|
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Puts your right up their with Bush and Cheney, huh? |
On topic photos...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:11 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they start talking about your relatives. Well, it's for sure I'll never compliment your wife again! But the fact remains, she takes much better pictures with her little Canon than you do with yours (if you're not using the Canon)! -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
On topic photos...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are circus clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like older Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars. LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here on a daily basis. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:18:57 -0500, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Harry, except for the Owl photo you stole from a web site, and presented as your own, all of the photos you have posted a I'll be sure to give this post of yours the same consideration I've given the rest of your posts...which is to say, none at all. A D700! Wow, Harry. And, why, Harry. Do you really think you've got the abilities to warrant the purchase of a D700? Was the D200 holding you back because of its limitations? What a joke! -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Eisboch It's not the photoshopping per se, it's the obviousness of overdoing it I find distasteful except when it is done for a transparently bizarre effect, like turning a sky green or suchlike. A little cleanup here, a little touchup there, no problemo. You want to remove shadows under the eyes or blemishes on the cheeks, hey, go for it. You want to slightly lighten a dark hillside so some details show, great. I like subtle touches. I prefer Mozart to Wagner. I've seen lots of fabulous photos that have been photoshopped. But they don't look photoshopped. That's the point, I think. Unless he/she is going for the bizarre, a photographer skilled in photoshop produces final images that don't look photoshopped. Well, good. I am trying to find some images one of my daughter-in-law's sent me. They were demonstrations of using Photoshop or similar to produce photographic artforms. They are unusual, to say the least, but some are very interesting and quite beautiful to view. They may be on my other computer which I don't have current access to, but when I find them, I'll load a few on my website for you and interested others to view. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 6:08*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:29:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:50:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:17:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message news:2o6dnSNLMoqLibHUnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@gigane ws.com... Boater wrote: ...little place for them here, eh? http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0Boats/ce0a1de... Anyway, here's a snap of Yo Ho's business end. I'm waiting for the shrinkwrap guy to show up this week. Wrapping the exhaust after the motor drains is part of the winterizing process. I've got to spend a few minutes removing the rust from the prop and repainting it. One of these days I'll find a prop paint that actually stays on the blade tips. *:) What surprised me was the rust on the aluminum prop. *My props (much older than yours) have lost half of the black paint, I have had some dings removed, and it has touched the bottom a time or two, but has never shown a hint of rust. *Is rust on aluminum *props common in salt water? As far as painting the props, my props started to lose their paint in the first year, and I asked the mechanic if I should touch them up. *His comment was that the new paint would "spin off" as soon as i put the boat back in the water. *Don't know if that is true, but it sure has save me the trouble of repainting the prop. *Based upon your experience repainting props, he was correct. *When I have had the prop dings smoothed out and balanced, the prop shop never bothers to repaint the props for the same reason. That's not rust. * It's probably a primer paint for aluminum. I've had stainless props for a long time - never quite understood the need to paint them. Unless it's a less expensive type of stainless - then I could understand it, but why go cheap on the prop? It is the less expensive SS prop. *It is called "Brushed SS". *I had never heard of them, but they do have a tendency to rust, as Harry has highlighted from his photo. *I for one would only buy the non rusting version of SS prop. If you had a brushed, rusted, stainless steel prop, a lot more people would talk to you. I thought it was my personality that kept everyone away, either that or my politics. *It couldn't be because I am an antisocial SOB. I have aluminum props, no rust, and very easy to repair any nick or ding I might get on a floating log. I am such a newbie, I had no idea that SS props rusted. *I learn something new everyday. This place is a godsend for the uneducated masses....like us. It is funny that Harry can't imagine someone who voted for Obama, would actually find him to an obnoxious dullard.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I did. And I do! |
On topic photos...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 6:31*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. *Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Eisboch It's not the photoshopping per se, it's the obviousness of overdoing it I find distasteful except when it is done for a transparently bizarre effect, like turning a sky green or suchlike. A little cleanup here, a little touchup there, no problemo. You want to remove shadows under the eyes or blemishes on the cheeks, hey, go for it. You want to slightly lighten a dark hillside so some details show, great. I like subtle touches. I prefer Mozart to Wagner. I've seen lots of fabulous photos that have been photoshopped. But they don't look photoshopped. That's the point, I think. Unless he/she is going for the bizarre, a photographer skilled in photoshop produces final images that don't look photoshopped.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harry, go steal one from another site, claim it's yours and post it. That's FAR classier than photoshopping one that you actually DID take......... |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 6:35*am, Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. *Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are circus clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like older Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, you were so subtle and refined when you stole the owl pic and claimed it was yours, liar. |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 7:16*am, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they start talking about your relatives. Harry, I've told you, I'll show you where you've said derogatory nasty things about my wife and my kids if you promise to go away and never come back if I'm successful. Deal? |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 7:33*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. *Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Amen, brother! |
On topic photos...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Puts your right up their with Bush and Cheney, huh? You really, truly are dense. If I were "right up there with Bush and Cheney," I'd still be supporting their abortion of a war against Iraq. D'oh. |
On topic photos...
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:11 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they start talking about your relatives. Well, it's for sure I'll never compliment your wife again! Why don't you just not discuss the relatives of posters here, unless they ask you to, schitt for brains? |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt. |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are circus clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like older Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars. LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here on a daily basis. Eisboch You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who live here? I'll try harder. :) |
On topic photos...
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:18:57 -0500, Boater wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Harry, except for the Owl photo you stole from a web site, and presented as your own, all of the photos you have posted a I'll be sure to give this post of yours the same consideration I've given the rest of your posts...which is to say, none at all. A D700! Wow, Harry. And, why, Harry. Do you really think you've got the abilities to warrant the purchase of a D700? Was the D200 holding you back because of its limitations? What a joke! What are you raving about now, schitt-for-brains? |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. |
On topic photos...
On Nov 26, 8:02*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in daylight. You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you. Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture. You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in nature. Fine. *Works for you. As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop. So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot. My apologies. Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You mean like your photo of the painted hoochie with 27 seperate photoshop modifications? You are what the old folks used to call a moron. |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here on a daily basis. Eisboch You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who live here? I'll try harder. :) An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, eh? Sounds more like a Bush philosophy, rather than one of Obama's. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. Check out my post. I said, "uncomplimentary". Eisboch |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt. You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt about. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. Check out my post. I said, "uncomplimentary". Eisboch Uh-huh. The comments to which I refer, from the three schitts I mentioned, sometimes appear to be complimentary, but are not. You don't see through them, eh? Your three buddies seem to get off on bringing the wives of posters they don't like into rec.boats. |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Eisboch When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt. You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt about. Eisboch Whoosh. |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Puts your right up their with Bush and Cheney, huh? You really, truly are dense. If I were "right up there with Bush and Cheney," I'd still be supporting their abortion of a war against Iraq. D'oh. Just drawing a parallel that between your claim that Bush and Cheney are draft dodgers just like you. Nothing more nothing less. You are in good company. |
On topic photos...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. Check out my post. I said, "uncomplimentary". Eisboch Uh-huh. The comments to which I refer, from the three schitts I mentioned, sometimes appear to be complimentary, but are not. You don't see through them, eh? Your three buddies seem to get off on bringing the wives of posters they don't like into rec.boats. Quite frankly, I don't read most of them. When I click on a post and it becomes obvious that it is part of a personal ****ing contest involving insults and uncomplimentary references to others, I stop reading and delete it. I, like you, am usually multi-tasking on the computer. I've been working on an engineering project for the past couple of weeks and occasionally take a peek into rec.boats as I work. Gives me time to reflect a bit on the engineering stuff and helps break the monotony. It's funny. I've found that taking quick breaks actually helps the thought process. It keeps one from getting too focused and losing sight of other influencing factors. When I go back to the technical, it's like looking at it fresh again and promotes other thoughts or ideas. Eisboch |
On topic photos...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. Check out my post. I said, "uncomplimentary". Eisboch Uh-huh. The comments to which I refer, from the three schitts I mentioned, sometimes appear to be complimentary, but are not. You don't see through them, eh? Your three buddies seem to get off on bringing the wives of posters they don't like into rec.boats. Quite frankly, I don't read most of them. When I click on a post and it becomes obvious that it is part of a personal ****ing contest involving insults and uncomplimentary references to others, I stop reading and delete it. I, like you, am usually multi-tasking on the computer. I've been working on an engineering project for the past couple of weeks and occasionally take a peek into rec.boats as I work. Gives me time to reflect a bit on the engineering stuff and helps break the monotony. It's funny. I've found that taking quick breaks actually helps the thought process. It keeps one from getting too focused and losing sight of other influencing factors. When I go back to the technical, it's like looking at it fresh again and promotes other thoughts or ideas. Eisboch I agree. |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be out-of-bounds in discussions here. There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their reputation precedes them. Eisboch Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out. Check out my post. I said, "uncomplimentary". Eisboch Uh-huh. The comments to which I refer, from the three schitts I mentioned, sometimes appear to be complimentary, but are not. You don't see through them, eh? Your three buddies seem to get off on bringing the wives of posters they don't like into rec.boats. Simmer down WAFA. All you need to do to get respect for you and yours is to respect us and ours. Soooo easy. You started it. You end it. |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person who thinks only his POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a narrow thought process. Doubt it. Eisboch When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt. You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt about. Eisboch Whoosh. |
On topic photos...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:36 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Idiot. Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to their quote let me know. You have to guess? Idiot. Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's seeing the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop. It does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure. Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that ultra-wide lens, eh? Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now? Cheap, Harry, even for you. Bad day at the mirror? I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same regarding yours. Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I didn't. Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you and JimH make about my wife? I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners. -- Maybe because Gene is a whole lot smarter than your average Dope Army irregular. He can see through your little games. Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- You are mistaking me for Ditzy Dan , Flatulent Jim or yourself. I don't take shots at family members. In fact I have the greatest sympathy for the families of a few of your Dope Army irregulars. |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? |
On topic photos...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? Did you notice that he has given up on his story about graduating from Yale? |
On topic photos...
Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:36 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Idiot. Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to their quote let me know. You have to guess? Idiot. Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's seeing the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop. It does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure. Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that ultra-wide lens, eh? Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now? Cheap, Harry, even for you. Bad day at the mirror? I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same regarding yours. Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I didn't. Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you and JimH make about my wife? I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners. -- Maybe because Gene is a whole lot smarter than your average Dope Army irregular. He can see through your little games. Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- You are mistaking me for Ditzy Dan , Flatulent Jim or yourself. I don't take shots at family members. In fact I have the greatest sympathy for the families of a few of your Dope Army irregulars. Don't include me in your fantasy, Donnie. Unless you have proof. |
On topic photos...
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? Google up James Hillhouse High School and read it for yourself. |
On topic photos...
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? Did you notice that he has given up on his story about graduating from Yale? snicker You really are delusional. |
On topic photos...
"Jim" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:36 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Idiot. Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to their quote let me know. You have to guess? Idiot. Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's seeing the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop. It does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure. Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that ultra-wide lens, eh? Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now? Cheap, Harry, even for you. Bad day at the mirror? I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same regarding yours. Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I didn't. Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you and JimH make about my wife? I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners. -- Maybe because Gene is a whole lot smarter than your average Dope Army irregular. He can see through your little games. Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- You are mistaking me for Ditzy Dan , Flatulent Jim or yourself. I don't take shots at family members. In fact I have the greatest sympathy for the families of a few of your Dope Army irregulars. Don't include me in your fantasy, Donnie. Unless you have proof. Anyone who cares to bother can look up all your comments about my youngest son. Isn't google wonderful? |
On topic photos...
Jim wrote:
Don White wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:36 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote: Idiot. Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to their quote let me know. You have to guess? Idiot. Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's seeing the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop. It does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure. Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that ultra-wide lens, eh? Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now? Cheap, Harry, even for you. Bad day at the mirror? I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same regarding yours. Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I didn't. Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you and JimH make about my wife? I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners. -- Maybe because Gene is a whole lot smarter than your average Dope Army irregular. He can see through your little games. Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in. Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's wife? Or your mother, for that matter? My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself. -- You are mistaking me for Ditzy Dan , Flatulent Jim or yourself. I don't take shots at family members. In fact I have the greatest sympathy for the families of a few of your Dope Army irregulars. Don't include me in your fantasy, Donnie. Unless you have proof. You're the sergeant-major of the Dope Army-Navy Irregulars. |
On topic photos...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? Google up James Hillhouse High School and read it for yourself. What's your point? The old Hillhouse was gone before I was of high school age. Can't you read? |
On topic photos...
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke. Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't. Now you've done it Krause. You have crossed the line. Your insults won't go unrewarded. BTW I found your connection to Yale. Turns out your high school was once on the campus of Yale. It had to be moved off campus due to expansion. Perhaps you were duped into thinking you attended Yale. Eh? Sorry, bozo, the high school *I* attended was never located anywhere other than where it was when I went there. There was a previous high school with the same name as my high school, but *it* was demolished before I was of high school age, to make room for the later construction of two residential colleges at Yale. Actually, there were two high schools on that old site, the one mine was named after, and a technical-vocational high school. You are about as adept a "research" as Loogy the Idiot. So, what were you doing when you got drafted? Did you notice that he has given up on his story about graduating from Yale? His usual MO. Just like the lobsta boat. As long as he has one sucker believing him he keeps the story alive. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com