"Larry" wrote in message
...
Marty wrote in
news
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.


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

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

"Larry" wrote in message
. ..
Marty wrote in
news
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

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

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

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

"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

"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

"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)

"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

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

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.

"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