In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I
am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I
suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to
post here regularly.


I take at face value your saying you were not mocking my name, and
apologize for criticizing you unfairly.
As to my name, you can suspect what you will.
I have given a brief history of my family name in reply to Mr. Schnautz.
I am always exactly who I claim to be.
Years ago - at least a decade - I made some number of posts to various
groups, and some may have been cross posted here.
You might find some by looking for "Peter" or "Pete."
But I don't remember what I posted. I was often drunk.
I did not use the Prick family name then. Too many fights.
I only recently "rediscovered" usenet and after browsing this group
found it an interesting study in newsgroup dynamics.
I was initially interested in buying another boat, but that desire has
dissipated somewhat after reading this group, which might be more
appropriately called rec.anything.but.boats.
Doesn't matter really. There is a wide variety of personalities here,
spanning the wacko spectrum.
I like that, as it reflects real life.
Hopefully, I can get along here, and make a few pals.
Then when I get a boat, organize some raft ups.
Wouldn't it, after all, be a delightful sight to behold Harry, Loogy,
John, and Scotty sitting around a shore site campfire, singing "Michael
Rowed the Boat Ashore," with Loogy and Scotty doing the chorus while
strumming their Fenders, John singing bass, Harry singing tenor?
Maybe Froggy could do some background croaking for atmosphere if no real
frogs are calling, and jps could cuss sotto voce, adding a bit of
rhythm.
There are many, many arrangement possibilities.
I think that's an admirable goal for a group participant to strive for,
and that's the type of boater I would like to be.
I'm sure many here agree with my get-along sentiments.
They just don't want to come out of the protective shells they have
constructed around themselves.
But they are basically good people.
Just takes a little sing-along to bring the good elements out.
A few cases of beer helps too.
But sing-along to get-along is a good motto.
I sure hope Jesse Jackson never said that.

What a long bull**** story...

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname
(Dick). I am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so
because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another
person who used to post here regularly.

And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom
Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the
screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for
disrupting the harmony of rec.boats

One word, friend. Joesparebedroom.

Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with.

Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname
(Dick). I am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so
because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another
person who used to post here regularly.

And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom
Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the
screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for
disrupting the harmony of rec.boats

One word, friend. Joesparebedroom.

Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with.


Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two
layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his
vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS.

Confession is good for the soul, Tom.

anon-e-moose wrote:
Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname
(Dick). I am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so
because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another
person who used to post here regularly.

And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom
Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the
screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for
disrupting the harmony of rec.boats

One word, friend. Joesparebedroom.

Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with.


Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two
layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his
vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS.

Confession is good for the soul, Tom.

Nope, not me. Maybe Denninger, Skipper, Gene, or Larry Butler.
Krueger? Spock?

Jim - I'll figure it out.

Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote:
Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname
(Dick). I am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so
because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another
person who used to post here regularly.

And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry
Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing
the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for
disrupting the harmony of rec.boats

One word, friend. Joesparebedroom.

Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with.


Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get
two layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his
vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS.

Confession is good for the soul, Tom.

Nope, not me. Maybe Denninger, Skipper, Gene, or Larry Butler.
Krueger? Spock?

Jim - I'll figure it out.


Spock,maybe?

On 30/03/2010 12:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

On 30/03/2010 4:14 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400,
wrote:



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?

how about welfare for wall street?

you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious
your abso-****in-lutely clueless


I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they
want?

because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system
so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking
system go down in flames...like in 29.

that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why
people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water
for them. protect the rich

You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama
was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in
office.

Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact..


Like you? TARP wasn't "created" by Congress. It was passed by Congress. It
was created by Treasury (i.e., Paulson) and was promoted to Congress as
make-or-break funding to stabilize the economy, which, after some revisions
did as advertised.

You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP
it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable
cash.


--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On 30/03/2010 3:34 PM, hk wrote:
On 3/30/10 5:30 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:16:31 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama
was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in
office.

Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact..

typical right winger. all bitching. no solutions. 25% unemployment?
great. collapse of the economic system? fantastic

as long as the rich are protected.

and TARP was started under bush...he needed to bail out his rich
buddies.


It's theater of the absurd when SnottyScottyTosk whines in on these
posts, since he is unemployed and unemployable, as is, I suspect, Canuck.

Given the times you post, you must be a hanger waiting for the
government bailout of your silly sorry life.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14
kids and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.


I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class
neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your
demise in whatever is your local newspaper.

You are ambulatory, right?




Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

I suspect they would. They do at work!!

Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand.
At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on
liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are
getting ****ed at the tax rape going on.


--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On 30/03/2010 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch



It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to
pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms. Plume.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with
the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that cannot
when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care.
I
repeat. Medical care.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free
health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a
right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you help.
Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups,
unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue their
loser ways.

Oh be quiet. The adults are speaking.

So who's bitch/slave are you? Or are you a welfare sucking mama?


--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On 30/03/2010 12:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 10:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 12:28 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 7:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health
care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know,
subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it
freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing
to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading.
Which
this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet
not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and
father
as
money there had different priorities. Further, they sought
insurance
AFTER they needed it.

This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the
sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when
they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'?
and
what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING

but to the right...let him DIE...

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being
paying
up
long before even getting knocked up.

yep. kill the kid

Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors
court.
Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it
legally,
they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type of
abuse.

this is why we need socialized medicine

In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of
parents
that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time
as
they
think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it.

Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home
economics.
Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so they pay
for
their needs, including heath care.

Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they
think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


No... you hate them. You hate anyone who isn't like you.


You could have offered to pay for it. How come you didn't? Or is
socialism OK as long as other people pay for it?


You're a moron. I offer to pay more taxes. That's how our system works.
Even
on this newsgroup, I offered to pay for John's utility bill. He wasn't
willing to meet me even 1/4 of the way to getting it done.

How does unemployed offer more taxes? Hell, you could have wired these
welshers $100K for the operation. But yu didn't, because you want other
peoples moneys....


?? What are you ranting about? What does unemployment have to do with a
baby's welfare? Certainly, you're in no position to help, being close to
being homeless?

You didn't answer the question, how come you didn't help them with your
money? I am sure you could contact the hospial and setup a fund with your
money...

You want me to send someone $100K??? Are you just pretending to be dumber
than a stump?

Because in the end this is about extorting others doing it right as you
have no intention of paying for your mouth. Liberalism is fine as long as
someone else is paying for it. Trouble is, you yourself are unwilling as
nothing stops you from seeking out such situations and putting your own
money on the line.

Trouble is, you are a screwed up loser.. probably no money and just a
hanger. So who is your meal ticket? Better treat them real good as they
are what keeps you from the street.

Here's your logic:

Why should we go to school?

School is about acquiring knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Corruption is a crime.
Crime doesn't pay.

Therefore, we shouldn't go to school.

Yep, an how come you use a computer? Write your representative for more
welfare?

Mind you, your verse above has some merit, stupid people make good
government sheep.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.