Getting Rid of Damp
 

mmc wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
om...
We're having some problems with damp seeping in. Both the v-berth and the
aft cabin have wood bins on the sides for storage...these are open and
about 9 inches deep. That's where we store our clothes. The hull side and
bottoms are carpeted with the same fabric as the the liner, a sort of
nubbly burlappy material but more closely woven. It seems the clothes on
the bottom are always damp. I've been rotating them so they won't mildew
but that's getting tedious. Also have damp problems where the cushions
meet the hull walls in the berths. Got some roll out thick paper stuff
from West Marine but as soon as it gets damp, the sheets start picking up
moisture again. I've taken to running fans all the time to keep air
circulating and am cutting back on boiling anything or running the heater
excessively when it's raining so humidity doesn't build up. I've got 3M
window plastic over the ports and the vents are all open and drawing.
Thought of using DampRid, but since NC is in a permanent state of humid,
we'd be going through one of those every other day. Any suggestions on how
to keep damp and mildew from forming (except stopping breathing
processes)?

Ventilation helps a lot here in sunny FL.
I've drilled "limber holes" in my lockers and lined drawers bottms and
shelves with "dri-dek" (http://www.dri-dek.com/). This stuff is great. Kinda
pricy but it won't wear out, cleans easily and allows air to ciculate under
whatever is stored in the drawer or locker. For your bins, I'd recommend
drilling holes in the bottoms and using the dri-deck on the bottom and hull
side.
I have a big garage sale dehumidifier, (too big, need to downsize) and it
does help a lot.


Oh, I used to use that in the bottoms of dog crates when I was still
grooming dogs...works great...and can be cut to size...thanks...

Getting Rid of Damp
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:03:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
. ..
Marty wrote in
:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, how about damning that...twit

Martin



So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. It's NOT OK for me to kill
off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. I'll certainly want to, but
we
are a society of laws. We don't just start banging away on the
neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. That leads to
anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? I've wondered that for
years.



Laws of society? Yet you just got done telling me how all Jews should die
or
AH should have "finished" the job.

You're a loon.

So why do you insist on debating with a loon? Do you think he will
suddenly stop being a loon if you argue with him enough?



Yes, you're right of course. It's a fine line between not allowing racist
stuff to go without saying anything and thus condoning it and ignoring loons
as a matter of policy.


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

Getting Rid of Damp
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:37:30 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:03:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
3...
Marty wrote in
:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the
other
day,,,, how about damning that...twit

Martin



So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them
all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. It's NOT OK for me to kill
off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. I'll certainly want to,
but
we
are a society of laws. We don't just start banging away on the
neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. That leads to
anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? I've wondered that for
years.



Laws of society? Yet you just got done telling me how all Jews should
die
or
AH should have "finished" the job.

You're a loon.

So why do you insist on debating with a loon? Do you think he will
suddenly stop being a loon if you argue with him enough?



Yes, you're right of course. It's a fine line between not allowing racist
stuff to go without saying anything and thus condoning it and ignoring
loons
as a matter of policy.

You can point out that a post is racist with one post in that thread
if you feel that every one is is less intelligent than you are and
can't figure it out themselves. That is not the same thing as engaging
in a debate.



I doubt that I'm more intelligent than anyone else here, which is doubless
why I posted multiple times on the subject. :)

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

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
snip
I doubt that I'm more intelligent than anyone else here, which is doubless
why I posted multiple times on the subject. :)

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


You should have typed 'doubtlessly" (not doubless). Aside from the incorrect
spelling of the root word you compounded your folly by not using it as an
adjective. "Which is (doubtlessly) why."

You and Dave are equally illiterate. Or, perhaps I should say "equal
illiterate?? Bwaahahhahahah.


Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:11:47 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You should have typed 'doubtlessly" (not doubless). Aside from the
incorrect
spelling of the root word you compounded your folly by not using it as an
adjective. "Which is (doubtlessly) why."

You need to clear up your muddled thought and expression, Neal. Are you
alleging that "doubtless" is an adjective, or that "doubtlessly" is an
adjective?

Without a doubt, it's doubtlessly when used as an adjective.

Perhaps I should commence writing to you using lower Flesch-Kincaid grade
level scores?

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:11:47 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You should have typed 'doubtlessly" (not doubless). Aside from the incorrect
spelling of the root word you compounded your folly by not using it as an
adjective. "Which is (doubtlessly) why."

I don't have the original from Wilbur, he's in my KF. How I managed to read the post of his below must be down to poor KF management on my part. That he has the audacity to post the above, when he wrote what is below is beyond me.

In article s.com, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

I agree. I've got the spaces between the component (inner liner) and
the hull all poured with two-part, urethane closed-cell foam. It makes

The word 'all' in the above is completely redundant, and using it there makes you look a fool. You've named what is being referenced, so there is no need for 'all'.


the boat stronger, quieter, unsinkable and eliminates the condensation
in all but the most ideal conditions for it.

"The boat stronger" what does that mean?

Ending a sentence with a preposition?! Wilbur, surely, with
qualifications that entitle you to criticise how is it possible you
could make such a mistake?


The overhead will get
condensation on it when cooking and boiling water but that's about it
and that soon evaporates.

Water vapour will condense on it, it doesn't "get condensation on it".
The condensation hasn't arrived there from somewhere else, one is the
condenser and the other the condensate. For it to 'get condensation on
it' the vapour must condense elsewhere and then, somehow, transfer.
Perhaps you meant to say "water will condense on it".


Also keeping the hatches open when aboard, which is most of the time
for us real sailors,

OK, this one isn't a grammar/spelling error, but, dammit, it wasn't
spotted by anybody: Living on a boat doesn't make you a real sailor.
*Sailing* is what makes people sailors.


helps keep the boat surfaces and air temperature
in synch so you're correct there Karin.

Now you don't know to whom you are replying.


If a boat doesn't have an insulated hull it's going to sweat and their
is nothing that can be done

Their?! WTF?!

Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.


Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Justin C" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:11:47 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You should have typed 'doubtlessly" (not doubless). Aside from the
incorrect
spelling of the root word you compounded your folly by not using it as an
adjective. "Which is (doubtlessly) why."

I don't have the original from Wilbur, he's in my KF. How I managed to
read the post of his below must be down to poor KF management on my part.
That he has the audacity to post the above, when he wrote what is below is
beyond me.

In article s.com,
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

I agree. I've got the spaces between the component (inner liner) and
the hull all poured with two-part, urethane closed-cell foam. It makes

The word 'all' in the above is completely redundant, and using it there
makes you look a fool. You've named what is being referenced, so there is
no need for 'all'.


the boat stronger, quieter, unsinkable and eliminates the condensation
in all but the most ideal conditions for it.

"The boat stronger" what does that mean?

Ending a sentence with a preposition?! Wilbur, surely, with
qualifications that entitle you to criticise how is it possible you
could make such a mistake?


The overhead will get
condensation on it when cooking and boiling water but that's about it
and that soon evaporates.

Water vapour will condense on it, it doesn't "get condensation on it".
The condensation hasn't arrived there from somewhere else, one is the
condenser and the other the condensate. For it to 'get condensation on
it' the vapour must condense elsewhere and then, somehow, transfer.
Perhaps you meant to say "water will condense on it".


Also keeping the hatches open when aboard, which is most of the time
for us real sailors,

OK, this one isn't a grammar/spelling error, but, dammit, it wasn't
spotted by anybody: Living on a boat doesn't make you a real sailor.
*Sailing* is what makes people sailors.


helps keep the boat surfaces and air temperature
in synch so you're correct there Karin.

Now you don't know to whom you are replying.


If a boat doesn't have an insulated hull it's going to sweat and their
is nothing that can be done

Their?! WTF?!

Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.


Bwahahhaha. It's still the very best way to troll up hungry fish.
:-))))))))))

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

In article s.com, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Bwahahhaha. It's still the very best way to troll up hungry fish.

Well, there it is, from the horse's mouth. In my fourteen years of
reading news-groups this is the first time I've ever seen a troll admit
their guilt. It's going in my scrap-book!

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.


Bwahahhaha. It's still the very best way to troll up hungry fish.
:-))))))))))

Ha! In the very best of Bobspit tradition, when one is thoroughly hoist
by ones own petard and exposed for a fool, scream "I was trolling! Hah
Hah, I got you...".

Sad, truly sad.

Cheers
Marty

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.


Bwahahhaha. It's still the very best way to troll up hungry fish.
:-))))))))))

Ha! In the very best of Bobspit tradition, when one is thoroughly hoist by
ones own petard and exposed for a fool, scream "I was trolling! Hah Hah,
I got you...".

Sad, truly sad.

Cheers
Marty


Wow! Two fish on the same bait. Ya gotta love it.

Wilbur Hubbard

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:39:00 +0000, Larry wrote:

Marty wrote in
m:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, how about damning that...twit

Martin



So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? I've wondered that for years.


You are playing with words. Didn't the recent Supreme court decision
show that the law allows an individual to defend himself, even by
deadly force?

I believe that in all states in the U.S. if you are being shot at and
believe that you are in danger you are within your rights to shoot
back.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:11:47 -0500, katy
wrote:

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Justin C" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry wrote:
Leave the AC run all summer and the dehumidifier running all winter to
keep the boat dried out. Your problem goes away as soon as the air
inside the boat is DRY, not like a North Carolina swamp.
Out of interest, is it possible to keep the air in a boat dry? OK, if
you've got a de-humidifier running 24/7, and the boat is closed up then,
yep, I expect it'll dry out, but what about a boat that's used
regularly? Can you ever dry it out?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

The two most important words, IMO, are, "Insulate and ventilate." Insulating
both above and below the waterline wherever possible keeps condensation
down, while ventilation keeps the humidity inside the boat close to that of
outside the boat, but prevents stale air and heat build-up. Solar-powered
Nicro Day/Night vents work very well if properly placed, combined with
passive vents belowdecks. The problem is not heat and humidity per se, but
differences in heat and humidity.


If you're living aboard, however, in a temperate region such as NC where
night temps are known to drop into the low 20's, keeping inside and
outside air equal would be quite daunting! Gives a whole new definition
to "frostbiting"!

Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:11:47 -0500, katy
wrote:

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Justin C" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry wrote:
Leave the AC run all summer and the dehumidifier running all winter to
keep the boat dried out. Your problem goes away as soon as the air
inside the boat is DRY, not like a North Carolina swamp.
Out of interest, is it possible to keep the air in a boat dry? OK, if
you've got a de-humidifier running 24/7, and the boat is closed up
then,
yep, I expect it'll dry out, but what about a boat that's used
regularly? Can you ever dry it out?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

The two most important words, IMO, are, "Insulate and ventilate."
Insulating
both above and below the waterline wherever possible keeps condensation
down, while ventilation keeps the humidity inside the boat close to that
of
outside the boat, but prevents stale air and heat build-up.
Solar-powered
Nicro Day/Night vents work very well if properly placed, combined with
passive vents belowdecks. The problem is not heat and humidity per se,
but
differences in heat and humidity.


If you're living aboard, however, in a temperate region such as NC where
night temps are known to drop into the low 20's, keeping inside and
outside air equal would be quite daunting! Gives a whole new definition
to "frostbiting"!

Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Katy isn't a troll, but she should know what to do... put on another
layer... duhhh...

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

Getting Rid of Damp
 

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Nope, no troll here...and several here are real time friends...turn the
AC off (snicker)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:11:47 -0500, katy
wrote:

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Justin C" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry wrote:
Leave the AC run all summer and the dehumidifier running all winter to
keep the boat dried out. Your problem goes away as soon as the air
inside the boat is DRY, not like a North Carolina swamp.
Out of interest, is it possible to keep the air in a boat dry? OK, if
you've got a de-humidifier running 24/7, and the boat is closed up
then,
yep, I expect it'll dry out, but what about a boat that's used
regularly? Can you ever dry it out?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
The two most important words, IMO, are, "Insulate and ventilate."
Insulating
both above and below the waterline wherever possible keeps condensation
down, while ventilation keeps the humidity inside the boat close to that
of
outside the boat, but prevents stale air and heat build-up.
Solar-powered
Nicro Day/Night vents work very well if properly placed, combined with
passive vents belowdecks. The problem is not heat and humidity per se,
but
differences in heat and humidity.


If you're living aboard, however, in a temperate region such as NC where
night temps are known to drop into the low 20's, keeping inside and
outside air equal would be quite daunting! Gives a whole new definition
to "frostbiting"!
Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Katy isn't a troll, but she should know what to do... put on another
layer... duhhh...


Or one could always spend the night in the heated lounge, take a turn
in the hot tub, or do midnight laundry in the heated laundry room....

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Larry wrote:
Marty wrote om:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, * how about damning that...twit

Martin

So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. *It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. *I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. *We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. *That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? *I've wondered that for years.

Please don't continue to misrepresent anarchy. Anarchy simply means
"without head", or leader. No one must die simply because anarchy is
present.
Tom
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on
this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
_Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"

Getting Rid of Damp
 

"katy" wrote in message
om...
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Nope, no troll here...and several here are real time friends...turn the AC
off (snicker)

Or at least break out the electric blanket. ;-)

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:34:31 -0000, Justin C
wrote:

Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.

All spelling and grammar flames are lame. Also have **** all to do
with boating.

Casady

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:

The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.

And we've seen how well that works in places like Somalia, Afghanistan
and our own "wild west" back in the 1800s.

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Jan 6, 10:33*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:
The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.

And we've seen how well that works in places like Somalia, Afghanistan
and our own "wild west" back in the 1800s.

Both Somalia and Afghanistan have some form of government, with a
president or prime minister, et al. Ergo, not true anarchies. But the
improper use of certain words by the media (and yes, uneducated
schmucks), allow peoples' perceptions of these ideologies to be
manipulated and their definitions become blurred over time. Hopefully
the digital divide will lessen in the backwaters, and allow more
people to communicate and trade with each other. Tom

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:25:31 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You should have typed 'doubtlessly" (not doubless). Aside from the
incorrect
spelling of the root word you compounded your folly by not using it as
an
adjective. "Which is (doubtlessly) why."

You need to clear up your muddled thought and expression, Neal. Are you
alleging that "doubtless" is an adjective, or that "doubtlessly" is an
adjective?

Without a doubt, it's doubtlessly when used as an adjective.

Perhaps I should commence writing to you using lower Flesch-Kincaid grade
level scores?

It would be better, perhaps, if you commenced by learning the difference
between an adjective and an adverb.

Maybe you should learn how to diagram a sentence. Let's take a look, shall
we?

"Which is (doubtlessly) why."

Which = Subject = noun
is = Verb
why = Object = noun

doubtlessly is a modifier of why. Therefore, it follows that doubtlessly is
an adjective, not an adverb.

ad.jec.tive \"a-jik-tiv\ n : a word that typically serves as a modifier of a
noun - ad.jec.ti.val \'a-jik-"tï-v?l\ adj - ad.jec.ti.val.ly adv

Go back to school for a refresher course in remedial English, barrister!

Wilbur Hubbard
(purveyor of lawyer smackdowns, both in court and here)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:11:47 -0500, katy
wrote:

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Justin C" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry wrote:
Leave the AC run all summer and the dehumidifier running all winter to
keep the boat dried out. Your problem goes away as soon as the air
inside the boat is DRY, not like a North Carolina swamp.
Out of interest, is it possible to keep the air in a boat dry? OK, if
you've got a de-humidifier running 24/7, and the boat is closed up
then,
yep, I expect it'll dry out, but what about a boat that's used
regularly? Can you ever dry it out?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

The two most important words, IMO, are, "Insulate and ventilate."
Insulating
both above and below the waterline wherever possible keeps condensation
down, while ventilation keeps the humidity inside the boat close to that
of
outside the boat, but prevents stale air and heat build-up.
Solar-powered
Nicro Day/Night vents work very well if properly placed, combined with
passive vents belowdecks. The problem is not heat and humidity per se,
but
differences in heat and humidity.


If you're living aboard, however, in a temperate region such as NC where
night temps are known to drop into the low 20's, keeping inside and
outside air equal would be quite daunting! Gives a whole new definition
to "frostbiting"!

Kati, are you a troll? You should be able to figure out what to do
when the A.C. is too cold...
Cheers,


She's just what she's always been - stupid.

--
Gregory Hall

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:03:42 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Let's take a look, shall
we?

"Which is (doubtlessly) why."

Which = Subject = noun
is = Verb
why = Object = noun

doubtlessly is a modifier of why. Therefore, it follows that doubtlessly
is
an adjective, not an adverb.

Not even close, Neal. Did your grammar lessens end in the third grade?


Sorry, Dave, but vague insults in lieu of reasoned rebuttal makes you a
loser in any debate.

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

wrote in message
...
On 6 Jan 2009 13:40:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:03:42 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Let's take a look, shall
we?

"Which is (doubtlessly) why."

Which = Subject = noun
is = Verb
why = Object = noun

doubtlessly is a modifier of why. Therefore, it follows that doubtlessly
is
an adjective, not an adverb.

Not even close, Neal. Did your grammar lessens end in the third grade?

Lessens?

Debating with Neal is never going to make you appear anything but
foolish, Dave. Spit the hook.


Like any typical, obfuscating lawyer, Dave is trying to make something
complicated out of something simple.

We are discussing a simple, four-word sentence. It has a subject a verb an
object and an object modifier. That's it! Dredging up non-applicable grammar
rules is not necessary. He's trying to save face but doing badly. He
apparently thought that doubtlessly was a modifier of the verb and,
consequently, an adverb. But any fool knows it's "doubtlessly why" and not
"is doubtlessly). If doubtlessly were an adverb the sentence structure would
be: "Which doubtlessly is why."

I guess Dave never learned the KISS rule. Or the logical order rule.

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:06:12 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

We are discussing a simple, four-word sentence.
[snip]

"Which doubtlessly is why."

I take back what I said, Neal. While the third grader would probably not
have recognized that your four words are part of a dependent clause
introduced the relative pronoun "which," the third grader would at least
have gone you one better by recognizing that your four words do not
constitute a sentence.

Do a little googling of "clause" and "sentence" and maybe you can start to
get this grammar stuff sorted out.

This is becoming tedius. "Doubtless" is correct, Wilbur. "Doubtlessly" can
also be correct, but is considered "clumsy."
http://www.bartleby.com/68/15/2015.html

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:06:12 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

We are discussing a simple, four-word sentence.
[snip]

"Which doubtlessly is why."

Poor attempt at post-editing in a failed attempt to further obfuscate.


I take back what I said, Neal. While the third grader would probably not
have recognized that your four words are part of a dependent clause
introduced the relative pronoun "which," the third grader would at least
have gone you one better by recognizing that your four words do not
constitute a sentence.

Do a little googling of "clause" and "sentence" and maybe you can start to
get this grammar stuff sorted out.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong, Dave. All it takes to make a complete
sentence is a subject and a verb.

"Which is doubtlessly why." This is a complete sentence.

"Which is why." This is a complete sentence.

"Why me?" This is also a complete sentence.

"That is." This, too, is a complete sentence.

"Which is?" Same applies here - complete sentence.

Go to the back of the class! Don't forget the dunce cap.

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:06:12 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

We are discussing a simple, four-word sentence.
[snip]

"Which doubtlessly is why."

I take back what I said, Neal. While the third grader would probably not
have recognized that your four words are part of a dependent clause
introduced the relative pronoun "which," the third grader would at least
have gone you one better by recognizing that your four words do not
constitute a sentence.

Do a little googling of "clause" and "sentence" and maybe you can start
to
get this grammar stuff sorted out.

This is becoming tedius. "Doubtless" is correct, Wilbur. "Doubtlessly" can
also be correct, but is considered "clumsy."
http://www.bartleby.com/68/15/2015.html


Irrelevant! That link talks about "doubtless" used as an adverb and I have
shown, without doubt, that in the sentence, "Which is doubtlessly why," that
doubtlessly is used as an adjective since it is a modifier of the word "why"
and not a modifier of the verb "is."

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:16:59 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Do a little googling of "clause" and "sentence" and maybe you can start
to
get this grammar stuff sorted out.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong, Dave. All it takes to make a complete
sentence is a subject and a verb.

"Which is doubtlessly why." This is a complete sentence.

"Which is why." This is a complete sentence.

"Why me?" This is also a complete sentence.

"That is." This, too, is a complete sentence.

"Which is?" Same applies here - complete sentence.

Go to the back of the class! Don't forget the dunce cap.

Keep it up, Neal. The more you say the more you display your ignorance of
the language.

Take my earlier advice and google up "sentence," "clause" and "phrase"
before you dig yourself in even deeper.


I don't have to dig any deeper. I've managed to bury you as it is.

Wilbur Hubbard

Correcting poor grammar (was Getting Rid of Damp)
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:33:05 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:34:31 -0000, Justin C
wrote:

Wilbur, please don't criticise other's use of the language when you
butcher it so badly yourself.

All spelling and grammar flames are lame. Also have **** all to do
with boating.

Casady


But it gives him such an overwhelming sense of superiority.....even
when he is wrong.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), tom wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Larry wrote:
Marty wrote om:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, * how about damning that...twit

Martin

So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. *It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. *I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. *We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. *That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? *I've wondered that for years.

Please don't continue to misrepresent anarchy. Anarchy simply means
"without head", or leader. No one must die simply because anarchy is
present.
Tom
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on
this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
_Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"

The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.


Actually one can view a non-moderated Usenet group as an example of
anarchy in action. View rec.boats for an idea of how well anarchy
works in practice.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), tom wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:39 am, Larry wrote:
Marty wrote om:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, how about damning that...twit
Martin
So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? I've wondered that for years.
Please don't continue to misrepresent anarchy. Anarchy simply means
"without head", or leader. No one must die simply because anarchy is
present.
Tom
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on
this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
_Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.


Actually one can view a non-moderated Usenet group as an example of
anarchy in action. View rec.boats for an idea of how well anarchy
works in practice.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Or alt.sailing.asa.....

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:46:48 -0500, katy
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), tom wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:39 am, Larry wrote:
Marty wrote om:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, how about damning that...twit
Martin
So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? I've wondered that for years.
Please don't continue to misrepresent anarchy. Anarchy simply means
"without head", or leader. No one must die simply because anarchy is
present.
Tom
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on
this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
_Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.


Actually one can view a non-moderated Usenet group as an example of
anarchy in action. View rec.boats for an idea of how well anarchy
works in practice.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Or alt.sailing.asa.....

Yes, I believe that some of the Lads spread their largess around so
all can benefit from their guidance.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Getting Rid of Damp
 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:27:57 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:56:05 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:11:57 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), tom wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Larry wrote:
Marty wrote om:

I saw the aftermath of a Hamas rocket hitting a kindergarden the other
day,,,, * how about damning that...twit

Martin

So, if your neighbor murders your son, it's ok for you to kill them all?

That's not what the cops say where I live. *It's NOT OK for me to kill off
the neighbors if they kill someone of mine. *I'll certainly want to, but we
are a society of laws. *We don't just start banging away on the neighbors
with our M-16s trying to see how many we can kill. *That leads to anarchy
and everyone dies.

Why is murder OK when it's done by Zionists? *I've wondered that for years.

Please don't continue to misrepresent anarchy. Anarchy simply means
"without head", or leader. No one must die simply because anarchy is
present.
Tom
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on
this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
_Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"

The average uneducated schmuck thinks anarchy=chaos. It doesn't, at
least in theory. Real anarchists believe that left on their own, most
individuals will do the right thing without being forced. They believe
in the basic good of people.


Actually one can view a non-moderated Usenet group as an example of
anarchy in action. View rec.boats for an idea of how well anarchy
works in practice.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

As I pointyed out, there are examples of failure for any type of
government that has ever been tried.

Anarchy, by definition does not involve chaos and bad behavior. That
does not mean it can ever be made to work in practice. Then again,
Democracy (all zillion and two flavors) has never worked as designed,
either.

True, and didn't Winston Churchill say something about democracy not
being perfect but was the best system we had been able to develop so
far...

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)