A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 12th 04, 12:04 AM
Larry Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And that was not five minutes.

harv wrote:
I'm sorry, this is ABUSE. If you want ARGUMENTS, it's down the hall.
"Gary Fritz" wrote in message
...

nget wrote:

.Better go back to the brol swimming pool where all the waters are
knee deep and no sharks to bite you.


Some people (let's call them "Group #1") enjoy being argumentative,
abrasive, obnoxious, and otherwise confrontive. They think any
discussion that happens without confrontation is boring and not
worth while. Rather than finding a place where like-minded people
can argue with each other, they prefer to take over existing groups
and force them into their mold.

Some people ("Group #2") prefer to engage in conversation and civil
exchange without abuse, name-calling, insults, and other confrontive
behavior. They prefer to discuss the topic they're interested in
rather than engaging in arguments and character assassination.

I believe Group #2 vastly outnumbers Group #1. But Group #1
delights in destroying places where other people had useful
conversations.

A year or two ago, ARBR contained almost exclusively people in Group
#2. We had many fun and productive conversations, and everyone
seemed to enjoy the group.

In the last year or two, a few people in Group #1 have roosted in
ARBR. They have made it their crusade to impose their style onto
many/most posts.

Most people in Group #2 find confrontive posts annoying and
distracting. Many discussions veer off from the intended topic to
an argument about one thing or another. Many of these Group #2
people have decided ARBR is no longer a fun place to talk about
recumbents, so they've moved to places like BROL that exclude
insulting and abusive posters. Since the Group #1 types choose not
to have their confrontive arguments in a place that welcomes
confrontive arguments, but prefer to take over and destroy
nonconfrontive environments, the Group #2 types are forced to go
somewhere that excludes Group #1. It's like people who live in a
nice neighborhood who have to move because a bunch of thugs and
hoods takes over the place, breaking windows and destroying
property. Group #1 is the cyberspace equivalent of those thugs and
hoods.

nget, if you want to call places like BROL "wading pools," you go
right ahead. I imagine gangbangers think of nice neighborhoods as
"wading pools" and themselves as "sharks" too. When actually
they're just cheap crooks.

It's a shame you "sharks" think it's so much fun to **** and **** in
the ARBR pool. You're just fouling something nice and ruining it
for the vast majority of people who prefer not to wallow in their
own filth.






--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney


Ads
  #22  
Old November 12th 04, 12:11 AM
harv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes it was.
"Larry Varney" wrote in message
...
And that was not five minutes.

harv wrote:
I'm sorry, this is ABUSE. If you want ARGUMENTS, it's down the hall.
"Gary Fritz" wrote in message
...

nget wrote:

.Better go back to the brol swimming pool where all the waters are
knee deep and no sharks to bite you.

Some people (let's call them "Group #1") enjoy being argumentative,
abrasive, obnoxious, and otherwise confrontive. They think any
discussion that happens without confrontation is boring and not
worth while. Rather than finding a place where like-minded people
can argue with each other, they prefer to take over existing groups
and force them into their mold.

Some people ("Group #2") prefer to engage in conversation and civil
exchange without abuse, name-calling, insults, and other confrontive
behavior. They prefer to discuss the topic they're interested in
rather than engaging in arguments and character assassination.

I believe Group #2 vastly outnumbers Group #1. But Group #1
delights in destroying places where other people had useful
conversations.

A year or two ago, ARBR contained almost exclusively people in Group
#2. We had many fun and productive conversations, and everyone
seemed to enjoy the group.

In the last year or two, a few people in Group #1 have roosted in
ARBR. They have made it their crusade to impose their style onto
many/most posts.

Most people in Group #2 find confrontive posts annoying and
distracting. Many discussions veer off from the intended topic to
an argument about one thing or another. Many of these Group #2
people have decided ARBR is no longer a fun place to talk about
recumbents, so they've moved to places like BROL that exclude
insulting and abusive posters. Since the Group #1 types choose not
to have their confrontive arguments in a place that welcomes
confrontive arguments, but prefer to take over and destroy
nonconfrontive environments, the Group #2 types are forced to go
somewhere that excludes Group #1. It's like people who live in a
nice neighborhood who have to move because a bunch of thugs and
hoods takes over the place, breaking windows and destroying
property. Group #1 is the cyberspace equivalent of those thugs and
hoods.

nget, if you want to call places like BROL "wading pools," you go
right ahead. I imagine gangbangers think of nice neighborhoods as
"wading pools" and themselves as "sharks" too. When actually
they're just cheap crooks.

It's a shame you "sharks" think it's so much fun to **** and **** in
the ARBR pool. You're just fouling something nice and ruining it
for the vast majority of people who prefer not to wallow in their
own filth.






--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney





  #23  
Old November 12th 04, 03:32 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe Keenan wrote:

I'm curious why folks stay with this newsgroup given that any thread
is immediately subject to contamination. (I'm being kind) Yup, I'm a
"usta be" and just stopped in to see if things had changed in a few
months.


Because moderation of a forum is the greater evil. The road to Hell is
paved with good intentions.

--
Tom Sherman

  #24  
Old November 12th 04, 03:34 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

M wrote:

I'm staying with this group as an experiment. I want to see how many people
I have to put in the kill file before it becomes a group about recumbent
bikes again. Anyone who responds to Dolan is in my kill file. Now I can
read this group in five minutes and most of what I read is about recumbent
bikes. To all of you "on topic" people, thank you for all the good info.
To all of you "off topic" people, see ya!


Kill files are for people who lack the intelligence to sort what is
worthwhile to them, and the self-control to ignore what they consider
useless.

--
Tom Sherman

  #25  
Old November 12th 04, 03:35 AM
M. Chandler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Sherman wrote:
Joe Keenan wrote:

I'm curious why folks stay with this newsgroup given that any thread
is immediately subject to contamination. (I'm being kind) Yup, I'm a
"usta be" and just stopped in to see if things had changed in a few
months.


Because moderation of a forum is the greater evil. The road to Hell is
paved with good intentions.


I thought the road to Hell was paved with PowerPoint presentations...

I agree with Tom, just say 'no' to moderation.

--
Mark Chandler
Superior, CO
http://www.MileHighSkates.com
  #26  
Old November 12th 04, 03:35 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Huffman wrote:

It used to be my favorite and I'm waiting ... and patient. I have outwaited
and outwitted most disruptors.


Really?

--
Tom Sherman

  #27  
Old November 12th 04, 03:37 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

M. Chandler wrote:

Because with a decent, threaded newsreader (Mozilla Thunderbird), it's
very easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, and read the stuff that
interests me. Having "grown up" net-wise on rn, I prefer usenet to
web-based discussions.


Hey, a sensible post!

--
Tom Sherman

  #28  
Old November 12th 04, 03:39 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guess Who I Am wrote:

the "REAL" reason to stay here is that you "CAN'T get "BANNED" from here like
someone does from his serious income making board.
and you know who that i'm talking about,now don't you?


I know what/who Earl is referring to (as do all Monkeys), but maybe some
here do not.

--
Tom Sherman

  #29  
Old November 12th 04, 03:41 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

harv wrote:

Cause here I can tell the sycophants and stepford wives to **** off...


Harv,

Don't you mean "fock off"?

--
Tom Sherman

  #30  
Old November 12th 04, 04:17 AM
Larry Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

M. Chandler wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Joe Keenan wrote:

I'm curious why folks stay with this newsgroup given that any thread
is immediately subject to contamination. (I'm being kind) Yup, I'm a
"usta be" and just stopped in to see if things had changed in a few
months.



Because moderation of a forum is the greater evil. The road to Hell is
paved with good intentions.



I thought the road to Hell was paved with PowerPoint presentations...

I agree with Tom, just say 'no' to moderation.


And I disagree. The best thing is to have both opportunities. For the people
who want to be free to say anything they want, no matter how crude, vulgar,
stupid, or whatever - unmoderated is the way to go.
But for those who do not want to be around such things, who want to engage
in civil conversations, to be able to object and disagree without having
someone becoming objectionable and disagreeable, a moderated forum is a good thing.
Too many people get disgusted and turned off by unnecessarily crude, vicious
and sick language and behavior. They will leave any discussion area that
tolerates that sort of thing. Some don't; they thrive on it.
Think along these lines: you go to a party. If one or more of the guests
starts behaving badly, to the point of drowning out all other conversations
with their childish obscenities, what would you do? Enjoy it? Rejoice in the
freedom of bad taste? Or would you just wish that they could learn to behave
like adults?
For those who cannot behave, there are the unmoderated lists. And, for the
same reason, there are the moderated ones as well. If what's important to you
is the freedom to behave badly, then yes, feel free to say "no" to moderation.
And those of us who are adults in more than just age, will thank you.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 Mike Iglesias General 4 October 29th 04 07:11 AM
End of ARBR Robert Siegel Recumbent Biking 8 April 1st 04 07:36 PM
ARBR has gone downhill Al Kubeluis Recumbent Biking 143 December 21st 03 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.