"0" Pirating last year?
 

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:47:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/11/2014 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.


Come on Jim ... give him a chance. He's been pleasant since his return.
Maybe his trip to Africa cleared his mind. If he goes back to his
old ways, that's one thing, but so far, so good.


I agree. We should overlook his religious sarcasm...this time.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!

"0" Pirating last year?
 

Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 7:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't
figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.

No, FlaJim, I'm simply commenting on your recent behavior in here. It's
all about you. My presumption is that based upon your behavior, you
won't be complaining about a negative "tone" here, as you are one of the
ones setting it.

As always, have nice day.

Let the record show that Krause disavows any responsibility for the
tone of this newsgroup.
And plagiarizes the catch-phrase of the returning FPS Russia.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 7:12 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 7:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't
figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are
insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in
rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.

No, FlaJim, I'm simply commenting on your recent behavior in here. It's
all about you. My presumption is that based upon your behavior, you
won't be complaining about a negative "tone" here, as you are one of
the
ones setting it.

As always, have nice day.

Let the record show that Krause disavows any responsibility for the tone
of this newsgroup.

My comment was about your behavior this year to date, and going
forward. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quick response. You treat this group like a chat room. Too bad you
don't have other interests or friends.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

On 1/11/2014 9:16 PM, Earl wrote:
Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 7:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't
figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.

No, FlaJim, I'm simply commenting on your recent behavior in here. It's
all about you. My presumption is that based upon your behavior, you
won't be complaining about a negative "tone" here, as you are one of the
ones setting it.

As always, have nice day.

Let the record show that Krause disavows any responsibility for the
tone of this newsgroup.
And plagiarizes the catch-phrase of the returning FPS Russia.

All you guys gotta' do is ignore his trolls, starting to think you all
enjoy making a fool, out of an idiot... I don't get the appeal.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

On 1/11/14, 9:08 PM, KC wrote:


We know how that feels.... sitting here turning down the heat while
tenants are sitting in our home, watching a 52 inch tv, playing the
latest HALO 3d gaming system, not paying rent, and refusing to leave....
We are ****ing numb over this crap, they have been living there for free
since October....


I have a couple of suggestions but I am not sure they are legal.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

On 1/11/14, 9:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:47:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/11/2014 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.


Come on Jim ... give him a chance. He's been pleasant since his return.
Maybe his trip to Africa cleared his mind. If he goes back to his
old ways, that's one thing, but so far, so good.


I agree. We should overlook his religious sarcasm...this time.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!



Is religious sarcasm any better or worse than, say, ethnic or racial
sarcasm? Just asking. :)

"0" Pirating last year?
 

On 1/11/14, 9:21 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/11/2014 9:16 PM, Earl wrote:
Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 7:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 7:02 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:47 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 6:36 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 2:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/11/14, 1:35 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/11/2014 10:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

No, FlaJim. I have no idea who Jane Lynch is, and if you can't
figure
out if what you post is personally insulting, then I am afraid I
cannot
help you.

Since you obviously are familiar with Ms. Lynch, perhaps you will
tell
us all who she is and why she is important to you.

She is googleable just like everything else. If you are
insulted by
the
mention of your sketchy financial history then you deserve no less
than
a daily dose of reminders. Serves you right for being a low life.

So, might we presume that *you* won't be one of those in the future
whining about the "tone" and name-calling and suchlike in
rec.boats,
eh?

You might presume anything you like.

And I will, based upon your recent behavior in here.

Are you looking for an excuse to fall back to your old ways?
Historically, you haven't needed one after your short term act of
playing nice.

No, FlaJim, I'm simply commenting on your recent behavior in here. It's
all about you. My presumption is that based upon your behavior, you
won't be complaining about a negative "tone" here, as you are one of
the
ones setting it.

As always, have nice day.

Let the record show that Krause disavows any responsibility for the
tone of this newsgroup.
And plagiarizes the catch-phrase of the returning FPS Russia.

All you guys gotta' do is ignore his trolls, starting to think you all
enjoy making a fool, out of an idiot... I don't get the appeal.


How pleasant.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

KC wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:52 PM, John H. wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:10:13 PM UTC-5, KC wrote:
On 1/10/2014 7:28 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2014 7:59:27 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:







A "LAWS" wouldn't hurt either. Well, depends on which end your on...







Their effective range is pretty short, well within AK-47 range.



Colonel William Prescott "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes!"





The problem with fighting back with small arms or rockets, is they can

stand off a ways and sink you with theirs a lot easier than you can hit

them in their tiny boats... or run a cable and disable you, then hit you

with the rockets...That is what I heard anyway, as a reason why the

bigger ships just can't fight them off with small arms....

The .50 cal machine gun can shoot a mile off. Being a machine gun, it
can put a lot of rounds on target. Why they don't put one on every ship is beyond me.


Because it would escalate, the pirates would swarm with rockets and it
only takes one to get to the big ship hull and it's over... Either way,
they do not want that escalation, I think they would rather have the ship
be taken, and then fight with professionals, on known ground rather than
even professionals fighting after being surprised on the open ocean...

It the incident they made the movie about, the US special forces "fought"
(blew the suckers heads off) after making the circumstances, and setting
the playing field... No innocents got hurt, the ship was not damaged...

And the moment they rocketed a ship, the world opinion would support mass
extermination in their home hood.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

Tim wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 11:38:21 PM UTC-6, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:00 -0800 (PST), "John H."

wrote:



On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:10:13 PM UTC-5, KC wrote:

On 1/10/2014 7:28 PM, Tim wrote:



On Friday, January 10, 2014 7:59:27 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:



On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:















A "LAWS" wouldn't hurt either. Well, depends on which end your on...















Their effective range is pretty short, well within AK-47 range.







Colonel William Prescott "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes!"











The problem with fighting back with small arms or rockets, is they can



stand off a ways and sink you with theirs a lot easier than you can hit



them in their tiny boats... or run a cable and disable you, then hit you



with the rockets...That is what I heard anyway, as a reason why the



bigger ships just can't fight them off with small arms....



The .50 cal machine gun can shoot a mile off. Being a machine gun, it

can put a lot of rounds on target. Why they don't put one on every ship is beyond me.



===



It seems to work for the Coast Guard.



Lots of countries have anti gun laws.

That's why you arm up in int'l water.

The problem is you have enter a port sometimes. Maybe the answer is a Ma
deuce rental service. Pick up your .50 as you reach international waters
and turn it in before entering port. Business opportunity.

"0" Pirating last year?
 

On 1/11/2014 10:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:52 PM, John H. wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:10:13 PM UTC-5, KC wrote:
On 1/10/2014 7:28 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2014 7:59:27 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:







A "LAWS" wouldn't hurt either. Well, depends on which end your on...







Their effective range is pretty short, well within AK-47 range.



Colonel William Prescott "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes!"





The problem with fighting back with small arms or rockets, is they can

stand off a ways and sink you with theirs a lot easier than you can hit

them in their tiny boats... or run a cable and disable you, then hit you

with the rockets...That is what I heard anyway, as a reason why the

bigger ships just can't fight them off with small arms....

The .50 cal machine gun can shoot a mile off. Being a machine gun, it
can put a lot of rounds on target. Why they don't put one on every ship is beyond me.


Because it would escalate, the pirates would swarm with rockets and it
only takes one to get to the big ship hull and it's over... Either way,
they do not want that escalation, I think they would rather have the ship
be taken, and then fight with professionals, on known ground rather than
even professionals fighting after being surprised on the open ocean...

It the incident they made the movie about, the US special forces "fought"
(blew the suckers heads off) after making the circumstances, and setting
the playing field... No innocents got hurt, the ship was not damaged...

And the moment they rocketed a ship, the world opinion would support mass
extermination in their home hood.


Are you sure about that.. I mean, we haven't even fired anybody after
having our Embassy overrun and 4 Americans killed.... Just sayin'.