Time to split the group?

[Elrond Hubbard]

Oops - too late.

[Joe]

it already has. The other half hangs out with Vito.

[nailshooter41]

Naw.

If the political geniuses and experts that spew their sewage here went to a real unmoderated political arenas on the web, they would only be a voice in the crowd trying to be heard above the din.

Here, they can sound off their indignance and be heard as their politics aren't the focus of this venue. This is like going to a cooking school and watching people cook. The guy that gets the most attention is the guy that burns himself or sets his food in fire, not the guys that are doing what they are supposed to do.

Being a somebody is difficult these days.

Besides, if you notice, the group is already split.

it is the same guys over and over and over and over and over and over

and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

that start, participate and grind the political threads on and on.

Those same people only seem to post when they see a political thread, and rarely offer little advice or experience in woodworking.

How I yearn for the old days (they seem so innocent now...) of the tearful squabbling over Norm using to many brads, screaming over anything to do with Home Depot, and the fan boys defending their favorite tool brand against nay sayers.

Robert

[Bill]

FWIW, I'm on your side. It's easy enough to skip over the threads, but somedays there aren't any woodworking posts because almost everyone seemed to have used up their energy arguing about politics instead!

It's also a shame to see yourself on the other side of the fence in a political thread with someone you otherwise thought of as a decent human being! : ) Because of this phenomenon, political threads may break down rather than strengthen (our) community.

Where I work, we try to view the world without political boundaries. The system only seems to break down when a participant entity commits some "act of hate" which is considered by the rest of the whole as "unconscionable", sort of like a mini- "United Nations".

Bill

[Puckdropper]

Elrond Hubbard wrote in news:Xns9D486CC7EE649oldshoe@

207.246.207.167:

Some time ago, I looked in to whether or not some groups split so the "familiar spirits" could talk about politics. The only group I found was rec.games.chess.politics, which was probably more or less influenced by Bobby Fischer. (I haven't actually read the group, quickly scanned the charter years ago, so this is just a guess.)

Puckdropper

[Swingman]

Filters are great ... check'em when you don't feel like it, un-check'em when you do.

[Joe]

Norm does *not* use too many brads...

jc

>

[Lee Michaels]

"Joe" wrote

I would nver get involved in such a discussion.

Although I hear........................., since theyshut down The New Yankee Workshop. they had to lay off two guys from the brad factory.

[LDosser]

And when he does, it is only until the glue dries.

[nailshooter41]

You are kidding, right?

Many times I have suggested that the screaming pundits that nest here take it to

alt.politics

which should be their cup of tea. That newsgroup has been around forever, and is so radical both ways that it even scares the hell out of the spammers.

Apparently it scares the hell out of the experts here too, as they never seem to tire of expulsing their favorite news network's newest opinions here, not there.

And with the *tiniest* most minuscule bit of effort, one could type in "political forum" in the Google search bar and easily find HUNDREDS of groups (moderated and unmoderated) that cater to their own particular flavor or vitriol.

Robert

[Markem]

But why didn't they show him pulling them after the glue dried then?

Mark

[LDosser]

The same reason they didn't show him 'buying' a tool ...

[Doug Winterburn]

but galooh on the other hand...

[Puckdropper]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

That's not quite the point I was trying to make. They don't want to discuss politics with the internet at large, they want to discuss them with the guys here, on this group. I could find no group that had split so the people on the group could have their own private political discussions. At least not following the pattern *.something.politics.

Puckdropper

[Swingman]

It's just like the TV or radio, turn the channel/volume button to whatever suits you at the time.

Simply filtered two noisy threads about a week ago (do turn the filter off and on to just to read some snide political jewels, and maybe chime in on occasion) and for the past three days, with the filter on, there have been eleven nicely populated woodworking threads to read.

[burtwitlin]

I'm reading the posts in IE 8. How do I filter?

[Swingman]

First and foremost, grab a real email/newsgroup reader, like Thunderbird, Eudora, Agent etc ... it will also make your quotes more accurate. :)

[nailshooter41]

I respectfully disagree. To me, they are like the loudest bullies making noise in the first grade classroom. Everyone knows what they are saying and doing. If they are in a quiet room (like a woodworking newsgroup), they will really stand out when they start their hijinks.

But if you put them in a classroom or a playground of like minded loudmouths they simply disappear in the ambient noise. Nope, this is their stage.

Here again, a less than .5 second search of "starting a newsgroup" yielded pages of instruction. Moreover, the search didn't even tap making a private Yahoo group or a Google group.

No sale on a lack of venue. Most of these folks aren't idiots. ANYTIME, and I do mean anytime, 24/7 every day of the year, if they wanted to take it private and argue amongst themselves, they could have their group set up in minutes. They are here because they want to be, not because they have to be.

How else could their internet friends appreciate the depth of their huge political acumen, or their keen insight into the "real" truth that only a few can understand without their personal help? Their opinions are of such weight and importance they have to stand out. Arguing amongst themselves in a 15 man group would simple devolve into petty bickering in just a few posts and the group would lose interest in itself.

These guys need an audience.

This is a public newsgroup, so it their right to post as they wish. Their lack of respect of the group intent and charter is their business. They are here because they want to be.

Robert.

[J. Clarke]

Yes, you can start a newsgroup. Anybody can start one in the alt heirarchy. Good luck getting USENET providers to carry it, and good luck getting people to use it. Unless they are carefully targetted, splinter groups generally get no traffic to speak of.

>

[nailshooter41]

Or:

few seconds and *poof* you got it.

Echoing Puck's point, he was thinking that some here may want to bandy about their beliefs with each other, and were only lacking a venue. Who would care then, if their was a larger audience for their views if they were genuinely, and only interested in discourse amongst themselves? No one would care about post counts, traffic, advertising, click ads or anything else. They could hammer on each other to their hearts delight. And it wouldn't cost them anything, and they could keep it amongst themselves.

*My* point was there would be no larger stage for their considered opinions, the showboating of their perceived smack downs, and one oneupmanship they try to practice.

My point is that for these guys it is better to be a small fish in a mud puddle than to be big fish in the ocean.

Robert