"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty


Hey, if he wants dumber, he can always read and study the posts of some of
the more......proficient? posters of this group.
One who has more, is worth more, and is better at everything comes
immediately to mind. Also, one from a bay-area in Kalifornicatia.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:44:39 -0400, "Neal" wrote this
crap:


Hey, if he wants dumber, he can always read and study the posts of some of
the more......proficient? posters of this group.
One who has more, is worth more, and is better at everything comes
immediately to mind. Also, one from a bay-area in Kalifornicatia.


Are you talking about Jon-boy?




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty



Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in favor of shipping
containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see them? It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all
shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident
you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty



Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in
favor of shipping
containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see
them?


Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
...



Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV




Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted, somewhat tongue-in-cheek
though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers floating around in
a way that they could sink boats. You replied that it was "the dumbest thing
(you) had ever read." It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...



Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb
position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV




Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek
though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers
floating around in
a way that they could sink boats.



What you suggested was dumb...D U M B !

You replied that it was "the dumbest thing
(you) had ever read."


''this week''. I haven't read your past posts.


doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring
containers to
sink.



When you ASS U me stuff, you make an ASS out of U, not ME.


Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat,
where they can
do harm.


You are WRONG again! Are you related to Boobspit?




SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better
solution.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing
cousin: Post a better
solution.


I never said I had a better solution, although given 15
minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb
idea.
I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded
containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week.
It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible.

SBV

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady