Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:05:29 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:21:23 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:


Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where
you
pasted that from, but it's not very well done.

"such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to the
object, without BEING the object.

Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't
understand this important distinction.

You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference
between
effect and affect, but you are getting close. :')

I pulled that definition out of the first online dictionary I came to.

You like the AP Stylebook better? Here's an excerpt from an online edition
of it:

"Use like as a preposition to compare nouns and pronouns. It requires an
object: Jim blocks like a pro."

Your problem, Charlie, is that while you may have some book learnin', you
have no ear whatever for the language in context. You have a tin ear for
usage. "Like" was perfectly correct as Katy used it, and was perfectly
appropriate in the context in which she used it. "Such as" would have been
awkward and stilted. It's the kind of phrase a literate writer might use
in
a brief, but not in a news group.

. . . or in vis-a-vis conversation.

Don't be too hard on BB--he wasted all his money on Whitworth tools when
metric and SAE would have worked just fine.

Max



Max=hack. He may as well use vice-grips.

CWM

I saw him yank an eye out with a pair once....

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...


And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer
exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...



This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably.



N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition,
except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably all
be bowing to the Mullah by now..



Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He
did actually win the election.

No one won that election...

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


And Clinton! g


And that time they were correct!



The best pres we've had in a long time.


Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man...



I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't have
been so good for you.

No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes,
....the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of
income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for
isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included..
He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and
after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the worst
polling numbers since Nixon.

Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that
someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for
their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")


You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...


Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max




Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over, it's
got to be true.

Do you really read Max's posts? He has decried Bush on more than one
occasion. And is far from the religious rught wing Conservative you make
him out to be....


Occasionally putting Bush down in the most milk-toast way possible for all
the terrible things he's done doesn't quite cut it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...


And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no
longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...



This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably.



N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition,
except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably
all be bowing to the Mullah by now..



Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He
did actually win the election.

No one won that election...


Gore won, and the Supremes voted him out. But, in any case, feel free to
blame Gore for Iraq if that makes your day.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


And Clinton! g


And that time they were correct!



The best pres we've had in a long time.


Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man...



I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't
have been so good for you.

No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes,
...the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of
income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for
isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included..
He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and
after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the
worst polling numbers since Nixon.

Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that
someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for
their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best...



You're dreaming. You cite a couple of examples, claim that's the true
measure of a president, then claim all has been rosey under the current
screwed up administration. Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had
in a long time. Bush is by far the worst. But, feel free to keep saying it
isn't so.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:50:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:



Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster
conspiracy again.


Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing
billing
records in the WH library is a much better story.

Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion.

What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and
Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing?



Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding
investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true.

I still won't buy Tyson Products....

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:55:58 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:


What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and
Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing?


Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding
investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true.


Er...Jon, I think the question was intended to focus on why Hillary got away
with it, not why Martha didn't.

He selectively interprets what he reads...short sighted...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:55:58 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and
Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing?


Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding
investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true.

Er...Jon, I think the question was intended to focus on why Hillary got
away
with it, not why Martha didn't.


Er.... Dave, Hillary didn't get away with anything. Her trial by fire in the
public eye from the likes of the right-wing nuts was BY FAR more intense
than anything Steward went through. And, for all the noise and all the smoke
and all the shouting, not one prosecution. Hillary didn't get away with
anything. Steward was a thief and a liar and not too bright.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com