Gene Kearns wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

Don White wrote:

Oh... no, this is entirely predictable. Skipper is a methods based
troll...As one poster noted, nearly three years ago, this is Skipper's
method.

"John(nospin)H" wrote:

Skipper, I tried to engage in an open and candid discussion with you
about the Chesapeake Bay.

That is Snippy's formula for posting.

This site's cite appears to confirm the assessments Skipper published in
2003:

No, it doesn't.

The eternal pessimist might conclude that it does (or one inclined to
mis-state reality), but if you lived close enough to real water to
understand the pressures of population and industry on significant
waters, you'd have a clue.

One might offset your aspersions concerning the Chesapeake Region with
the very real fact that the Sea of Cortez is considered a "Dying Sea"
as the following monograph attests:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1108-06.htm

Please feel free to selectively edit and delete (as you always have
done) to try to bolster your weak and indefensible position(s).....
just don't expect a response, if you do.....

Having spent time on both waters, and having seen the changes over 50
years. Yes, each has been diminished considerably from what they once
were. Major dif is that the Cortez is the world's greatest fish trap,
both in variety and quantity. A mismanaged and dying Cortez is still
much better than the Chesapeake today. Witness the striped marlin
fishing off Cabo. Witness the clarity of Cortez waters compared to the
muddy polluted Chesapeake. Witness the warm waters of the Cortez
compared to that cold dark Chesapeake. If it were not for the remoteness
of the Cortez, even you would understand the draw of its waters over the
Chesapeake. Put another way, if both waters had equal access for you,
you'd be visiting the Cortez 9 to 1 over the Chesapeake.

Oh...and I'd prefer NOT to have a response or harassing phone call from
you again...ever!

--
Skipper