bb,
I guess it's how you want to define it. Some think all posts should be
strictly about boats or boating, some don't. I don't think you could over
use the OT designation. Guess I just figured that noah bringing up the
subject would use the OT designation, either way not a big deal.
Paul

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:15:54 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

I think the OT designation is a good idea, I just find it ironic that
you didn't in this post.

You don't think a post about rec.boats, in rec.boats, is on topic?

bb

You are absolutely correct! (Good eye though!)

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD



The only criteria one must meet to have rights exterminated by the government
is to be labeled as a "terrorist" by the Executive Branch.

We should deny rights to convicted criminals, not foster the potential for
persecution of the political adversaries of the sitting administration. You
conservatives will be on the outside looking in again, someday. When you are, I
hope to see all of your basic rights and freedoms protected.

On 02 Sep 2003 23:51:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You are absolutely correct! (Good eye though!)

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD



The only criteria one must meet to have rights exterminated by the government
is to be labeled as a "terrorist" by the Executive Branch.

We should deny rights to convicted criminals, not foster the potential for
persecution of the political adversaries of the sitting administration. You
conservatives will be on the outside looking in again, someday. When you are, I
hope to see all of your basic rights and freedoms protected.

If it's so bad, why did so may Democrats vote that way?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:27:20 -0400, JohnH
wrote:


If it's so bad, why did so may Democrats vote that way?

I for one don't know. But if Democrats voted for it I'm just as
against it as if Republicans voted for it. It's bad legislation,
period.

bb

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:41:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:06:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Ahhh, it's a *regressive* tax then! How unfair! Perhaps we should
eliminate the phase out, but cut the income tax rate?


Ohhh, touchy. Sorry I pointed that out. What does the income tax
rate have to do with social security?

They're both federally imposed taxes, but one is a progressive tax, and the
other is flat up to a certain ceiling.

Social Security by definition a regressive tax.

Joe Parsons


If it's OK to have a flat rate for
social security, then we should have one for income tax. Did you notice on
your W-2 that pension plan contributions don't lower the amount of income
subject to FICA? Why do we have a progressive rate for Federal income tax,
but a flat tax for FICA?

That nonsense is repeated by people in
this forum on a regular basis.

Oh, your nonsense is better?

Your ilk only cares about power. Oh, and of course, wealth
redistribution.
Make everyone equally weak.

My "ilk"? Thinking (or not) in stereotypes again?

Please cite any reference where I have ever said we need to redistribute wealth
to make everyone equally weak. You can't. I haven't. I wouldn't. You've been
listening to your radio, again. Too much
"demonizing" of the opposition, I'm afraid.

Harry Krause wrote in message
K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

Harry, he just doesn't get it! Been watching this thread, and in
particular, your replies to his questions, and he just doesn't
understand what you are saying. Pretty damned funny, if you ask me!

Subject: Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
From: JohnH

If it's so bad, why did so may Democrats vote that way?


Typical political pandering. That's one of the problems with both parties.

Capt. Bill

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:15:54 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

noah,
I think the OT designation is a good idea, I just find it ironic that
you didn't in this post.
Paul

You may be right, Paul. Generally speaking, though, unless a group
has a " .discussion" daughter, posts about the group itself are
on-topic.

Thanks for the response.
noah


"noah" wrote in message
.. .
When I first found rec.boats, I was thrilled (it doesn't take much
anymore) at the idea of "fellow boaters" to talk with.

Soon after, after wading through the political and personal bashing, I
mentioned this in the group, and was told (about 3:1), to "get used to
it". I have.

I have researched the rec.boats Charter and,basically, the founders
never anticipated that the group would be used for anything *but*
boating posts, therefore did not include any language concerning OT
posts. C'est dommage.

I admit to joining the OT posts now and then. It's like a "free
brunch". How can you resist? ) Sometimes, they are interesting.

As regular posters to this group, would you support an amendment to
the FAQ requiring that the letters "OT" precede any off-topic post?
This would not limit any discussion, but would enable the boating
purists to filter the background noise. The political warriors would
remain free to eviscerate each other.

As it stands, some do, some don't, "OT". Some posters have left the
group, or have become "lurkers", because they are annoyed and
frustrated with the OT postings. Perhaps a compromise is appropriate?

I can appreciate the idea that rec.boats is like "the bar at the yacht
club". I can also understand the plight of the weekend boater who
comes here looking for boating info, and finds reps and dems ripping
each others viscerals out. Viscerals are good, especially with garlic
and wine sauce, but this isn't a cooking newsgroup.

Is it worth the minimal effort to try to resolve these differences? I
think so, but then again, I married my ex-wife. My judgement is
suspect.

I would appreciate the comments of the entire group on this issue.

Regards,
noah

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:34:14 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

bb,
I guess it's how you want to define it. Some think all posts should be
strictly about boats or boating, some don't. I don't think you could over
use the OT designation. Guess I just figured that noah bringing up the
subject would use the OT designation, either way not a big deal.
Paul

"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:15:54 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

I think the OT designation is a good idea, I just find it ironic that
you didn't in this post.

You don't think a post about rec.boats, in rec.boats, is on topic?

bb


Paul, I appreciate the response.

Maybe I'm hard-headed, but the group name is rec.boats. When the
political acrimony and personal insults outweigh the boating
responses, it's time to have a martini and chill.

I like martinis. I like boats.
It's a shame we don't have rec.boats.martinis.
noah