![]() |
Youse guys must be rich
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. -- Z |
Youse guys must be rich
|
Youse guys must be rich
"Harry®" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. Just can't stop the spoofing , eh? |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:57:49 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote: "Harry®" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. Just can't stop the spoofing , eh? I don't see the hall monitor jumping on his bs... do you? |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:52:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:42:58 -0700, wrote: Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. You and Greg should take the conversation off line before it incites a political food fight. That's what we are *all* trying to avoid. It has happened way too many times in the past. I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. |
Youse guys must be rich
|
Youse guys must be rich
wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:57:49 -0300, "YukonBound" wrote: "Harry®" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. Just can't stop the spoofing , eh? I don't see the hall monitor jumping on his bs... do you? I think they call that 'selective hearing'. |
OT was Youse guys
On 11/1/10 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:09:09 -0700, wrote: Who the heck eats 16 oz of steak in one sitting?? That's just gluttony! Where can you buy the 3,5oz steak in the chart? Ruth sells a 24 oz steak, 14-16 is the small one. Lots of people eat a 16 oz steak. This "not eating meat" thing must be a California deal. Please. Anyone eating 16 ounces of steak regularly at one sitting is a glutton, and is inviting early death. On those rare occasions we order steak or beef at a restaurant, my wife and I typically will "split" the steak and a baked potato, and we usually order the smallest steak. We did just that at an Outback last week. Four tables away were two couples of Americans who were about the same size as the steers from which their enormous steaks were cut. I bet my wife that one of them would die right after eating. She wouldn't take the bet. When the four of them left, they passed right by our booth, and I was hoping the floor wouldn't collapse under them. One of them was using a walker and one was using a cane. |
OT was Youse guys
On 11/1/10 1:47 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 11/1/10 1:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:09:09 -0700, wrote: Who the heck eats 16 oz of steak in one sitting?? That's just gluttony! Where can you buy the 3,5oz steak in the chart? Ruth sells a 24 oz steak, 14-16 is the small one. Lots of people eat a 16 oz steak. This "not eating meat" thing must be a California deal. Please. Anyone eating 16 ounces of steak regularly at one sitting is a glutton, and is inviting early death. On those rare occasions we order steak or beef at a restaurant, my wife and I typically will "split" the steak and a baked potato, and we usually order the smallest steak. We did just that at an Outback last week. Four tables away were two couples of Americans who were about the same size as the steers from which their enormous steaks were cut. I bet my wife that one of them would die right after eating. She wouldn't take the bet. When the four of them left, they passed right by our booth, and I was hoping the floor wouldn't collapse under them. One of them was using a walker and one was using a cane. Fat and happy, hey, it's their life... We all pay the price for their gluttony. |
Youse guys must be rich
"YukonBound" wrote in message ...
"Harry®" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. Just can't stop the spoofing , eh? That one slipped out. I am in the process of changing over to my new identity. -- Ziggy |
Youse guys must be rich
On 11/1/10 3:34 PM, Ziggy® wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:55:11 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:03:56 -0700, wrote: I don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of references. Feel free to discount all that. Allow me to suggest that his might be a topic better discussed in an EMAIL exchange than in a boating group. Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. We are all the group monitor, dearie. If you want to keep your pillow talk with greg private, this aint the place. Just can't stop the spoofing , eh? That one slipped out. I am in the process of changing over to my new identity. If you are having an identity crisis, you can always go back to using flajim. |
Youse guys must be rich
On 11/1/10 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:18:54 -0400, wrote: I sent you a link for another forum that may be more appropriate and is a pretty good bunch of people. Is it boating related? Because this one is heading back into the crapper. Not a boat forum You can come over if you want. http://forums.delphiforums.com/Streetlight/? The only rule is no flaming Ahh. I'm on one of those already, called "The Fire List." No flaming there, either. |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:47:17 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:19 -0700, wrote: I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. I'm not responsible for what other people do. |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:45:43 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:19 -0700, wrote: I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. The problem was, and still is at least up until yesterday... Anyone beyond Greg that gets in the conversation is subject to being called: moron idiot little **** small dick paranoid afraid etc etc etc... We don't mind having nice political conversations with "the group", but you seem to want to have a private conversation with Greg and anyone else that gets involved will be dismissed and called names... And no Plume, I did plonk you days ago. I see your stuff second hand reading others' posts. Sure. Whatever. Like I said, you're a thin-skinned little sh*t. I really like how you address me, but refuse to read the responses (according to you of course). |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:17:25 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:19 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:52:16 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:42:58 -0700, wrote: Allow me to suggest that you're not the group monitor. Greg and I were having a conversation. If you don't like it, stay out of it. Oh, and get off my back. I haven't done anything approaching what others have done. You and Greg should take the conversation off line before it incites a political food fight. That's what we are *all* trying to avoid. It has happened way too many times in the past. I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. I sent you a link for another forum that may be more appropriate and is a pretty good bunch of people. I'll check it out. |
Youse guys must be rich
|
Youse guys must be rich
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:45:43 -0400, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:19 -0700, wrote: I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. The problem was, and still is at least up until yesterday... Anyone beyond Greg that gets in the conversation is subject to being called: moron idiot little **** small dick paranoid afraid etc etc etc... We don't mind having nice political conversations with "the group", but you seem to want to have a private conversation with Greg and anyone else that gets involved will be dismissed and called names... And no Plume, I did plonk you days ago. I see your stuff second hand reading others' posts. Sure. Whatever. Like I said, you're a thin-skinned little sh*t. I really like how you address me, but refuse to read the responses (according to you of course). You really should work on cleaning up that potty mouth of yours. -- H |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:21:17 -0400, Ziggy® wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:45:43 -0400, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:19 -0700, wrote: I don't believe Greg and I have ever had a seriously nasty exchange. I can't control spoofers and asses, however. That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. The problem was, and still is at least up until yesterday... Anyone beyond Greg that gets in the conversation is subject to being called: moron idiot little **** small dick paranoid afraid etc etc etc... We don't mind having nice political conversations with "the group", but you seem to want to have a private conversation with Greg and anyone else that gets involved will be dismissed and called names... And no Plume, I did plonk you days ago. I see your stuff second hand reading others' posts. Sure. Whatever. Like I said, you're a thin-skinned little sh*t. I really like how you address me, but refuse to read the responses (according to you of course). You really should work on cleaning up that potty mouth of yours. Feel free to plonk me. |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:42:05 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:16:41 -0700, wrote: That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. I'm not responsible for what other people do. That's disingenuous, and indirectly you can be. Surely you have heard of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)? The law is on your side here but the effect is the same. Huh? That's about freedom of speech protection. What's that got to do with me being responsible for what some jerk says on a newsgroup? |
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:56:40 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:42:05 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:16:41 -0700, wrote: That's all true but history tells us that certain discussion topics tend to get out of control, and attract the aforementioned individuals. Let's remember that it is a boating group, and presumably that is why you are here. I'm not responsible for what other people do. That's disingenuous, and indirectly you can be. Surely you have heard of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)? The law is on your side here but the effect is the same. Schenck was largely vacated by the decisions of the Burger court in the late 60s and early 70s, principally by the decision that affirmed the right to say "FU@K the draft", which gutted Schenck. Maybe you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater now. Perhaps you're thinking of Brandenburg v. Ohio? |
Youse guys must be rich
|
Youse guys must be rich
|
Youse guys must be rich
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:03:38 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:45:17 -0700, wrote: That's disingenuous, and indirectly you can be. Surely you have heard of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)? The law is on your side here but the effect is the same. Schenck was largely vacated by the decisions of the Burger court in the late 60s and early 70s, principally by the decision that affirmed the right to say "FU@K the draft", which gutted Schenck. Maybe you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater now. Perhaps you're thinking of Brandenburg v. Ohio? It was in that time frame but Brandenburg was a KKK case, similar to the Skokie case. There were also several around war protests that would be more on point with Schenck. (who was a draft protester during WWI) If I get a minute I will look up the F the draft case. In Brandenburg they held that hate speech in and of it self isn't a threat, as I recall. It must entail some sort of call to action of violence. I'd have to look it up. |
Youse guys must be rich
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:23:51 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:12:37 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:03:38 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:45:17 -0700, wrote: That's disingenuous, and indirectly you can be. Surely you have heard of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)? The law is on your side here but the effect is the same. Schenck was largely vacated by the decisions of the Burger court in the late 60s and early 70s, principally by the decision that affirmed the right to say "FU@K the draft", which gutted Schenck. Maybe you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater now. Perhaps you're thinking of Brandenburg v. Ohio? It was in that time frame but Brandenburg was a KKK case, similar to the Skokie case. There were also several around war protests that would be more on point with Schenck. (who was a draft protester during WWI) If I get a minute I will look up the F the draft case. In Brandenburg they held that hate speech in and of it self isn't a threat, as I recall. It must entail some sort of call to action of violence. I'd have to look it up. Yes that is right, that is why I compared it to the Skokie decision. The ones I am thinking of protected the right to protest the draft as protected political speech, even if the protest was using obscene language. There were several cases along these lines with minor legal differences. It has been a while since I looked at this but they do form a tree with each referencing the ones before it I guess Skokie is in the win column for the hated ACLU. lol |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com