( OT ) A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
 

HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:07:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.

What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!

Give me a break.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to talk
about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted. OT posts
cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...
HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44 times
between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as known or
suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry
guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.

Jim Donohue wrote:

Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to talk
about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted. OT posts
cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...

HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44 times
between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as known or
suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry
guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.



I did not post this to rec.boats.cruising. I just checked the original
post to be sure. additionally a search of rec.boats.cruising shows no
such topic.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

That is right...you did not publish this thread on Cruising. No one said
you did. You published another thread on cruising labeled OT with idiotic
advice not to let jerks like you lose on cruising. If you keep your
bull**** off cruising you won't hear from me...unless I agree or disagree
with your position on rec.boats. I don't respond to off topic stuff on
cruising so I came back here and picked the first jimcomma thread.

You stay off cruising and I will freely stay off your thread.

Now don't start some silly rant about top posting. Just stay off cruising
with your bilge.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:

Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to
talk about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted.
OT posts cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...

HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44 times
between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as known or
suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry
guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.



I did not post this to rec.boats.cruising. I just checked the original
post to be sure. additionally a search of rec.boats.cruising shows no such
topic.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

Jim Donohue wrote:

That is right...you did not publish this thread on Cruising. No one said
you did. You published another thread on cruising labeled OT with idiotic
advice not to let jerks like you lose on cruising. If you keep your
bull**** off cruising you won't hear from me...unless I agree or disagree
with your position on rec.boats. I don't respond to off topic stuff on
cruising so I came back here and picked the first jimcomma thread.

You stay off cruising and I will freely stay off your thread.

Now don't start some silly rant about top posting. Just stay off cruising
with your bilge.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:


Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to
talk about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted.
OT posts cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...


HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44 times
between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as known or
suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry
guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.



I did not post this to rec.boats.cruising. I just checked the original
post to be sure. additionally a search of rec.boats.cruising shows no such
topic.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?



Suggest you follow a ways back in the thread "Some more dumb questions"
This afternoon it was beginning to look like rec.boats, and I posted
my message as a warning. One of the combatants agreed with me and
promised NOT to respond to off topic posts, others chose to take
additional shots at him, but he restrained himself nicely.

Perhaps if you knew what you were talking about before attacking me, you
might be more civil.

Which causes me to restate the question.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

My suggestion to you is take your bull**** and go home!

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.

HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.

What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!

Give me a break.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.


HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.


What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!

Give me a break.


John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."
John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

Well if we are to uphold the constitution, those held in Cuba should be
given access to lawyers, the red cross, and amnesty international.
Torture should not be acceptable. While I am also a gun owner, I
support a waiting period, AND a test before someone is allowed to
purchase firearms. In fact, i recently prevented a family member with
what I consider an unstable temper from such a purchase.

I don't recall your other points -- care to restate them?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:50:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.


HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.


What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!

The questions are right there. Don't obfuscate. You get the message!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:50:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.



HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.


What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!


The questions are right there. Don't obfuscate. You get the message!


John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from
'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

All answered, except the liberty part -- if they are not charged with a
crime within a reasonable time (say 6 months), or are given POW status,
I say Yes to liberty also

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:43:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:50:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.



HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.


What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!


The questions are right there. Don't obfuscate. You get the message!


John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from
'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

All answered, except the liberty part -- if they are not charged with a
crime within a reasonable time (say 6 months), or are given POW status,
I say Yes to liberty also

If being a 'suspect' should not deprive one of rights, why the anti-Homeland
Security post? Was the reason just to say something negative?

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You seem
desirous of changing it.

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:43:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:50:31 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:59:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Now, get back on track. You made a post. I asked some questions.




HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal watch lists were
allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html) ." Oops!
Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11, simply hasn't
gotten around to making it illegal for suspected terrorists to buy guns.
In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.


What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from 'suspects'. How
about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

You guys are the first to cry at a 'supposed' loss of liberty!


The questions are right there. Don't obfuscate. You get the message!


John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

What other civil liberties would you like to see taken away from
'suspects'. How

about the liberty to leave Guantanamo? How about the liberty to have an
attorney? How about liberty, period?

All answered, except the liberty part -- if they are not charged with a
crime within a reasonable time (say 6 months), or are given POW status,
I say Yes to liberty also


If being a 'suspect' should not deprive one of rights, why the anti-Homeland
Security post? Was the reason just to say something negative?

Yet one more opportunity to point out an administration Foul up

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You seem
desirous of changing it.

Seems a more apt description, so I opted to use it

John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:09:01 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Yet one more opportunity to point out an administration Foul up

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You seem
desirous of changing it.

Seems a more apt description, so I opted to use it

John H

"All delusions are the result of binary thinking."

Truth's a bitch, isn't it?

Those cute little tricks didn't quite seem your style. Others, yes, but not
yours. Oh well, that's why I'm not a shrink.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter



John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter



Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!



--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:26:09 -0500, John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature
when quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter



Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a
signature, but I guess I've not seen everyone!

Yup.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:28:00 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:26:09 -0500, John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature
when quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter



Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a
signature, but I guess I've not seen everyone!

Yup.

Thanks for the tip!


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:


Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.

The address is live...not good at email? And you are worried about dead
address with a yahoo for goodness sake.

You demonstrate exactly what I mean. You drag an OT rec.boat discussion to
cruising. We can discuss your bad manners here where it is acceptable
rather than on cruising where it is not.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:

That is right...you did not publish this thread on Cruising. No one said
you did. You published another thread on cruising labeled OT with
idiotic advice not to let jerks like you lose on cruising. If you keep
your bull**** off cruising you won't hear from me...unless I agree or
disagree with your position on rec.boats. I don't respond to off topic
stuff on cruising so I came back here and picked the first jimcomma
thread.

You stay off cruising and I will freely stay off your thread.

Now don't start some silly rant about top posting. Just stay off
cruising with your bilge.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:


Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to
talk about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted.
OT posts cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...


HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal
watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States
last year (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html)
." Oops! Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11,
simply hasn't gotten around to making it illegal for suspected
terrorists to buy guns. In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties
stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.



I did not post this to rec.boats.cruising. I just checked the original
post to be sure. additionally a search of rec.boats.cruising shows no
such topic.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?



Suggest you follow a ways back in the thread "Some more dumb questions"
This afternoon it was beginning to look like rec.boats, and I posted my
message as a warning. One of the combatants agreed with me and promised
NOT to respond to off topic posts, others chose to take additional shots
at him, but he restrained himself nicely.

Perhaps if you knew what you were talking about before attacking me, you
might be more civil.

Which causes me to restate the question.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

My suggestion to you is take your bull**** and go home!

Jim Donohue wrote:
The address is live...not good at email?

Funny thing -- it bounced back at me -- my address is good -- try it,
and lets do the infighting one on one. No need for you to continue to
show your ignorance to those who have already seen it.

And you are worried about dead
address with a yahoo for goodness sake.

You demonstrate exactly what I mean. You drag an OT rec.boat discussion to
cruising. We can discuss your bad manners here where it is acceptable
rather than on cruising where it is not.

BULL****! -- You admitted I did not post this discussion in
Rec.boats.cruising, (see below)and without bothering to read the full
discussion, chose to attack me on an unrelated topic.

I'll repeat my question

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

Kind of early in the day for drinking.

I know that rec.boats has some jerks. but in my opinion, you just topped
them all!


"Jim," wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:


That is right...you did not publish this thread on Cruising. No one said
you did. You published another thread on cruising labeled OT with
idiotic advice not to let jerks like you lose on cruising. If you keep
your bull**** off cruising you won't hear from me...unless I agree or
disagree with your position on rec.boats. I don't respond to off topic
stuff on cruising so I came back here and picked the first jimcomma
thread.

You stay off cruising and I will freely stay off your thread.

Now don't start some silly rant about top posting. Just stay off
cruising with your bilge.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...


Jim Donohue wrote:



Jim, do us all a favor...keep your bull**** off rec.boats.cruising. We
don't need it there nor want it there. Come on over when you want to
talk about cruising. But if it is OT keep it here were it is accepted.
OT posts cause infection...keep yourself quarantined please.

Jim Donohue

"Jim," wrote in message
...



HOMELAND SECURITY -- A TERRORIST'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: According to a
congressional investigation by the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office (GAO), "Dozens of terrorist suspects on federal
watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States
last year (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...1_china08.html)
." Oops! Turns out the Bush administration, three years after 9/11,
simply hasn't gotten around to making it illegal for suspected
terrorists to buy guns. In fact, until February 2004, civil liberties
stalwart John Ashcroft --
who has advocated surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens without
court approval -- actively resisted efforts to increase oversight for
terrorists seeking guns because of "Second Amendment concerns." The GAO
investigation indicated people "with clear links to terrorist groups
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/na...nt%26position=)
had taken advantage of this gap on a regular basis.... At least 44
times between February and June of 2004, people regarded by the FBI as
known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy
or carry guns." In all but nine cases, permission was granted.



I did not post this to rec.boats.cruising. I just checked the original
post to be sure. additionally a search of rec.boats.cruising shows no
such topic.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?



Suggest you follow a ways back in the thread "Some more dumb questions"
This afternoon it was beginning to look like rec.boats, and I posted my
message as a warning. One of the combatants agreed with me and promised
NOT to respond to off topic posts, others chose to take additional shots
at him, but he restrained himself nicely.

Perhaps if you knew what you were talking about before attacking me, you
might be more civil.

Which causes me to restate the question.

Are you trying to stir up trouble; confused; or maybe drinking?

My suggestion to you is take your bull**** and go home!

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:37:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:


Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.

What is inappropriate about my signature?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:37:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:



Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.


What is inappropriate about my signature?

In my opinion, binary thinkers are delusional -- simple as that.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:31:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:37:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:



Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.


What is inappropriate about my signature?

In my opinion, binary thinkers are delusional -- simple as that.

Then all decision makers would be delusional, using your logic.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:31:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:37:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder wrote:




On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:




Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you? You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.


What is inappropriate about my signature?


In my opinion, binary thinkers are delusional -- simple as that.


Then all decision makers would be delusional, using your logic.
I would hope that a decision maker would come to his decision after
careful consideration of all the variables. I define a binary thinker
who thinks only in terms of right/wrong, black/white. I much prefer the
former.

Going with a "different" definition for binary (off or on), a binary thinker
is one who thinks only in right and "not right", or wrong and "not wrong"
which leaves open a theoretical large grey area.

Example: I think what you said is right.... or I think what you said is not
right (but not necessarily wrong), etc. Judges appear to think along these
lines.

This holds true even more for black/white: if not black, then not
necessarily white, thus grey, etc.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:31:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:37:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0500, thunder
wrote:




On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:




Also, is there something about my signature line that offends you?
You
seem desirous of changing it.

Not that it's important, but if you use the standard signature
delimiter
of dash dash space return, most newsreaders will cut your
signature when
quoting. Other posters generally won't bother playing with it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter




Let's see if that works. I've never seen anyone that messes with a
signature,
but I guess I've not seen everyone!


"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Try again John. I still think delusions is the more appropriate term.


What is inappropriate about my signature?


In my opinion, binary thinkers are delusional -- simple as that.


Then all decision makers would be delusional, using your logic.
I would hope that a decision maker would come to his decision after
careful consideration of all the variables. I define a binary thinker
who thinks only in terms of right/wrong, black/white. I much prefer the
former.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:18:47 GMT, "Franko" wrote:

Going with a "different" definition for binary (off or on), a binary thinker
is one who thinks only in right and "not right", or wrong and "not wrong"
which leaves open a theoretical large grey area.

Example: I think what you said is right.... or I think what you said is not
right (but not necessarily wrong), etc. Judges appear to think along these
lines.

This holds true even more for black/white: if not black, then not
necessarily white, thus grey, etc.

My sig line doesn't say that all decision makers are 'binary thinkers'. It says
that decisions are the *result* of binary thinking.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."