Wot no flags?

Cheers MC

Horvath wrote:
On 16 Jul 2003 10:45:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:


Doesn't seem like it, no does it???!!!


I spent all Wednesday on my yacht. The Tall Ships came into our city,
and quite a few yachtsman from my yacht met them, and watched them
form up for a parade into downtown. I'l be posting pics.

Wednesday evening, we had our regular Wednesday Night Race.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

I'm willing to commit for the right woman.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
The man is trying to find the impossible: a noncomittal way of
indicating he's all clapped out.

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're right again Donal.

What I meant to say was, "I don't have to clap any more."

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Yes! But are you sure that is what you meant to say?

Ambiguous wording????



Regards

Donal
--



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I should have said, "I don't have the clap any more."

Yes. I'm sure.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I meant to say, I don't have the clap.


Are you sure?


Regards


Donal
--

Is that the rubber ducky in your tub?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2003 10:45:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Doesn't seem like it, no does it???!!!

I spent all Wednesday on my yacht. The Tall Ships came into our city,
and quite a few yachtsman from my yacht met them, and watched them
form up for a parade into downtown. I'l be posting pics.

Wednesday evening, we had our regular Wednesday Night Race.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

I don't think I want to go in this direction any longer....

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I'm willing to commit for the right woman.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
The man is trying to find the impossible: a noncomittal way of
indicating he's all clapped out.

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're right again Donal.

What I meant to say was, "I don't have to clap any more."

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Yes! But are you sure that is what you meant to say?

Ambiguous wording????



Regards

Donal
--



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I should have said, "I don't have the clap any more."

Yes. I'm sure.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I meant to say, I don't have the clap.


Are you sure?


Regards


Donal
--

Don't tell me you are wiulling to commit for the right man!!!!!!!!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:
I don't think I want to go in this direction any longer....

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I'm willing to commit for the right woman.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...

The man is trying to find the impossible: a noncomittal way of
indicating he's all clapped out.

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're right again Donal.

What I meant to say was, "I don't have to clap any more."

"Donal" wrote in message
. ..

Yes! But are you sure that is what you meant to say?

Ambiguous wording????



Regards

Donal
--



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

I should have said, "I don't have the clap any more."

Yes. I'm sure.

"Donal" wrote in message
. ..

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

I meant to say, I don't have the clap.


Are you sure?


Regards


Donal
--

Probably wise.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
I don't think I want to go in this direction any longer....

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I'm willing to commit for the right woman.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
The man is trying to find the impossible: a noncomittal way of
indicating he's all clapped out.

FT

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're right again Donal.

What I meant to say was, "I don't have to clap any more."

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Yes! But are you sure that is what you meant to say?

Ambiguous wording????



Regards

Donal
--



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I should have said, "I don't have the clap any more."

Yes. I'm sure.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I meant to say, I don't have the clap.


Are you sure?


Regards


Donal
--

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in

Goodness
must stand on it's own merits... otherwise it is a wasted sentiment and a
futile path.

Goodness and the ability to defend goodness are mutually exclusive.
In the world, the guy with the biggest gun/club/bank account wins. It
doesn't matter if he's good or bad, he's just the biggest.
People band together and form tribes, societies and governments to fight off
the other big guy. Some of these societies are formed around goodness, such
as these United States of America, a nation of individual states. Without
numbers of people organized to protect goodness, it will eventually
perish/diminish.

"Gilligan" wrote in message |
| Goodness must stand on it's own merits... otherwise it is a wasted
sentiment and a futile path.

| Goodness and the ability to defend goodness are mutually exclusive.

Goodness needs no more defense than Evil or Greed require address.... they
are subjective. What appears as goodness to you may well be perceived as
evil to others. Intent is not a qualifier or an excuse.

| In the world, the guy with the biggest gun/club/bank account wins. It
| doesn't matter if he's good or bad, he's just the biggest.

It also must be taken into account that the people on the winner's side
would view him as good and the losers would view him as bad. He is neither
good nor bad. I doubt a "villain" sees himself as evil. I don't think a
villain wakes up every morning thinking "what evil may I inflict on this
world today".... no more so than I would believe a "good" person awakes and
asks "what goodness may I do today".


| People band together and form tribes, societies and governments to fight
off
| the other big guy. Some of these societies are formed around goodness,
such
| as these United States of America, a nation of individual states. Without
| numbers of people organized to protect goodness, it will eventually
| perish/diminish.

A prime example of the results of defense of what is perceived as
"goodness"... you are basing your view of the USA on "goodness".... yet the
world fears your country. The USA has acted in it's own best interest at the
expense of others. Is this "goodness"? It has, in the past, acted in a
petty and vindictive manner. Is this "goodness"? It has exploited and it has
intimidated in the name of "goodness". It has in all aspects acted with
greed and evil in it's own best interest. I state now that there is nothing
wrong with that... as long as the realization exists that the action is not
shrouded as "goodness" nor "evil".

We all like to believe that we are righteous and that we alone hold the
flame of truth and goodness.... the best we can actually do is to balance
the Ying and Yang. Generosity, compassion, love, greed, envy and anger must
be balanced.... they cannot be defended and they must stand on their own
merits.

CM