"Marc Heusser" d wrote in
message ...
In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

Now, run along and do your nails or something . . .

Actually not discharging anything is standard over here in old Europe,
at least most parts.

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com


In that case, you definitely want to make sure Neal never gets to Europe.

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

"Cindy" wrote in message
. ..
Gee Wilbur, You sound like an obnoxious crabby old SOB that hates women.
And you accuse women of reacting with emotion. I posed the question
because the group was asked to support a bill with out any link to the
bill. If someone is asking for my support then *they* should privide all
of the facts.

I sure hope for women everywhere that you are gay.

Cindy


trolling bs removed

Neal (aka Wilbur) Warren hasn't gotten laid without money changing hands
since Eisenhower was in office. He's just an angry troll.

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

"Cindy" wrote in message
. ..
Gee Wilbur, You sound like an obnoxious crabby old SOB that hates women.
And you accuse women of reacting with emotion. I posed the question
because the group was asked to support a bill with out any link to the
bill. If someone is asking for my support then *they* should privide all
of the facts.


Snot-nosed little LIAR! I bet you support Hillary Clinton since you
demonstrate a typical, ignorant, liberal, feminist attitude. And, Hillary
provides no facts, just lies and pandering. So much for your requirement
that you be provided you with all the facts.

And, never mind Capt. JG. He's been staking me and confusing me with
somebody else ever since I caused his male, live-in lover to break up with
him. No, I'm not gay and did not personally steal his gay lover. I just
introduced him to somebody who was both gay, intelligent and buff - not some
skinny little momma's boy like Jon Boy!

Hugs,
Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

And, never mind Capt. JG. He's been staking me


Ah, vampire phobia raises its' ugly head again.

Cheers
Marty

cavelamb himself wrote:
Marty wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


And, never mind Capt. JG. He's been staking me



Ah, vampire phobia raises its' ugly head again.

Cheers
Marty


No, that's just Wilber...


Well, he could easily be some kind of lamia.

Cheers
Marty

Marty wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


And, never mind Capt. JG. He's been staking me



Ah, vampire phobia raises its' ugly head again.

Cheers
Marty


No, that's just Wilber...

On Mar 19, 3:00�pm, Bob wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:06�pm, Red wrote:

Looks like we all need to support this bill - unless we wish to be
regulated
to death by the EPA.

Claus

Not having read it yet, and knowing full well the shananigans Senators
like to play, I am wondering if it doesn't contain language that will
screw us in some other way. Does Boat US have a synopsis on this version?

Red

So tell me again why I should support this boatus anti clean water
effort?

Bob

For many years the EPA exempted pleasure boats from complying with a
law that was drafted to prevent foreign ships from discharging
"ballast water" in US harbors. That law, applied to foreign ships, is
a good one.
Sometimes the ballast water is seriously polluted, or it may contain
foreign organisms that become invasive in a new environment.

An environmental group in Portland Oregon was suing the EPA over some
matter or another, and in the course of pronouncing a ruling the judge
also (and very surprisingly) included a statement that the EPA does
not have the authority to exempt pleasure boats from the same
discharge regulations that apply to commercial shipping. Even the
environmentalists bringing the suit were shocked at the ruling, as
this was not the outcome they were pursuing. If this ruling is
literally applied, *nothing* (!) can enter the water from a boat,
unless the boater has purchased a permit allowing it. By "nothing",
the rules will include
"those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a boat".

If you have an inboard or even an outboard engine, you cannot operate
it without discharging cooling water in the process. You would need a
permit to do so- so you would be reduced to rowing or sailing under
all circumstances without a pemit.

If you begin taking on water and need to activate your bilge pump,
forget it. Before you can begin evacuating water from the bilge you
must be certain that your permit is up to date, as the fines can run
as high as $32,000 per day if it is not.

Wash you boat? Heavens no. Not even with municipal water from a hose
and using no soap. That wash water will be carrying dirt from the hull
and decks into the lake or ocean below- and that's considered a
polluting discharge from a boat.

This is not an "anti clean water bill". Discharges of sewage, garbage,
petroleum products, etc will continue to be covered by existing rules
and regulations. The Clean Boating Act will simply prevent discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a boat (and not already
prohibited by law) from becoming subject to additional permits and
taxation.

The bill specifically authorizes the EPA to exempt pleasure boats from
the requirements that will still apply to commercial ships.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
For many years the EPA exempted pleasure boats from complying with a
law that was drafted to prevent foreign ships from discharging
"ballast water" in US harbors. That law, applied to foreign ships, is
a good one.
Sometimes the ballast water is seriously polluted, or it may contain
foreign organisms that become invasive in a new environment.

An environmental group in Portland Oregon was suing the EPA over some
matter or another, and in the course of pronouncing a ruling the judge
also (and very surprisingly) included a statement that the EPA does
not have the authority to exempt pleasure boats from the same
discharge regulations that apply to commercial shipping. Even the
environmentalists bringing the suit were shocked at the ruling, as
this was not the outcome they were pursuing. If this ruling is
literally applied, *nothing* (!) can enter the water from a boat,
unless the boater has purchased a permit allowing it. By "nothing",
the rules will include
"those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a boat".

If you have an inboard or even an outboard engine, you cannot operate
it without discharging cooling water in the process. You would need a
permit to do so- so you would be reduced to rowing or sailing under
all circumstances without a pemit.

If you begin taking on water and need to activate your bilge pump,
forget it. Before you can begin evacuating water from the bilge you
must be certain that your permit is up to date, as the fines can run
as high as $32,000 per day if it is not.

Wash you boat? Heavens no. Not even with municipal water from a hose
and using no soap. That wash water will be carrying dirt from the hull
and decks into the lake or ocean below- and that's considered a
polluting discharge from a boat.

This is not an "anti clean water bill". Discharges of sewage, garbage,
petroleum products, etc will continue to be covered by existing rules
and regulations. The Clean Boating Act will simply prevent discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a boat (and not already
prohibited by law) from becoming subject to additional permits and
taxation.

The bill specifically authorizes the EPA to exempt pleasure boats from
the requirements that will still apply to commercial ships.


Thank you, sir. Even Cindy fluff for brains might be able to understand the
situation now. You provided a most accurate and excellent summary! How is it
that there are so many stupid, liberal judges around to cause problems with
our liberties?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com.
..
snipped.

How is it that there are so many stupid, liberal judges around to cause
problems with
our liberties?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that in USA judges
have to get elected.
That being so, who would elect a stupid,liberal judge?
Hard to imagine isn't it?

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that in USA judges
have to get elected.
That being so, who would elect a stupid,liberal judge?
Hard to imagine isn't it?



Not really. The right-wingnuts have got to have someone to rail against, so
they elect stuplid, liberal judges. If that fails, they elect a president
who appoints stupid, right-wingnut judges. See how it works....

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