JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?

JimH wrote:

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?

************

Baloney? I'll see your baloney and raise you "horsesh*t".

I have posted comments about the proposed Washington State bill, in
this forum, several times in the past. None contained any remarks about
any political party. The e-mail announcing the passage was written
*exactly* as posted here.

Is your email address that you use here legit, or bogus? Let me know if
it's legit and I will forward the original e-mail to you.

The funniest aspect of your "outrage" is an apparent inability to
conceive or admit that Republicans are not always fully informed,
(informed, heck.."absolutely right"!) about every issue.
On this issue, some Republicans were uniformed.

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...
JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not removed
by the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?




He also had to throw in an insult (start at the top, read slowly).

4 posts by Chuck, one insult, one personal attack.

Way to go Chuck.

JimH wrote:

Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they
just
against the bill for some valid reason?

***************

This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they
just
against the bill for some valid reason?

***************

This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one.


*You* already did.

Dr. John John Smith wrote:

Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.


A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.

**********************

Aren't you among the crowd normally critical of editing cut 'n paste
before posting?

Why do you insist on seeing the remark as a "slam" against Republicans?
Why so defensive?

Dave Kutz wrote a sentence that made two statements.

1) The opposition to the bill seemed to come from some Republicans
2) The opposing Republicans were not well informed about the provisions
of the bill.

How is that a "political" statement?

If you knew Dave Kutz, (a politically moderate to conservative
individual, btw), you would not even think to question the accuracy of
his observation or opinion.

This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one.



*You* already did.

***************

How? By passing along an email noting the passage of the bill through
one of our two state houses? By failing to doctor the email to delete
the author's comment that those opposed seemed to be Republicans who
were not well informed about the bill?

Do you think the author meant that all Republicans are always
"uniformed", on all issues?
That would be a ridiculous, borderline paranoid conclusion.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dr. John John Smith wrote:

Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.


A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.

**********************

Aren't you among the crowd normally critical of editing cut 'n paste
before posting?

Why do you insist on seeing the remark as a "slam" against Republicans?
Why so defensive?

Dave Kutz wrote a sentence that made two statements.

1) The opposition to the bill seemed to come from some Republicans
2) The opposing Republicans were not well informed about the provisions
of the bill.

How is that a "political" statement?


You conveniently left out the word *uninformed* in statement #1 and #2 and
there was no comment about the democrats voting against the bill being
*uninformed*.

Don't try to spin this Chuck. Your intention was quite evident.

I would have simply stated that the State Senate voted in a bill requiring
stricter boater education and posted a link showing the specifics of the
bill.

You didn't. You made it about partisan politics.

Gould,
See comments below:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dr. John John Smith wrote:

Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.


A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.

**********************

Aren't you among the crowd normally critical of editing cut 'n paste
before posting?

No.

Why do you insist on seeing the remark as a "slam" against Republicans?
Why so defensive?

I do not see it as a slam against Republicans. I said if one wanted to sell
the concept and discuss mandatory boater education (and not politics), it
would have been more effective to remove the political comment, without
altering the message.


Dave Kutz wrote a sentence that made two statements.

1) The opposition to the bill seemed to come from some Republicans
2) The opposing Republicans were not well informed about the provisions
of the bill.

How is that a "political" statement?


If you knew Dave Kutz, (a politically moderate to conservative
individual, btw), you would not even think to question the accuracy of
his observation or opinion.

I am not discussing Dave Kutz politics or yours. I stated the problem with
making rec.boats a off topic political forum is it minimizes the value of a
very legitimate on topic posts. If you had not made your anti republican
sentiments so loudly known in other posts, no one would have ever questioned
the reason for your posts.

I for one, don't think you were trying to slam republicans, you just cut and
pasted a very good email concerning Mandatory Boater Ed. in Washington
State. I also made the observation if you had removed the "republican"
comment, it might have been better received by those who disagree with your
politics.

Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item.

Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again?

According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for
Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians
opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem
to be informed about the bill's specifics.

If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but
probably unavoidable.