"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:10:31 -0400, D.Duck penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

A few folks who left for
a while don't know how good it is here when we don't allow ourselves
to get involved with the trolls. Answering them so they can respond
is
all they are interested in.. The agreement was working well until
less
frequent visitors who were not aware of it began addressing them
again, giving them a platform.
You can't "give them a platform," you can, however, deny them a
platform by refusing to respond to insulting responses. Probably, the
worst thing that I've seen is a response that says you are not
responding... those clearly show who can let it go and who can't.

It wasn't "good" here, it was just dead.... except for the USENET
equivalent of CB chatter.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's
Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080615-0, 06/15/2008
Tested on: 6/15/2008 2:33:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
Yeah, I guess you are right.. much better with the 50 insult posts a
day from one poster.. At least it gives us CB rednecks something to
talk about.


Tsk, tsk, tsk....remember, no playing with the trolls. 8)

Good call and exactly my point. It is hard to keep one of those
back-and-forth and/or piling on threads going when you don't post back
or pile on. The thread just dies and the trolls atrophy.

10-4 Good Buddy?, C'mon, C'mon......


I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one TOWARDS the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on his
behavior.




If you are going to talk to yourself at least SAY something! :-)

--



~~ Snerk ~~
I have to agree with you Gene.
A certain motley crew blame 3 of us for all the troubles here.
The thing is...we were gone to greener pastures. One of the whiners then
wrote a post titled "the three stooges have left the building".
I ask any fair minded person... who's really responsible for all the
foolishness displayed here?
A reasonable person has to conclude that a certain faction here enjoys the
flames and desperately need someone to tussle with....... why else would
they practically beg us to return?

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:42:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:30:39 -0400, HK wrote:

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.

Any "understanding" you have about anything relates only to what side
of the manic/depressive cycle you are on at any given time.

Go take your meds.

It would really be nice if these 'discussions' were taken to Chuck's Place.
--
John *H*

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:35:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:09:20 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one of the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on his
behavior.

That is a fair question and I can think of at least 2-3 posters that
might fit that description.

In the many years that I have posted here, I have learned that some
people just aren't willing to change. In fact, they will spend
countless posts talking about how they are going to change and quit
trolling because of how useless other posters are.... that it just
isn't worth their time. Obviously, those are disingenuous posts and
they've never stopped. They never WILL stop, because they enjoy being
puppeteers. Some people never realize they are being puppets.

I often write long and logical discourses to the trolls on why they
should look at their own posting behavior and just stop trolling. I
almost always throw the posts away, because I know.... even though I'm
trying to help.... I'm only going to feed the trolls. Been there, done
that, and never had ANY real success. I quit feeding. I've found that
I can make the choice to be a puppet or not. Once in a while, I'll let
one through, if I think the person has a real interest in stopping the
flame wars.

There are no fireworks to watch.... no real eye candy, but trust me,
ignoring a troll-post causes quiet anguish and sorrow..... fanning the
flame wars just makes for more troll-happiness.

Posters, it is up to you. Quiet troll-ending non-response and the end
of flame wars, or a continuation of tit-for-tat and a 100% iron clad
guarantee that the flame wars will continue and flourish. Man-up and
make your choice or continue girlie dancing to the puppeteer's
whim....

Amen, amen, amen.

(To the tune of "Amen")
--
John *H*

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:21:20 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:10:31 -0400, D.Duck penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

A few folks who left for
a while don't know how good it is here when we don't allow ourselves
to get involved with the trolls. Answering them so they can respond
is
all they are interested in.. The agreement was working well until
less
frequent visitors who were not aware of it began addressing them
again, giving them a platform.
You can't "give them a platform," you can, however, deny them a
platform by refusing to respond to insulting responses. Probably, the
worst thing that I've seen is a response that says you are not
responding... those clearly show who can let it go and who can't.

It wasn't "good" here, it was just dead.... except for the USENET
equivalent of CB chatter.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's
Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080615-0, 06/15/2008
Tested on: 6/15/2008 2:33:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
Yeah, I guess you are right.. much better with the 50 insult posts a
day from one poster.. At least it gives us CB rednecks something to
talk about.


Tsk, tsk, tsk....remember, no playing with the trolls. 8)

Good call and exactly my point. It is hard to keep one of those
back-and-forth and/or piling on threads going when you don't post back
or pile on. The thread just dies and the trolls atrophy.

10-4 Good Buddy?, C'mon, C'mon......


I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one TOWARDS the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on his
behavior.




If you are going to talk to yourself at least SAY something! :-)

--



~~ Snerk ~~
I have to agree with you Gene.
A certain motley crew blame 3 of us for all the troubles here.

Four.
--
John *H*

On Jun 16, 7:41 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:21:20 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:





"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:10:31 -0400, D.Duck penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

A few folks who left for
a while don't know how good it is here when we don't allow ourselves
to get involved with the trolls. Answering them so they can respond
is
all they are interested in.. The agreement was working well until
less
frequent visitors who were not aware of it began addressing them
again, giving them a platform.
You can't "give them a platform," you can, however, deny them a
platform by refusing to respond to insulting responses. Probably, the
worst thing that I've seen is a response that says you are not
responding... those clearly show who can let it go and who can't.

It wasn't "good" here, it was just dead.... except for the USENET
equivalent of CB chatter.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's
Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080615-0, 06/15/2008
Tested on: 6/15/2008 2:33:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
Yeah, I guess you are right.. much better with the 50 insult posts a
day from one poster.. At least it gives us CB rednecks something to
talk about.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....remember, no playing with the trolls. 8)

Good call and exactly my point. It is hard to keep one of those
back-and-forth and/or piling on threads going when you don't post back
or pile on. The thread just dies and the trolls atrophy.

10-4 Good Buddy?, C'mon, C'mon......

I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one TOWARDS the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on his
behavior.

If you are going to talk to yourself at least SAY something! :-)

--

~~ Snerk ~~
I have to agree with you Gene.
A certain motley crew blame 3 of us for all the troubles here.

Four.
--
John *H*

You, Loogie, Reggie..........and who else?

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:42:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:30:39 -0400, HK wrote:

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.
Any "understanding" you have about anything relates only to what side
of the manic/depressive cycle you are on at any given time.

Go take your meds.

It would really be nice if these 'discussions' were taken to Chuck's Place.


Hey, Herring...go on another trip...a long one. It smells better in here
when you are not around.

JimH wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:41 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:21:20 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:





"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:10:31 -0400, D.Duck penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
A few folks who left for
a while don't know how good it is here when we don't allow ourselves
to get involved with the trolls. Answering them so they can respond
is
all they are interested in.. The agreement was working well until
less
frequent visitors who were not aware of it began addressing them
again, giving them a platform.
You can't "give them a platform," you can, however, deny them a
platform by refusing to respond to insulting responses. Probably, the
worst thing that I've seen is a response that says you are not
responding... those clearly show who can let it go and who can't.
It wasn't "good" here, it was just dead.... except for the USENET
equivalent of CB chatter.
--
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's
Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080615-0, 06/15/2008
Tested on: 6/15/2008 2:33:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
Yeah, I guess you are right.. much better with the 50 insult posts a
day from one poster.. At least it gives us CB rednecks something to
talk about.
Tsk, tsk, tsk....remember, no playing with the trolls. 8)
Good call and exactly my point. It is hard to keep one of those
back-and-forth and/or piling on threads going when you don't post back
or pile on. The thread just dies and the trolls atrophy.
10-4 Good Buddy?, C'mon, C'mon......
I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one TOWARDS the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on his
behavior.
If you are going to talk to yourself at least SAY something! :-)
--
~~ Snerk ~~
I have to agree with you Gene.
A certain motley crew blame 3 of us for all the troubles here.
Four.
--
John *H*

You, Loogie, Reggie..........and who else?


DredgedUp Krueger (DK)... The Four Pussies of the Apocalypse.

"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 7:41 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:21:20 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:





"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:10:31 -0400, D.Duck penned the following
well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, Gene Kearns

wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT),
penned the following well
considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

A few folks who left for
a while don't know how good it is here when we don't allow
ourselves
to get involved with the trolls. Answering them so they can
respond
is
all they are interested in.. The agreement was working well
until
less
frequent visitors who were not aware of it began addressing them
again, giving them a platform.
You can't "give them a platform," you can, however, deny them a
platform by refusing to respond to insulting responses. Probably,
the
worst thing that I've seen is a response that says you are not
responding... those clearly show who can let it go and who can't.

It wasn't "good" here, it was just dead.... except for the USENET
equivalent of CB chatter.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's
Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080615-0, 06/15/2008
Tested on: 6/15/2008 2:33:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL
Software.http://www.avast.com
Yeah, I guess you are right.. much better with the 50 insult posts
a
day from one poster.. At least it gives us CB rednecks something
to
talk about.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....remember, no playing with the trolls. 8)

Good call and exactly my point. It is hard to keep one of those
back-and-forth and/or piling on threads going when you don't post
back
or pile on. The thread just dies and the trolls atrophy.

10-4 Good Buddy?, C'mon, C'mon......

I completely agree with all of your comments, but why have you never
directed one TOWARDS the most prolific trolls in rec.boats? It
seems he
respects your opinion, and you might be able to have an impact on
his
behavior.

If you are going to talk to yourself at least SAY something! :-)

--

~~ Snerk ~~
I have to agree with you Gene.
A certain motley crew blame 3 of us for all the troubles here.

Four.
--
John *H*

You, Loogie, Reggie..........and who else?

Everyone forgets poor Dan... guess he's just so forgetable!

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:42:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:30:39 -0400, HK wrote:

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.

Any "understanding" you have about anything relates only to what side
of the manic/depressive cycle you are on at any given time.

Go take your meds.

It would really be nice if these 'discussions' were taken to Chuck's
Place.
--
John *H*


You and your gang of seven wrecked this newsgroup....... why do the same to
Chucks' place?

Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:42:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:30:39 -0400, HK wrote:

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.
Any "understanding" you have about anything relates only to what side
of the manic/depressive cycle you are on at any given time.

Go take your meds.
It would really be nice if these 'discussions' were taken to Chuck's
Place.
--
John *H*


You and your gang of seven wrecked this newsgroup....... why do the same to
Chucks' place?




They are indeed trying.