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

The missing ingredient is often civility.
While I've locked horns with every conservative on this group and will do so an
any time they advance their agenda, there is really only one one right winger
here who routinely accuses me of name calling. The posts usualy go something
like, "Gould is a #%@%&^! because he calls names in the NG all the time!" I
think
that sort of post is bogus from the outset, and neither the opinon of the
person who would post such a ridiculous statement nor the opinions of anybody
willing to believe it are of any consequence or importance.

There is a general lack of civility from both the left and the right. There are
any number of threads started every day just to
"tweak" the other side, and many include a lot of stereotypical name calling.
That's really too bad. One of the first signs that a poster doesn't believe his
own schtick is when the name calling and personal issues are introduced. Some
posters, left and right, are unable to make a post without a personal attack.
So, in those cases, what is important? Is it a question of closely held
principle and conscience or just a cheap shot at an opportunity to call names
and make comments that the same poster would *never* make if we really were
sitting around some beers at a waterfront bar.

Grownups know how to disagree without becoming disagreeable. There is room for
some of our rec.boats participants to do a little growing.

Furthermore, I suspect that some of the complaint against OT posting has more
to do with the positions expressed by some of the OT posters than the fact that
OT posts exist. How hard can it be to skim past a post titled "Democrats Say I
Got Mine, Screw You", or "Bush and Cheney
Lied Again- Hi, Ho, Halliburton, Away!"?

Would there be any correlation between the propensity for any given individual
to complaing about the OT posts and however recently that same individual had
his be-hind gift wrapped and shipped back to him in a flame war?

IMO, debate is a nautral consequnce of two opposing intelligences in the same
place at the same time. A flame war, OTOH, is completely useless and denigrates
all who participate.

There is virtually nothing posted by the rabid right-wingers here that
deserves a tempered response. I'm constantly amazed at your good nature
in this things, Chuckster, but my feeling is that if you "debate" the
hardline right-wingers on anything, you give them some credibility
they'd never have on their own.

Screw them.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

I don't know any of the right leaners here 'bout, so it would be silly for me
to comment on whatever personal attributes or defects each might have.

I wouldn't recgonize most of the right leaners if I met them. It's pretty easy
to recognize dangerous ideas, however. It is the dangerous ideas, (not the
unwitting victims of a powerful propaganda machine), that must be countered.
Each time a dangerous and ill considered idea is advanced, somebody needs to
point out why the idea may not be as beneficial as first represented.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism of an idea based on logic and
facts and ciritcising an idea only because
Jim, jps, Harry K, Noyb, Gould, or California Bill has expressed it.

That's fair, and works from both ends, as it should.

Some of the ideas from the left are dangerous too. I drove past a highly
energized "Impeach Bush" rally this afternoon. Bad idea. Look at his successor.

Like I say, civil debate is a natural consequence of conversation. Flame
throwing is a waste of time. But that's just my own opinion. I'm entitled, and
other opinions will vary (as they should).