Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 9:04 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:46 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:





"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then leave, fat ass.


BTW, if you are so upset by what you believe to be libelous or
slanderous statements about you, you should be reluctant to make
libelous or slanderous remarks about others.

I'd bet your "lawyer" is unaware of the *fact* that you are one of the
major name callers, libelers and slanderers in rec.boats.

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 9:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleFvadnRgK3M0JYAnWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

I beg to differ... Most here have filtered the idiots who annoy us, out. We
(especially Tim) have been making on topic posts and responding to them. We
still have a couple who insist in talking to Harry's room-mate, but really,
they are easy to ignore too.

Scotty



snerk

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mar 8, 9:25*am, HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 9:04 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Mar 8, 8:46 am, *wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"John * *wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, * *wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Nope. *I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. * I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then leave, fat ass.

BTW, if you are so upset by what you believe to be libelous or
slanderous statements about you, you should be reluctant to make
libelous or slanderous remarks about others.

I'd bet your "lawyer" is unaware of the *fact* that you are one of the
major name callers, libelers and slanderers in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pssst, dummy...... YOU have stated that *I* broke my daughter's arms.
That is a CRIME, and if you have, by stating that, and withholding
apparent evidence of such, broken the law. Do I care? No, not really,
if you weren't the nastiest, boorish, lying piece of **** that you
are, I'd probably not do anything. But, seeing how it's not costing me
hardly anything, it'll be worth it having you subpeonaed, facing you
in court in my county, etc.

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 10:30 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 9:04 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Mar 8, 8:46 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then leave, fat ass.

BTW, if you are so upset by what you believe to be libelous or
slanderous statements about you, you should be reluctant to make
libelous or slanderous remarks about others.

I'd bet your "lawyer" is unaware of the *fact* that you are one of the
major name callers, libelers and slanderers in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pssst, dummy...... YOU have stated that *I* broke my daughter's arms.
That is a CRIME, and if you have, by stating that, and withholding
apparent evidence of such, broken the law. Do I care? No, not really,
if you weren't the nastiest, boorish, lying piece of **** that you
are, I'd probably not do anything. But, seeing how it's not costing me
hardly anything, it'll be worth it having you subpeonaed, facing you
in court in my county, etc.


Go tell it to the mountain, asshole.

So, let me get this straight:

Your *private* lawyer is going to prosecute me in a criminal court in
your area? I ask because the other day when I asked why I hadn't heard
from your local sheriff, you said your lawyer was "handling" it.

:)

Those damn Canadians..
 

nom=de=plume wrote:


Oh, except that he never said what his patent was about. So, typing William
McKee patent in google isn't going to find it. See my comment about you
being a fool for additional information.

Oh, and you're a bozo also.

Right. And you're the incompetent patent attorney.
I don't know Bill, and disagree with many of his opinions.
Don't even read all of his posts.
But he has mentioned his disk drive patent more than once here.
Even in this very thread.
Your pettiness has cost you all credibility.
Go soak you head. Or talk to Cannuck.

Those damn Canadians..
 

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

Those damn Canadians..
 

Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch



If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

Those damn Canadians..
 

In article ,
says...

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

plonk slammer, again

Scotty

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/2010 11:50 AM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and
in others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

It isn't the spoofers that ruined rec.boats, it is all the obnoxious
****z, that post here. They turn every thread into a political post. I
have been telling everyone for years that rec.boats was a disaster and
was on it's death bed. All I have done is try to speed up the process.

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 12:22 PM, Harry wrote:
On 3/8/2010 11:50 AM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and
in others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

It isn't the spoofers that ruined rec.boats, it is all the obnoxious
****z, that post here. They turn every thread into a political post. I
have been telling everyone for years that rec.boats was a disaster and
was on it's death bed. All I have done is try to speed up the process.


How rich...one of the spoofing assholes claiming his spoofing isn't
ruining what is left of rec.boats...

Nice try, asshole.

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mar 8, 10:53*am, HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 10:30 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Mar 8, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 3/8/10 9:04 AM, Loogypicker wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:46 am, * *wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"John * * *wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, * * *wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Nope. *I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. * I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then leave, fat ass.

BTW, if you are so upset by what you believe to be libelous or
slanderous statements about you, you should be reluctant to make
libelous or slanderous remarks about others.

I'd bet your "lawyer" is unaware of the *fact* that you are one of the
major name callers, libelers and slanderers in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pssst, dummy...... YOU have stated that *I* broke my daughter's arms.
That is a CRIME, and if you have, by stating that, and withholding
apparent evidence of such, broken the law. Do I care? No, not really,
if you weren't the nastiest, boorish, lying piece of **** that you
are, I'd probably not do anything. But, seeing how it's not costing me
hardly anything, it'll be worth it having you subpeonaed, facing you
in court in my county, etc.

Go tell it to the mountain, asshole.

So, let me get this straight:

Your *private* lawyer is going to prosecute me in a criminal court in
your area? I ask because the other day when I asked why I hadn't heard
from your local sheriff, you said your lawyer was "handling" it.

:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, man you are stupid!!! My answer, if I have to dumb it down so that
even you can understand it, meant, why would the Sheriff contact me,
when my attorney is handling it, dumb ass?

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 12:31 PM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:53 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 10:30 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Mar 8, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 9:04 AM, Loogypicker wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:46 am, wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:37 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then leave, fat ass.

BTW, if you are so upset by what you believe to be libelous or
slanderous statements about you, you should be reluctant to make
libelous or slanderous remarks about others.

I'd bet your "lawyer" is unaware of the *fact* that you are one of the
major name callers, libelers and slanderers in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pssst, dummy...... YOU have stated that *I* broke my daughter's arms.
That is a CRIME, and if you have, by stating that, and withholding
apparent evidence of such, broken the law. Do I care? No, not really,
if you weren't the nastiest, boorish, lying piece of **** that you
are, I'd probably not do anything. But, seeing how it's not costing me
hardly anything, it'll be worth it having you subpeonaed, facing you
in court in my county, etc.

Go tell it to the mountain, asshole.

So, let me get this straight:

Your *private* lawyer is going to prosecute me in a criminal court in
your area? I ask because the other day when I asked why I hadn't heard
from your local sheriff, you said your lawyer was "handling" it.

:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, man you are stupid!!! My answer, if I have to dumb it down so that
even you can understand it, meant, why would the Sheriff contact me,
when my attorney is handling it, dumb ass?


Your private attorney is handling your alleged criminal case?
Really?

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/2010 12:29 PM, HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 12:22 PM, Harry wrote:
On 3/8/2010 11:50 AM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and
in others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

It isn't the spoofers that ruined rec.boats, it is all the obnoxious
****z, that post here. They turn every thread into a political post. I
have been telling everyone for years that rec.boats was a disaster and
was on it's death bed. All I have done is try to speed up the process.


How rich...one of the spoofing assholes claiming his spoofing isn't
ruining what is left of rec.boats...

Nice try, asshole.

You asshole spoofing ****z, I, Harry Krause, has been saying for years
that rec.boats was a disaster, that it was useless to discuss boating
topics. I, Harry Krause, have said the only reason I ever come to
rec.boats is to stir up **** with the right wing trouble makers. If
you don't remember that, then you are one of the new spoofers who just
showed up to rec.boats.

Those damn Canadians..
 

HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 12:22 PM, Harry wrote:
On 3/8/2010 11:50 AM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and
in others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

It isn't the spoofers that ruined rec.boats, it is all the obnoxious
****z, that post here. They turn every thread into a political post. I
have been telling everyone for years that rec.boats was a disaster and
was on it's death bed. All I have done is try to speed up the process.


How rich...one of the spoofing assholes claiming his spoofing isn't
ruining what is left of rec.boats...

Nice try, asshole.

Florida Jim, Eisboch's pal, along with a few others, are obsessed with
you. They live and breathe by your every utterance.
Scotty, Tim, Greg, Wayne, and John are really the only ones capable of
ignoring you when they want to.
You may have noticed that Richard, Tom and Gene left because Florida Jim
started the spoofing cascade, not because of you.
I suspect people with a touch of class can't tolerate being spoofed.
It's a filthy business.
They have no problem handling assholes. Talking about you there.
The spoofers only prove there are worse assholes than you.
And drive most decent comment away.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Frogloogyherringsnacks" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:


Oh, except that he never said what his patent was about. So, typing
William McKee patent in google isn't going to find it. See my comment
about you being a fool for additional information.

Oh, and you're a bozo also.

Right. And you're the incompetent patent attorney.
I don't know Bill, and disagree with many of his opinions.
Don't even read all of his posts.
But he has mentioned his disk drive patent more than once here.
Even in this very thread.
Your pettiness has cost you all credibility.
Go soak you head. Or talk to Cannuck.


Nope... he didn't in the original thread wherein he claimed to me that he
was a patent holder. You said you don't read all of his posts, yet you're
all of a sudden an authority on them.

Don't care what you think about my "credibility."

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 1:09 PM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 12:22 PM, Harry wrote:
On 3/8/2010 11:50 AM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and
in others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


If that's true, you can thank your spoofing friend Jim for driving the
last nail into the coffin lid.
His spoofing of Harry and anybody he can use to get at Harry opened the
spoofing floodgates.
So be it.
Take solace in that a pal is more important than any newsgroup.

It isn't the spoofers that ruined rec.boats, it is all the obnoxious
****z, that post here. They turn every thread into a political post. I
have been telling everyone for years that rec.boats was a disaster and
was on it's death bed. All I have done is try to speed up the process.


How rich...one of the spoofing assholes claiming his spoofing isn't
ruining what is left of rec.boats...

Nice try, asshole.

Florida Jim, Eisboch's pal, along with a few others, are obsessed with
you. They live and breathe by your every utterance.
Scotty, Tim, Greg, Wayne, and John are really the only ones capable of
ignoring you when they want to.
You may have noticed that Richard, Tom and Gene left because Florida Jim
started the spoofing cascade, not because of you.
I suspect people with a touch of class can't tolerate being spoofed.
It's a filthy business.
They have no problem handling assholes. Talking about you there.
The spoofers only prove there are worse assholes than you.
And drive most decent comment away.





Well, whichever spoofer you are, I don't disagree that flajim and a
"few" others are obsessed with me. But that list also includes Scott
Ingersoll and John Herring. Ingersoll and Loogy are tied as Dumbest
Posters in Rec.Boats, and Herring, of course, is the ranking Rec.Boats
hypocrite.

I don't agree with Tim's point-of-view on most subjects, but I think
he's a perfectly fine fellow. Wayne does nothing for me...he's just a
blowhard, but a harmless one. I do miss Gene and ol' Eisboch.

Now, you can resume one of your other ID's here.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Frogloogyherringsnacks" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

You're a liar. Nothing like that is in the database under the name
you're using.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Incompetent troll.
Maybe she doesn't know Bill is short for William?
I don't think so.
I had no trouble finding your patent using google.
No "database" needed. Well, google is essentially a database.
Took all of 10 seconds.
But you're probably right about her being a troll.
The giveaway is "under the name you're using."
Cute. A dishonest way to try to cut somebody down.



I put my name and "patent" in Google. Returned as number two on the list,
the first being a Richard with a last name spelled differently than mine.

I didn't Google using "Eisboch".

I have bad memories of dealing with patent attorneys. When I sold my
company and the buyer began the due diligence process, two patent
attorneys were the first people I met with. One was a corporate type for
the buyer, the other was a hired consultant. Spent the better part of
two days with them, and finally they left to go do whatever it is that
they do.

What was the bad experience? The exhaustive process? Unfortunately, if you
don't go through that process these days, your patent will either be denied
or can be subverted.


We then went through the (almost 3 month) exhausting process of due
diligence, looking at all our financials, taxes, liabilities, etc. and I
was getting worn out by the whole process. The buyer was a large, public
company and had many resources, including a staff of lawyers, accountants
and marketing types. Any small business owner who goes through this will
understand how grueling the process is and at some point you basically
become committed to the deal, just to get it over with.

The day before the official closing (almost 3 months later) the two patent
attorneys came back with a 3 inch stack of patent copies. They started
going through them, one by one, asking if we built anything like what was
on the patent papers. It was ridiculous. It was like being Ford and the
attorney hands you a patent by Chevrolet and asks if you make anything
similar.

The CEO of the acquiring company was a gruff, tough talking, no-nonsense
type and nobody in his company cherished getting on his radar screen. By
8 pm, the evening before the closing, we were only halfway through the
stack of papers that his patent attorneys had prepared. Exasperated, I
called for a break and told them that I had had enough and one of them
was going to have to call the CEO of their company and tell him the
closing would have to be postponed to a later date because we still had a
pile of papers to go through.

The patent attorneys looked at each other with panic in their faces,
picked up the remaining paperwork and stuffed it into their briefcases.
They then announced that everything was fine, there didn't appear to be
any patent conflicts or infringements to be concerned with and left.

The closing occurred on time the next morning.

Eisboch

It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much trouble
with engineers/scientists. :)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
On 3/8/10 8:15 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:


om wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message

You're a liar. Nothing like that is in the database under the name
you're using.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Incompetent troll.
Maybe she doesn't know Bill is short for William?
I don't think so.
I had no trouble finding your patent using google.
No "database" needed. Well, google is essentially a database.
Took all of 10 seconds.
But you're probably right about her being a troll.
The giveaway is "under the name you're using."
Cute. A dishonest way to try to cut somebody down.



I put my name and "patent" in Google. Returned as number two on the
list,
the first being a Richard with a last name spelled differently than
mine.

I didn't Google using "Eisboch".

I have bad memories of dealing with patent attorneys. When I sold my
company and the buyer began the due diligence process, two patent
attorneys
were the first people I met with. One was a corporate type for the
buyer,
the other was a hired consultant. Spent the better part of two days
with
them, and finally they left to go do whatever it is that they do.

We then went through the (almost 3 month) exhausting process of due
diligence, looking at all our financials, taxes, liabilities, etc. and I
was
getting worn out by the whole process. The buyer was a large, public
company and had many resources, including a staff of lawyers,
accountants
and marketing types. Any small business owner who goes through this
will
understand how grueling the process is and at some point you basically
become committed to the deal, just to get it over with.

The day before the official closing (almost 3 months later) the two
patent
attorneys came back with a 3 inch stack of patent copies. They started
going
through them, one by one, asking if we built anything like what was on
the
patent papers. It was ridiculous. It was like being Ford and the
attorney
hands you a patent by Chevrolet and asks if you make anything similar.

The CEO of the acquiring company was a gruff, tough talking, no-nonsense
type and nobody in his company cherished getting on his radar screen.
By 8
pm, the evening before the closing, we were only halfway through the
stack
of papers that his patent attorneys had prepared. Exasperated, I
called
for a break and told them that I had had enough and one of them was
going
to have to call the CEO of their company and tell him the closing would
have
to be postponed to a later date because we still had a pile of papers to
go
through.

The patent attorneys looked at each other with panic in their faces,
picked
up the remaining paperwork and stuffed it into their briefcases. They
then
announced that everything was fine, there didn't appear to be any patent
conflicts or infringements to be concerned with and left.

The closing occurred on time the next morning.

Eisboch




Do you know to whom you're responding?



Herring doesn't like it when posters respond to those he doesn't like.
He actually believes he is in charge of something. snerk


Yeah, but he likes to look at Sarah Palin!


--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch

I beg to differ... Most here have filtered the idiots who annoy us, out.
We
(especially Tim) have been making on topic posts and responding to them.
We
still have a couple who insist in talking to Harry's room-mate, but
really,
they are easy to ignore too.

Scotty

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing, no crybabies!


Still waiting for you to filter me out...

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 1:37 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 3/8/10 8:15 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:


om wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message

You're a liar. Nothing like that is in the database under the name
you're using.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Incompetent troll.
Maybe she doesn't know Bill is short for William?
I don't think so.
I had no trouble finding your patent using google.
No "database" needed. Well, google is essentially a database.
Took all of 10 seconds.
But you're probably right about her being a troll.
The giveaway is "under the name you're using."
Cute. A dishonest way to try to cut somebody down.



I put my name and "patent" in Google. Returned as number two on the
list,
the first being a Richard with a last name spelled differently than
mine.

I didn't Google using "Eisboch".

I have bad memories of dealing with patent attorneys. When I sold my
company and the buyer began the due diligence process, two patent
attorneys
were the first people I met with. One was a corporate type for the
buyer,
the other was a hired consultant. Spent the better part of two days
with
them, and finally they left to go do whatever it is that they do.

We then went through the (almost 3 month) exhausting process of due
diligence, looking at all our financials, taxes, liabilities, etc. and I
was
getting worn out by the whole process. The buyer was a large, public
company and had many resources, including a staff of lawyers,
accountants
and marketing types. Any small business owner who goes through this
will
understand how grueling the process is and at some point you basically
become committed to the deal, just to get it over with.

The day before the official closing (almost 3 months later) the two
patent
attorneys came back with a 3 inch stack of patent copies. They started
going
through them, one by one, asking if we built anything like what was on
the
patent papers. It was ridiculous. It was like being Ford and the
attorney
hands you a patent by Chevrolet and asks if you make anything similar.

The CEO of the acquiring company was a gruff, tough talking, no-nonsense
type and nobody in his company cherished getting on his radar screen.
By 8
pm, the evening before the closing, we were only halfway through the
stack
of papers that his patent attorneys had prepared. Exasperated, I
called
for a break and told them that I had had enough and one of them was
going
to have to call the CEO of their company and tell him the closing would
have
to be postponed to a later date because we still had a pile of papers to
go
through.

The patent attorneys looked at each other with panic in their faces,
picked
up the remaining paperwork and stuffed it into their briefcases. They
then
announced that everything was fine, there didn't appear to be any patent
conflicts or infringements to be concerned with and left.

The closing occurred on time the next morning.

Eisboch




Do you know to whom you're responding?



Herring doesn't like it when posters respond to those he doesn't like.
He actually believes he is in charge of something.snerk


Yeah, but he likes to look at Sarah Palin!


Well, there's a reason. I'd tell you what it is, but I don't have your
email.. :)

Those damn Canadians..
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists. :)


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what I
wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 4:00 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.

That is absolute, complete, total b.s., herring.
What have you posted lately?

1. Snarky comments about other posters.
2. Snarky comments about the beliefs of others.
3. Attempts to persuade other posters to filter or not respond to
posters you don't like.
4. A bunch of old and stupid jokes or anecdotes, some of which are
ethnically insulting.
5. A bunch of URLs leading to various youtube renditions of
saccharine-sweet, mostly pseudo patriotic old songs.

All that crap does is take up bandwidth. It adds nothing to the quality
or sanity of rec.boats.

I am thankful, though, for your posting less nonsense about your golf
game, your camper trailer, your various sick relatives, et cetera.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying
to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H


Perhaps you should look in the mirror. There might be others here who've
contributed to the lack of civility, but you're certainly contributed with
your derogatory bs and right wing rants.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists. :)


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was ridiculous
for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask specific
questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you weren't that
prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be typical of people
in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops
have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mar 8, 12:20*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...





John H wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

plonk slammer, again

Scotty

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Wrong, Internet Mavon.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists. :)


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that,
but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3 month
due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion on
each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question. Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists. :)


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all
that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

I didn't read what you wrote in its entirety. I'm not being paid to read it.
:)


Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.

So, that seems pretty reasonable.

2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.

Also reasonable.

3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

I'm sure they had other priorities. Was it a merger between Exxon and Mobile
or was it, as you said a small business being eaten by a much larger one?
You're likely not their first priority.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion
on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Without knowing the specifics of the questions and your answers, this seems
pretty reasonable. I'll ding them for waiting to last minute, but it still
probably needed to get done.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?


--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 5:34 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question. Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.


"A few of us are trying to keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an
uphill battle."
-- John Herring, earlier today.

Herring doesn't seem to want to try very hard, eh?

Those damn Canadians..
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

Those damn Canadians..
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

Those damn Canadians..
 

HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 5:34 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question.
Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.


"A few of us are trying to keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an
uphill battle."
-- John Herring, earlier today.

Herring doesn't seem to want to try very hard, eh?

And what do you suppose your part in this great mosaic is?

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/10 6:45 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 5:34 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question.
Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.


"A few of us are trying to keep some sanity here, but it's definitely
an uphill battle."
-- John Herring, earlier today.

Herring doesn't seem to want to try very hard, eh?

And what do you suppose your part in this great mosaic is?


I see no need to take seriously posts from "anonymous" posters here.
Post in the username you've usually used here.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

I don't do corporate stuff any more. I don't the engineering at companies
patent filings, and I don't do acquisition investigations, such as what you
when through.

I do individuals' patent work on a very part-time, very particular (my
particular) basis. I find it much more rewarding. I own a full-time,
non-related retail business with a few part-time employees.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Those damn Canadians..
 

On 3/8/2010 4:19 PM, HK wrote:
On 3/8/10 4:00 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are
trying to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.

That is absolute, complete, total b.s., herring.
What have you posted lately?

1. Snarky comments about other posters.
2. Snarky comments about the beliefs of others.
3. Attempts to persuade other posters to filter or not respond to
posters you don't like.
4. A bunch of old and stupid jokes or anecdotes, some of which are
ethnically insulting.
5. A bunch of URLs leading to various youtube renditions of
saccharine-sweet, mostly pseudo patriotic old songs.

All that crap does is take up bandwidth. It adds nothing to the quality
or sanity of rec.boats.

I am thankful, though, for your posting less nonsense about your golf
game, your camper trailer, your various sick relatives, et cetera.

I hope no one noticed that I am completely obsessed with John Herring.
I asked him to go boating with me in my new Parker, and the ****z would
declined. I have been after that asshole every since.

Those damn Canadians..
 

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard
to tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists. :)


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to
ask specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems
like you weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I
found to be typical of people in your situation. I know it's your
"baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you
got what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read
what people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back
to review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20
discussion on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch



And if the attorneys had more time it would have been a 5 inch thick stack.

Those damn Canadians..
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

I don't do corporate stuff any more. I don't the engineering at companies
patent filings, and I don't do acquisition investigations, such as what
you when through.

I do individuals' patent work on a very part-time, very particular (my
particular) basis. I find it much more rewarding. I own a full-time,
non-related retail business with a few part-time employees.


That's cool. I can relate. I was a corporate technologist for 40 years,
got lucky and exited stage right.
(Or sometimes left depending on the subject matter). Got involved in a
"retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and am still adjusting to the
non-logical and fickle personalities of semi-pro and professional musicians.

I have an associate who is a rock and roller by heart (started in the 60's
with a couple of billboard hits) but quickly determined that he and his
family liked to eat. He went to law school and became a trial lawyer which
he did for 30 years before giving up his practice to return to his true love
of building fine acoustic guitars.
Interesting fellow .... and probably has one of the finest engineering minds
of anyone I've ever met, combined with a true craftsman's talent.

So, it proves there is hope for all lawyers.

Eisboch

Those damn Canadians..
 

On Mar 8, 10:52*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:


*Got involved in a "retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and
am still adjusting to the non-logical and fickle personalities of
semi-pro and professional musicians.


Not counting the PITA's that call you during your busiest moments.

?;^ )

Those damn Canadians..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

I don't do corporate stuff any more. I don't the engineering at companies
patent filings, and I don't do acquisition investigations, such as what
you when through.

I do individuals' patent work on a very part-time, very particular (my
particular) basis. I find it much more rewarding. I own a full-time,
non-related retail business with a few part-time employees.


That's cool. I can relate. I was a corporate technologist for 40 years,
got lucky and exited stage right.

I felt like I had to get out or lose my soul. It was the right time
soul-wise and financially.

(Or sometimes left depending on the subject matter). Got involved in a
"retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and am still adjusting to
the non-logical and fickle personalities of semi-pro and professional
musicians.

Musicians are a special breed... my ex dabbled in it (semi-pro). He was
obsessed to say the least with it. But, we're still good friends.

I have an associate who is a rock and roller by heart (started in the 60's
with a couple of billboard hits) but quickly determined that he and his
family liked to eat. He went to law school and became a trial lawyer
which he did for 30 years before giving up his practice to return to his
true love of building fine acoustic guitars.
Interesting fellow .... and probably has one of the finest engineering
minds of anyone I've ever met, combined with a true craftsman's talent.

So, it proves there is hope for all lawyers.

Eisboch

Lawyers can be ok from time to time.


--
Nom=de=Plume