Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

http://englishrussia.com/?p=845#more-845

Larry
--

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Larry wrote:

http://englishrussia.com/?p=845#more-845

Larry

What a mess! My heart goes out to the families of
the submariners who died in that calamity. That
was one big sub...

Don W.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


Larry wrote:

http://englishrussia.com/?p=845#more-845

Larry

What a mess! My heart goes out to the families of
the submariners who died in that calamity. That
was one big sub...

Don W.

Disaster at sea from time to time is a given. We learn from it. Spare
some heart for all those so far killed and yet to be killed in Iraq --
for nothing.


Now, now. Record profits for oil companies and Halliburton/subsidiaries is
hardly "for nothing."

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Larry wrote:

http://englishrussia.com/?p=845#more-845

Larry
What a mess! My heart goes out to the families of
the submariners who died in that calamity. That
was one big sub...

Don W.

Disaster at sea from time to time is a given. We learn from it. Spare
some heart for all those so far killed and yet to be killed in Iraq --
for nothing.


Now, now. Record profits for oil companies and Halliburton/subsidiaries is
hardly "for nothing."



This reply is not to roil anybodys pot but, something to think about.
Suppose the US suddenly had no need for the gross amounts of oil that
we gobble up. In other words, we went solar, nuclear, and wind in a big
way and other countries did the same.
This would plunge all oil producing countries into economic chaos, in
turn dragging the rest of the world into the same mess.
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the others would go
t u and we would lose markets.
I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

This reply is not to roil anybodys pot but, something to think about.
Suppose the US suddenly had no need for the gross amounts of oil that we
gobble up. In other words, we went solar, nuclear, and wind in a big way
and other countries did the same.
This would plunge all oil producing countries into economic chaos, in
turn dragging the rest of the world into the same mess.
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the others would go t
u and we would lose markets.
I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties do
nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon

I suspect that if the USA were to stop importing foreign oil tomorrow, by
the weekend we would find ourselves at war with OPEC (and other
oil-exporting) nations demanding that we start buying their oil again.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

This reply is not to roil anybodys pot but, something to think about.
Suppose the US suddenly had no need for the gross amounts of oil that we
gobble up. In other words, we went solar, nuclear, and wind in a big way
and other countries did the same.
This would plunge all oil producing countries into economic chaos, in
turn dragging the rest of the world into the same mess.
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the others would go t
u and we would lose markets.
I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties do
nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon

I suspect that if the USA were to stop importing foreign oil tomorrow, by
the weekend we would find ourselves at war with OPEC (and other
oil-exporting) nations demanding that we start buying their oil again.

The largest source of oil imports to the US is Canada, exporting 2.386
million barrels per day to the United States.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html)
We have the second largest reserves, after Saudi Arabia.

We are also the largest trading partner of the US.
(http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/...top/index.html)

Maybe I should not post this; could be grounds for invasion.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Jack Dale" wrote in message
news:rj8Yh.10011$_G.9957@edtnps89...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

This reply is not to roil anybodys pot but, something to think about.
Suppose the US suddenly had no need for the gross amounts of oil that
we gobble up. In other words, we went solar, nuclear, and wind in a big
way and other countries did the same.
This would plunge all oil producing countries into economic chaos, in
turn dragging the rest of the world into the same mess.
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the others would go
t u and we would lose markets.
I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties do
nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon

I suspect that if the USA were to stop importing foreign oil tomorrow, by
the weekend we would find ourselves at war with OPEC (and other
oil-exporting) nations demanding that we start buying their oil again.

The largest source of oil imports to the US is Canada, exporting 2.386
million barrels per day to the United States.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html)
We have the second largest reserves, after Saudi Arabia.

We are also the largest trading partner of the US.
(http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/...top/index.html)

Maybe I should not post this; could be grounds for invasion.

I don't think that'll work. I don't think it worked last time. g

Besides, we don't want to kill no kangaroos... oh wait, that's another
country.

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

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Besides, we don't want to kill no kangaroos... oh wait, that's another
country.

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

I understand that Canada is lousy with short people.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Besides, we don't want to kill no kangaroos... oh wait, that's another
country.

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

I understand that Canada is lousy with short people.



What's considered 'short' these days?

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

....
Maybe I should not post this; could be grounds for invasion.

I don't think that'll work. I don't think it worked last time. g
....

Way OT here, but the United States of America has invaded the _nation_
of Canada exactly zero times.

--Tom.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
...
Maybe I should not post this; could be grounds for invasion.

I don't think that'll work. I don't think it worked last time. g
...

Way OT here, but the United States of America has invaded the _nation_
of Canada exactly zero times.

--Tom.



Bzzzt.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/ g

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

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Gordon wrote in news:13321p32bcl5201
@corp.supernews.com:

I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon



You live under the mistaken notion that political parties have something
to do with actually running the country, which is simply not true.

They are simply slaves to the powerful bankers, who fund and market the
oil and energy businesses, owning most of it, we are forced to support if
we want to have transportation.

Here's a great movie, if you haven't seen it....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
This is not a conspiracy nutcase from the boonies. It's very
professionally done by Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

the_bmac wrote:
Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but
nothing can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as
far into the future as you want to project. The only truly viable
competitor, and only for major power stations, is nuclear -- provided
the cost of safety can be reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in
North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has strontium and
cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that
accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent"
fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more
thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT may be that there is
no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of
cost. Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core
that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded by radiation?
Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts of
energy relative to its mass, but...

Safety? I think every capitol ship in the US Navy is now nuclear.
Don't seem to be many of those going TU. And France among others have
bookoo reactors.
G

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in news:13321p32bcl5201
@corp.supernews.com:

I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon



You live under the mistaken notion that political parties have something
to do with actually running the country, which is simply not true.

They are simply slaves to the powerful bankers, who fund and market the
oil and energy businesses, owning most of it, we are forced to support if
we want to have transportation.

Here's a great movie, if you haven't seen it....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
This is not a conspiracy nutcase from the boonies. It's very
professionally done by Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer.


Isn't M Moore a hollywood producer?
G

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:47:29 -0400, the_bmac wrote:

Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...

When looking at the bad aspects of nukes, it makes sense to likewise
look at the same for current power generation sources.
I don't have all the numbers for the tons of filth put in the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the damage done, and the elements
thereby remaining in human tissue, but I'm pretty sure those who do
would make the case that it far worse than nukes generating equivalent
power.
Much of the fossil fuel burning goes to stationary outputs; power for
homes and manufacturing, heating homes, etc. Natural gas reserves
are also being reduced to generate electricity, making it more and
more expensive to heat buildings with NG.
Nukes can replace all of that fossil fuel use.
I'm guessing here, but having been a long time commuter often caught
in miles long jams, I suspect most of the transport fuel is burned by
commuters and those otherwise taking short trips.
Nuke power charged batteries could replace much of that.
The challenges of safe nuke plants and better battery technology
hardly seem daunting. The French have done well with nukes, and
I believe we can even improve on that, since their program is decades
old. Waste disposal is always a difficult issue, be it nuclear, fly
ash, plastic garbage bags, or holding tanks. Lots of scare tactics
are employed about nukes, but the dangers can be managed.
The big problem is weak, squirrely politicians who won't provide
leadership by setting out concrete goals.
Just my thoughts.

--Vic

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"the_bmac" wrote in message ...
Gogarty wrote:

Snip...

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has
strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that accident. But even more problematic is the
storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to
disposal methods. IT may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost. Reactors
have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded by radiation? Big
$$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts of energy relative to its mass, but...

You can deal with the wast. Nuking the Nukes:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7...ead.html?pg=19

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.

Dave M.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

David Martel wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.

yes before, after??? hmmm... at any rate, all involved US forces dragging heavily bruised arses back
from whence they came

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"David Martel" wrote in message
nk.net...
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's
neighbor to the north both before and after it became a nation.

Dave M.

That's right... 1867 was the magic date. Before that we were just a colony
of Great Britain.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

the_bmac wrote in :

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in
North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has strontium
and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that
accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called
"spent" fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year
range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT may be
that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is
the issue of cost. Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a
reactor core that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded
by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce
obscene amounts of energy relative to its mass, but...



http://www.bellona.org/
Here, drop by the nuclear section of Bellona's website and look at the
REALLY scary stuff the nuclear industry, worldwide, rather you didn't
know about. Bellona is a Norwegian organisation...nervous neighbors to
the Russian nuclear navy/power plant industry. I don't blame them. A
number of major nuclear accidents involving nuclear reactors in Russia
have simply been ignored and covered up. Hell, some guys from Bellona
walked right up to abandoned, but active, nuclear submarines right in
Russia and the photos they took are on the website.

Pay particular attention to the Bellona webpages about the nuclear
refueling industry, which is pretty much abandoned wasteland, some of
which is so radioactive it makes Chernobyl look innocent, except for the
initial explosion. Whole areas of Russia are contaminated and abandoned,
not just Chernobyl. Highly radioactive spent fuel rods from Russian subs
are sitting in rotting transport cases in open fields, in the weather,
constantly contaminating the environment around them.

As you view these pictures, pay careful attention to any pictures that
appear "fogged" or have white spots on them from the intense radiation
where the picture was taken exposing the film right inside the camera
case.

Most disturbing....and unreported, of course.

Larry
--

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:24 -0400, Gogarty wrote:


Way OT here, but the United States of America has invaded the _nation_
of Canada exactly zero times.

--Tom.

Well, somebody invaded Canada during the War of 1812. But I think it was
a bunch of Fenians, not the U.S. Government's forces. I believe the
invaders were promptly tossed out.

Parse what Tom said carefully. There have been several invasions, during
the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, but Canada wasn't Canada until
1867. The Fenian Raids, you refer to, were Irish Civil War veterans, not
the USA.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

David Martel wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.

Dave M.



Don't forget the PIG war of San Juan Island. That was a biggie!
Gordon

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

On Apr 27, 5:19 am, "David Martel" wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.
....

I apologize profusely to all for the off topic post. I will try to
restrain myself in the future. I was in no way attempting to play a
game of "gotcha". I think the historic record is clear and that the
relations between the United States and Canada since it became a free
dominion have been remarkably peaceful. There have been no disputes
between the national governments of the countries that any reasonable
person could claim were military invasions. Prior to Canadian
nationhood and going back into the colonial period the wars that took
place across the border were reflections of disputes between the great
European powers. While this is self-evident for wars like the French
and Indian War (Seven Years War on the Continent) it is also arguable
for the American Revolution which would have been unwinnable without
French support and the War of 1812. The root cause of the War of 1812
was British interference with US trade at sea and particularly the
impressment of sailors (whew! finally something to do with boats!) as
a result of the British war with France. The War ended in America
when the European hostilities ceased because the trade issues were
mooted. The War was fought everywhere that US and British interests
met. On land, that included the Eastern seaboard and the Canadian
border. Pretty much everywhere that British regulars met US forces on
land the British won. They also raided the US coast at will and even
burned Washington. Of course, the US forces were also badly beaten
along the Canadian border. An interesting aspect of the war as it
evolved on the Canadian border is that many US pundits (particularly
students of Jefferson) assumed that many Canadian colonists along the
border area wanted to join the United States. However, the colonists
were overwhelming in their support for the British. I think this
profound expression of a distinct Canadian identity that became
evident during the war, often overlooked south of the border, is key
to the Canadian understanding of the war. However, the assertion that
the War of 1812 was primarily an invasion of Canada and part of series
of US invasions that show an evil pattern of US covetousness for
Canada is not supported by history.

-- Tom.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

I am leading an invasion force toward Montreal. Our mission.. free the
French women of Montreal.. Take them back to NH and have our way with them..

A moral and just cause ..

Be-cause .. the French women of Montreal are the most beautiful women on
the planet.

Viva la la alalalalallaal Quebec..


================================================== ====================================
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 27, 5:19 am, "David Martel" wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not
a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's
neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.
...

I apologize profusely to all for the off topic post. I will try to
restrain myself in the future. I was in no way attempting to play a
game of "gotcha". I think the historic record is clear and that the
relations between the United States and Canada since it became a free
dominion have been remarkably peaceful. There have been no disputes
between the national governments of the countries that any reasonable
person could claim were military invasions. Prior to Canadian
nationhood and going back into the colonial period the wars that took
place across the border were reflections of disputes between the great
European powers. While this is self-evident for wars like the French
and Indian War (Seven Years War on the Continent) it is also arguable
for the American Revolution which would have been unwinnable without
French support and the War of 1812. The root cause of the War of 1812
was British interference with US trade at sea and particularly the
impressment of sailors (whew! finally something to do with boats!) as
a result of the British war with France. The War ended in America
when the European hostilities ceased because the trade issues were
mooted. The War was fought everywhere that US and British interests
met. On land, that included the Eastern seaboard and the Canadian
border. Pretty much everywhere that British regulars met US forces on
land the British won. They also raided the US coast at will and even
burned Washington. Of course, the US forces were also badly beaten
along the Canadian border. An interesting aspect of the war as it
evolved on the Canadian border is that many US pundits (particularly
students of Jefferson) assumed that many Canadian colonists along the
border area wanted to join the United States. However, the colonists
were overwhelming in their support for the British. I think this
profound expression of a distinct Canadian identity that became
evident during the war, often overlooked south of the border, is key
to the Canadian understanding of the war. However, the assertion that
the War of 1812 was primarily an invasion of Canada and part of series
of US invasions that show an evil pattern of US covetousness for
Canada is not supported by history.

-- Tom.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in news:13321p32bcl5201
@corp.supernews.com:

I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon



You live under the mistaken notion that political parties have something
to do with actually running the country, which is simply not true.

They are simply slaves to the powerful bankers, who fund and market the
oil and energy businesses, owning most of it, we are forced to support if
we want to have transportation.

Here's a great movie, if you haven't seen it....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
This is not a conspiracy nutcase from the boonies. It's very
professionally done by Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer.


Isn't M Moore a hollywood producer?
G

Have you watched Fahrenheit 9/11? The people who have voiced the strongest
negative opinions about it, not surprisingly, haven't.
I watched it and have got to say, if MM made that stuff up he'd have had his
a$$ sued off by the "family".
Just my opinion of course, but hell I'm one of those weirdos that like
gathering a little info and forming thier own opinions instead of blindly
adopting the opinions of others.
MMC

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 27, 5:19 am, "David Martel" wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not
a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's
neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.
...

I apologize profusely to all for the off topic post. I will try to
restrain myself in the future. I was in no way attempting to play a
game of "gotcha". I think the historic record is clear and that the
relations between the United States and Canada since it became a free
dominion have been remarkably peaceful. There have been no disputes
between the national governments of the countries that any reasonable
person could claim were military invasions. Prior to Canadian
nationhood and going back into the colonial period the wars that took
place across the border were reflections of disputes between the great
European powers. While this is self-evident for wars like the French
and Indian War (Seven Years War on the Continent) it is also arguable
for the American Revolution which would have been unwinnable without
French support and the War of 1812. The root cause of the War of 1812
was British interference with US trade at sea and particularly the
impressment of sailors (whew! finally something to do with boats!) as
a result of the British war with France. The War ended in America
when the European hostilities ceased because the trade issues were
mooted. The War was fought everywhere that US and British interests
met. On land, that included the Eastern seaboard and the Canadian
border. Pretty much everywhere that British regulars met US forces on
land the British won. They also raided the US coast at will and even
burned Washington. Of course, the US forces were also badly beaten
along the Canadian border. An interesting aspect of the war as it
evolved on the Canadian border is that many US pundits (particularly
students of Jefferson) assumed that many Canadian colonists along the
border area wanted to join the United States. However, the colonists
were overwhelming in their support for the British. I think this
profound expression of a distinct Canadian identity that became
evident during the war, often overlooked south of the border, is key
to the Canadian understanding of the war. However, the assertion that
the War of 1812 was primarily an invasion of Canada and part of series
of US invasions that show an evil pattern of US covetousness for
Canada is not supported by history.

-- Tom.


If the US ever invades Canada, it will only be to secure the rights to Tim
Horton's coffee and donuts.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

" wrote in
oups.com:

However, the assertion that
the War of 1812 was primarily an invasion of Canada and part of series
of US invasions that show an evil pattern of US covetousness for
Canada is not supported by history.


Just as long as no idiot bombs Possum Lodge or Port Asbestos and screws up
the best comedy tv show ever produced....I'm happy with Canada.....

"I'm a man....but, I can change....if I have to....I guess."

Larry
--

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"MMC" wrote in
:

Have you watched Fahrenheit 9/11? The people who have voiced the
strongest negative opinions about it, not surprisingly, haven't.
I watched it and have got to say, if MM made that stuff up he'd have
had his a$$ sued off by the "family".
Just my opinion of course, but hell I'm one of those weirdos that like
gathering a little info and forming thier own opinions instead of
blindly adopting the opinions of others.
MMC



I admit it...I watched it. I watched "Roger and Me", too...(c;

9/11 was an inside job...


Larry
--

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Gogarty wrote in
:

The Maine winter has addled your brain.



No problem. Canadian women coming South usually have MYRTLE BEACH, SC, on
their minds. The place becomes loaded with them.....(c;



Larry
--

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Gogarty wrote in
:

The Maine winter has addled your brain.



No problem. Canadian women coming South usually have MYRTLE BEACH, SC, on
their minds. The place becomes loaded with them.....(c;



Larry


This time of year it's probably just as nice as Florida and a lot less road
miles.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:43:45 +0000, Larry wrote:

Canadian women coming South usually have MYRTLE BEACH, SC

That's because they are misguided enough to think that SC is really
south.

Pics of Russian Sub Kursk after recovery...
 

Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:43:45 +0000, Larry wrote:

Canadian women coming South usually have MYRTLE BEACH, SC

That's because they are misguided enough to think that SC is really
south.



We, in SC, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, eh?...(c;

EH? (Canadian DOS prompt)

Larry
--