In article ,
says...

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:06:17 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:14:18 -0400, Jim numero uno "j i
wrote:


Don't like my political crap Gene? Filter it. Pretty simple eh?

No, I don't like your political crap. I have filtered it, and no it
isn't simple because you are so intent on forcing other people to read
your crap, you keep changing your name. Who else does that, mister
pot, kettle, black?

PLONK..... *again*.....

I filter by email not screen name. It tends to work better...

I think I'm going to have to put Gravity on all of the computers that
I use....

Yep, I'm lovin' it. I don't get any of his plus I miss probably 90% of
the replys to him. I have been gone all day and came home to only a
dozen or so posts, not the usual 30... I have a sound play now when it
filters WAFA so I get an idea of how many mails are getting tagged,
seems it's about half at least but well worth the time to set them up. I
really don't miss his **** at all... snerk...

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:06:17 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:14:18 -0400, Jim numero uno "j i
wrote:

Don't like my political crap Gene? Filter it. Pretty simple eh?
No, I don't like your political crap. I have filtered it, and no it
isn't simple because you are so intent on forcing other people to read
your crap, you keep changing your name. Who else does that, mister
pot, kettle, black?

PLONK..... *again*.....
I filter by email not screen name. It tends to work better...
I think I'm going to have to put Gravity on all of the computers that
I use....

Yep, I'm lovin' it. I don't get any of his plus I miss probably 90% of
the replys to him. I have been gone all day and came home to only a
dozen or so posts, not the usual 30... I have a sound play now when it
filters WAFA so I get an idea of how many mails are getting tagged,
seems it's about half at least but well worth the time to set them up. I
really don't miss his **** at all... snerk...



Since you don't "boat" at all, one wonders why you are here at all. Do
you think there is a large audience for your cretinisms?

Gene wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:06:17 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:14:18 -0400, Jim numero uno "j i
wrote:

Don't like my political crap Gene? Filter it. Pretty simple eh?
No, I don't like your political crap. I have filtered it, and no it
isn't simple because you are so intent on forcing other people to read
your crap, you keep changing your name. Who else does that, mister
pot, kettle, black?

PLONK..... *again*.....
I filter by email not screen name. It tends to work better...

I think I'm going to have to put Gravity on all of the computers that
I use....


You actually read Justwaitafreak's posts? I thought I was the designated
reader.

I use a combo of filters and ignores. The latter work just as well. If I
see a bunch of posts from a user named 'X' I know there's absolutely no
reason to open them. As an example, if I didn't filter john herring, I'd
simply not bother to open anything from him, knowing his posts are
totally devoid of any content I'd want to read.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:16:39 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:43:30 -0400, Jim numero uno "j i
wrote:

The first application of BHOs end of life counciling (sic).....

Before you paint yourself as entirely ignorant, you should understand
that Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia penned that "end of
life counseling" verbiage in 2007.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6573797.html

Isakson, apparently being water boarded with red koolaid, now, is
trying to say he had nothing to do with it, but it is kinda hard to
ignore what is in black and white and signed by the author(Isakson).
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/805316.html

In spite of official documents proving the contrary, here's your "Fair
and Balanced" folks happily wallowing in ignorance:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908080005

If you are going to post political crap in a boating newsgroup, at
least try to do a little fact checking.... and spell checking wouldn't
hurt either...

You should go read the bill. There is a lot more there than simple
'end of life counselling'. The word used in the act is 'shall', which
means 'is hereby ordered to'. The word 'may' wasn't used in the bill.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:18:27 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


You should go read the bill. There is a lot more there than simple 'end
of life counselling'. The word used in the act is 'shall', which means
'is hereby ordered to'. The word 'may' wasn't used in the bill.

Well there's reading, and then there is reading with comprehension. You
may have read the bill, but you clearly didn't comprehend the bill. If
you had, you would realize Sec. 1233 amends existing law. You have to
read that existing law to place it in context.


Since you enjoy reading so much, enjoy:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42.html

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:18:27 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


You should go read the bill. There is a lot more there than simple 'end
of life counselling'. The word used in the act is 'shall', which means
'is hereby ordered to'. The word 'may' wasn't used in the bill.

Well there's reading, and then there is reading with comprehension. You
may have read the bill, but you clearly didn't comprehend the bill. If
you had, you would realize Sec. 1233 amends existing law. You have to
read that existing law to place it in context.


Since you enjoy reading so much, enjoy:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42.html


Herring didn't read the Bill.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:26:26 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:18:27 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


You should go read the bill. There is a lot more there than simple 'end
of life counselling'. The word used in the act is 'shall', which means
'is hereby ordered to'. The word 'may' wasn't used in the bill.

Well there's reading, and then there is reading with comprehension. You
may have read the bill, but you clearly didn't comprehend the bill. If
you had, you would realize Sec. 1233 amends existing law. You have to
read that existing law to place it in context.


Since you enjoy reading so much, enjoy:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42.html

Start on page 425. But, it's mute anyway. I've no doubt it amended
existing law. But, the language in the bill was 'shall' - not 'may'.

Of course, I defer to your reading and writing skills. They're
obviously much better than mine.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:36:10 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


Of course, I defer to your reading and writing skills. They're obviously
much better than mine.

Obviously.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:12:15 -0700, jps wrote:

Good thing lots of folks own guns that aren't locked up...


OLYMPIA, Wash. - An unruly patient at an Olympia hospital was shot
dead by a police officer early Saturday when the patient pulled out a
gun in an emergency treatment room, officers said.

Did the guy own a boat?

Casadytt

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:12:15 -0700, jps wrote:

Good thing lots of folks own guns that aren't locked up...


OLYMPIA, Wash. - An unruly patient at an Olympia hospital was shot
dead by a police officer early Saturday when the patient pulled out a
gun in an emergency treatment room, officers said.

Did the guy own a boat?

Casadytt

Rumor has it he was a frequent sailing partner of JPS.