -
well, it's all there already - even digest forms.

How many times does a question have to be answered before you point to
the search engine of choice with the appropriate URL and say, look here
- your answer lies at the feet of the Oracle of Google.

Out of curiosity, just this past few minutes, I Googled algae problems
for diesel fuel and found eleven entries on the web that detailed the
problem and probable causes and solutions. Why ask here for opinion when
one can find factual resources?

Usenet had it's time and it's well past.

I will continue to "jawbone" for a group where we stick to boating
most of the time. You don't have to like that or agree that having a
group centered on boating is better than a group with no particular
focus at all.

The "focused" groups are moderated forums on the Web where individuals
submit entries, have them approved and posted. These range from purpose
specific forums like hunting, fishing, sailing, power boating, trailer
boating to email lists which, by the way, have supplanted Usenet if only
for the same reasons you attempt to dictate here - purpose built and
subscribed to. I belong to four email lists that are specific to my
interests - International trucks/tractors, Corvette, club list and one
photography group which is attached to a site that I post to - two of
which I moderate. I have no problems with annotating a particular post
with editorial commentary and allowing the discussion to broaden, but I
have limits, as do the group members and attempt to keep the discussions
on track. I have terminated discussions that achieved all that could be
achieved with an explanation of why I used my authority as moderator.
Sometimes, other moderators might question a particular post or thread
and we hash that out offline and come to a consensus. That is how the
email groups were chartered and that's how they work.

You want to have a purpose built Usenet group that serves no purpose -
it seems a little Quixotic.

Boating is what brought us together as individuals - note the
individuals. In any group of individuals, interests vary and I'll say it
again - it's a yacht club party only a little more open.

You will probably continue to use the group as a blog, informing us
all about the details of your personal life and posting links to
videos you find amusing. I don't have to care much either way about
that, or agree that flame wars are useful entertainment.

I suppose your entry about Valentines Day disguised as a boating thread
was - interesting? Was that informative - something that nobody else in
the whole of this august body never knew? Was it related to boating in
some way or just finger exercise warming up for your next editorial?

Oddly, I saw several Valentines Day blog entries similar to yours here -
hmmmm....pot - kettle - black?

None of us have any ability to "control" anybody else. How unfortunate
that anybody would interpret the expression of my personal opinion as
some sort of control mechanism. Perhaps my opinion will influence
somebody, perhaps not. Same as the opinions you express- no difference
at all.

It is exactly an attempt at control - from the Chuckie dots to the
quasi-resource "articles" - you use this group exactly as I or others do
- not as often, but the intent is the same.

People in glass houses - et cetera.

(BTW, you asked about discussions at the yacht club; one thing that is
never, ever, ever discussed is partisan politics. In general, the
members respect one another enough to also respect individual
political perspectives. Live and let live.)

Oh please. Politics is politics from who is going to be the next
Commodore or Race Director to what the club will or will not support.
Each side of an issue is partisan with respect to each other.

The sign over the cyber door still says "Boating Newsgroup". I fail to
see how it is wrong to try to influence content toward that end. It's
your right and privilege to disagree.

Very - um...enlightened of you.

And I do.

On Feb 16, 4:03�am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:53?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing

What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. ?I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. ?Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
? You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.

And that is surely your privilege to do.

But, in trying to foster chaos, how is your activity any different
than mine? (Aside from the end you hope to achieve). You prefer a
group where chaos reigns, where you can be entertained by the flame
wars and "observe" personalities interacting. I feel that the group
has been there, done that, and over the years we have become less
useful as a resource for boaters as a result.

I would posit that it's finished it's intended purpose long ago. *There
are more resources on the Web, more detail, more expertise - everything
from boating blogs to discussion forums on manufacturer's sites to -
well, it's all there already - even digest forms.

How many times does a question have to be answered before you point to
the search engine of choice with the appropriate URL and say, look here
- your answer lies at the feet of the Oracle of Google.

If only it were that simple. (Who was the guy back in the 1800's who
said that everything worth having had already been invented?) Most
things related to boating have multiple answers, and often the right
approach to a problem is a matter of opinion. Google up "how to
refinish teak", for example. I'm sure you'll find a couple of dozen
entires detailing the right technique, the right product, the proper
results one should expect, etc. Makes for a lively discussion.



Out of curiosity, just this past few minutes, I Googled algae problems
for diesel fuel and found eleven entries on the web that detailed the
problem and probable causes and solutions. Why ask here for opinion when
one can find factual resources?


See above. The "factual resources" seldom agree, and at that point it
is useful to try to sort through the conflicting points by examining
personal experience and understandings of other mariners.



Usenet had it's time and it's well past.


I will continue to "jawbone" for a group where we stick to boating
most of the time. You don't have to like that or agree that having a
group centered on boating is better than a group with no particular
focus at all.



The "focused" groups are moderated forums on the Web where individuals
submit entries, have them approved and posted. *These range from purpose
specific forums like hunting, fishing, sailing, power boating, trailer
boating to email lists which, by the way, have supplanted Usenet if only
for the same reasons you attempt to dictate here - purpose built and
subscribed to. *I belong to four email lists that are specific to my
interests - International trucks/tractors, Corvette, club list and one
photography group which is attached to a site that I post to - two of
which I moderate. *I have no problems with annotating a particular post
with editorial commentary and allowing the discussion to broaden, but I
have limits, as do the group members and attempt to keep the discussions
on track. *I have terminated discussions that achieved all that could be
achieved with an explanation of why I used my authority as moderator.
Sometimes, other moderators might question a particular post or thread
and we hash that out offline and come to a consensus. That is how the
email groups were chartered and that's how they work.


Do you foster chaos in your photo groups? In your function as
moderator of
photos-are-us or what not, do you encourage people to post items about
tuning up an outboard or endorse posts made solely for the purpose to
starting or spreading a flame war?


You want to have a purpose built Usenet group that serves no purpose -
it seems a little Quixotic.


It's not up to me to define the purpose of the group. The group exists
to promote the discussion of boats and boating. (hence the name) Those
who feel that the group doesn't meet their needs in that regard have a
few choices. They can try to increase the amount of boating related
content, they can flee to greener pastures (as many have done), or
they can conclude that the group serves no purpose and attempt to bend
it to their own purposes instead.


Boating is what brought us together as individuals - note the
individuals. In any group of individuals, interests vary and I'll say it
again - it's a yacht club party only a little more open.

You will probably continue to use the group as a blog, informing us
all about the details of your personal life and posting links to
videos you find amusing. I don't have to care much either way about
that, or agree that flame wars are useful entertainment.

I suppose your entry about Valentines Day disguised as a boating thread
was - interesting? *Was that informative - something that nobody else in
the whole of this august body never knew? *Was it related to boating in
some way or just finger exercise warming up for your next editorial?

Oddly, I saw several Valentines Day blog entries similar to yours here -
hmmmm....pot - kettle - black?


The VD deal was somewhat OT, I agree. Wouldn't it be great if we could
easily identify the rare OT posts for most of the participants? As it
is, there are a handful who would surprise everybody if they ever
posted *on* topic.




None of us have any ability to "control" anybody else. How unfortunate
that anybody would interpret the expression of my personal opinion as
some sort of control mechanism. Perhaps my opinion will influence
somebody, perhaps not. Same as the opinions you express- no difference
at all.

It is exactly an attempt at control - from the Chuckie dots to the
quasi-resource "articles" - you use this group exactly as I or others do
- not as often, but the intent is the same.


I'm missing something. You accuse me of trying to control the group,
then say that I behave exactly as you do, only not as often and with
the same intent. What does that mean? That you are trying to control
the group so you assume I must be as well?


(BTW, you asked about discussions at the yacht club; one thing that is
never, ever, ever discussed is partisan politics. In general, the
members respect one another enough to also respect individual
political perspectives. Live and let live.)

Oh please. Politics is politics from who is going to be the next
Commodore or Race Director to what the club will or will not support.
Each side of an issue is partisan with respect to each other.


Would you be surprised to learn that almost nobody wants to be
Commodore? The nominating committee of most clubs has to all but beg
people to go through the chairs. Yacht club "elections" usually
feature one poor victim, running unopposed. The vote is usually
unanimous, with everybody in the room breathing a sigh of relief that
they were able to escape the annual draft (nominating committee) once
again. Clubs do become politically active over non-partisan issues
that may adversely impact boating, i.e. "shall pleasure boats be
required to install grey water holding tanks". We had a committee
chair at the podium at our last meeting wander off into a partisan
political area in his report and he was hooted down with cries of "no
politics!" from several members in attendance. I suspect, but don't
know, that the members reminding him not to be political were from
both sides of the issue in question.

(What yacht club do you belong to? If you presume to speak with
authority about the politics of a yacht club, or how rec.boats is just
one big yacht club discussion, it must be based on some sort of
experience. Maybe your clubs back east are as you describe, I wouldn't
know).





The sign over the cyber door still says "Boating Newsgroup". I fail to
see how it is wrong to try to influence content toward that end. It's
your right and privilege to disagree.

Very - um...enlightened of you.

And I do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:53:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

A dynamic boating newsgroup would be a group where different people
contribute from their own unique perspective, allowing everybody to
gain a wider perspective and appreciation of the pastime. If you feel
that my particular boating experiences or perspectives aren't of
interest to you, they may be of interest to somebody else.

That's true. And, for the record, I've never once said that your posts
weren't germane to the nature of the newsgroup. In fact, I think you
would find quite the opposite. And, if you care to check, I have been
more than effusive in recommending your magazine as a good read full of
talented writers and edited by a pro.

My point was this - you want something that is unachievable in a group
in which the participants are, but their very nature, interested in
everything from soup to nuts. It is of no benefit to you to constantly
rail against the tide and all it does is create the very situation that
you abhor by attracting to you the very ones whose existence here is
fold, spindle and mutilate.

In essence to share differing interests is a natural function in a
community where individual life experience varies from the sublime to
the outrageous. Should you have taken your posts on bagpipes to
rec.music.bagpipes.annoying.the.neighbors.suicide .to.the.point.of?

Put it another way. If you go to your yacht club holiday celebration
(pick a holiday - any holiday) do you just discuss boats, cruising, the
latest in GPS technology or does the discussion among groups scattered
about wander to concerts, local events, shools, politics?

Consider this that type of party - a place where discussions are
curiosities that should be enjoyed - if they are specific to the
purpose, fine - if not, who cares.

90% of what
you post here is entirely OT and profoundly uninteresting to me, but
IMO as long as you aren't actively trolling for a fight (as some of
the other OT specialists prefer to do) your activity is harmless
clutter. Your daily links to You-tube videos always seem to find one
or two interested respondents. Even if your posts were "harmful"
clutter, beyond expressing an opinion there would be nothing that
could be done about it.

I beg to differ. It's actually about 50/50 and where appropriate, in
threads where I might have knowledge or insight to share, I certainly do
so without reservation.

What I find curious though is the approach that you have with regard to
the off topic and oddball discussion. I might point out that you are
not the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate. Usenet groups are the
ultimate democracy - almost libertarian - and the group reigns supreme
over attempts by those who wish to control. Your role in this is as one
who chides and nags and attempts to force your opinion on everyone else.
You might say you are the very thing you rail against with your only
defense being that you wish for "purity" rather than chaos.

I vote for chaos.

Perhaps we won't ever see eye to eye on this issue, but that doesn't
have to mean that either one of us is a bad guy.

I would agree with that.

Don't like my stuff, don't read it.

Well, I might say the same.

Surely you must have a filter?

Why yes I do, but that's the difference between you and me. I don't
censor myself to "boating" - I like to see what others think, how they
express themselves, how they behave in a confrontation - it's endlessly
fascinating and often amusing - the follies of social interaction if you
will. You get a sense of personality - it's an endless theater of the
mind almost as good as old time radio.

You can't beat it.

The folks over in a.politics would love your chaos, especially if it's
political or religious and results in a lot of name calling.

I can't believe you *prefer* that.
--
***** Have a decent day! *****

John H