"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.

Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . .

I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote.

And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote:

"the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS
intended to
prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that
Boat
US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year.

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a
dolt?

Wilbur Hubbard

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.

Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . .

I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote.

And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote:

"the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS
intended to
prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that
Boat
US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year.

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a
dolt?

Wilbur Hubbard


There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with
facts.
Ignatious - 1625

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
news

There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with
facts.
Ignatious - 1625



Bruce, you really are quite an erudite fellow . . .


Wilbur Hubbard
"A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool." --Edward G.
Bulwer-Lytton

On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall
within the group with a facility with the language.


Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

As someone once wrote:

He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little
likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful
discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and
opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts.

I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758
..




Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

I had something to say while you just had to say something.

Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister
I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being
able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to
the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say.

You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as
for me, I'd rather be precise.

You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my
first sentence.

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because
they have
to say something. -- Plato

Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:23:29 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

I had something to say while you just had to say something.

Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister
I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being
able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to
the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say.

You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as
for me, I'd rather be precise.

You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my
first sentence.

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because
they have
to say something. -- Plato

Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise.

Willie, you have got to learn that what a law says, in many cases, is
only similar to what actually happens. You read a legal document and
you believe that you understand all the words. Then a case goes to
court and surprise, surprise, the court interprets the law to mean
something different from your understanding of it when you read it.

The most common example is the second amendment to the constitution
that states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

To most people that read it, it clearly states that "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now tell me that you can go out and buy and keep a gun any time and
any way you want. Can't!

Before you understand the court's position on the 2nd amendment you
need to go and read all of the various case law that has resulted from
cases referring to the amendment and then perhaps you'll understand
how the current government and court system will enforce the law.

With a new law not yet ratified you have only the vaguest idea how it
will be interpreted.



Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's
second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't
fall
within the group with a facility with the language.


Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

As someone once wrote:

He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little
likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful
discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and
opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts.

I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758
.




Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)


Neal has more than one small problem, apparently.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine
where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct.
The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that
federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us
with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's
second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if
the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course
don't fall
within the group with a facility with the language.

It is I who read the language as it is written. That a writer butchers
the language and causes it to have a diametrically opposed meaning than
he intended is his shortcoming, not mine.

The man should have written it more competently. He should have written
something like the following so people would not have to second-guess
what he meant:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass)
Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. This might
not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as
essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue
generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

But even that lacks consistency mainly due to the fact that if states
ran it under federal mandate, states would have to adhere to the
mandate. Chew on that one for a while Mr. Guess at What the Language
Means.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass)
Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate.

Sound like lawyer talk to me.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass)
Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate.

Sound like lawyer talk to me.

Yes, I'm trying to talk Dave's language. Pointing out yet another
example of lawyer elitism. They have their own precise language they
think the masses can't understand. They even have Greek phrases to
describe some of their principles. But then they have the nerve to think
it's kewl to interpret what lay people write while criticizing those who
take the writing on it's face value. Can you say elitist snobs?

Wilbur Hubbard