John,
Harry reads ever post, he just pretends he doesn't because he knows he does
not have to skills to debate me on any topic.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith"

wrote:

Harry,
What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do
bother
to post disrupting posts such as this one?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"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
ooglegroups.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.



In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've
found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked
the
details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to.


Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond
disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in
various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting.
That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin.


I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they
make.
Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you
just
keep showing up with these comments.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith"

wrote:

Harry,
What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do
bother
to post disrupting posts such as this one?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"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
ooglegroups.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.



In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've
found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked
the
details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to.


Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond
disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in
various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting.
That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin.


I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they
make.
Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you
just
keep showing up with these comments.
--
John H


Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education Bill
Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it.

And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and have yet
to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested.

I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email
regarding the bill without having any other facts or information.

How telling. How dangerous.

Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education
Bill
Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it.

And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and
have yet
to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested.



I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email
regarding the bill without having any other facts or information.


How telling. How dangerous.

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

Try googling Washington State Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education.
I got 647 "hits".

I don't feel compelled to do your research for you or provide you with
vote totals.
The "uniformed Republicans" Dave referred to were the persons he
mentioned by name when listing the legislators who spoke against the
bill. You are the only person who extended that to mean that all
Republicans who voted against the bill were also uniformed.

It is easy to determine whether somebody is well informed,
underinformed, or uninformed when they attempt to speak to an issue.
Some of the Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill may
have been well informed and simply disagreed with the principle. Fair
enough. But if an individual gets up to speak against a bill and begins
making statements that have no basis at all in fact and do not address
the issues actually included in the proposal, it would be fair to say
that such a person, Democrat or Republican, was "uninformed".

If the uninformed speakers were from both parties, it would be correct
to say "uniformed legislators".
If they were all Democrats, it would be correct to say "uniformed
Democrats".....(and if that had been the case we wouldn't see a line of
protest from you- guaranteedily deed). In this case, the four people
who spoke against the bill demonstrated that they were not properly
informed about the contents and they all happened to be Republicans.

What will you call your pile when you're finished? "Mount Molehill?"

By the way,the author you dismiss as a "liberal e-mailer" is chairman
of the organization.

You can check the rest of the info on the Washington State legislature
web site. (Hint: dotgov)

On 16 Mar 2005 18:28:16 -0800, wrote:

From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.

Next step. Pass this bill in the House. We are not done yet. Today
we got thrown a life-ring.

Great potential for a good discussion of appropriate measures to keep
our waterways safe.

Good post to start with.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:52:28 -0800, Garth Almgren
wrote:

Around 3/16/2005 6:28 PM, wrote:

From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill.

I haven't heard anything about a mandatory boater education plan. Do you
have any links to more information?

Good response - one thread in.

On 17 Mar 2005 07:37:54 -0800, wrote:

I haven't heard anything about a mandatory boater education plan. Do
you
have any links to more information?

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

The following letter from the president of NMTA does an excellent job
of encapsulating the most important points of the proposal.

(If you can prove you passed a USCG Aux or Power Squadron course at any
time in the past you will not be required to sit through a class.
Boaters can also challenge the exam without sitting through class...and
those who flunk belong in class).......

Message from Michael Campbell:

Dear NMTA Members,

Last Friday I sent an e-mail asking you to contact your State Senator
and urge them to support the Mandatory Boater Education Bill. I
received a few comments back from members who were not supportive of
the proposed legislation, and I wanted to take a minute to outline the
important parts of the bill so that NMTA members understand the details
of the proposed new law and can share the information with other
boaters.


I believe that the proposed bill is boater friendly and was
thoughtfully written by boatersŠfor boaters.


Here are the main ideas of the Mandatory Boater Ed bill:

You must be 12 years old to operate a boat of 15 HP or more.
The law is phased in over many years depending on the age group.
The first age group (20 and under) will not need to obtain a card until
2008.
If you were born before 1955 you never need to obtain a card.
The card has a one time fee of $10 and can never be revoked ?it? good
for life.


A course and test can be taken in person from any state accredited
organization or on-line as ?pen-book.?
The test can be challenged and no education course is necessary.
If a boater has completed a class any time in the past, a copy of the
certificate can be sent to the state and a card issued.
New boat owners have 60 days from the date of purchase to obtain the
education card.

Please contact me or Holly Whitemarsh at NMTA is you have any questions
or comments.

Chuck responds with a good post with more information - three threads
in.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:13:11 GMT, Patty O'Furniture
wrote:

On 16 Mar 2005 18:28:16 -0800, wrote:

From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.

Next step. Pass this bill in the House. We are not done yet. Today
we got thrown a life-ring.

~~ snippage ~~

If you do anything, don't screw this up like Connecticut did with the
dual license/education system.

Here's what I mean.

Connecticut requires boaters to go through a 10 hour course, take a
test and obtain a boater's certificate. They require PWC operators to
take a six hour course and here's the kicker - it's the same course.

Exactly the same course. Instructors have to take a class for boaters
- any PWC dealer can give the class based on the course curriculum.

Get on the horn to who ever is developing the education program and
make sure they don't go with the dual certificate system - one course,
one certificate good for any personal vessel.

Five threads in and still on topic.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.


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?

Oops - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet - POLITICS!!!

And the thread goes straight into the crapper.

You guys need help - really.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education
Bill
Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it.

And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and
have yet
to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested.



I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email
regarding the bill without having any other facts or information.


How telling. How dangerous.

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

Try googling Washington State Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education.
I got 647 "hits".

I don't feel compelled to do your research for you or provide you with
vote totals. snip

It was your post. If asked to provide specifics based on *your* post it is
your responsibility. A failure to do so lessens the credibility of your
initial post.

So several things remained unanswered by you:

Post a link to the bill you are discussing.

Post a link of the votes, including democrat and republican votes. I really
want to see why the dissenting republican votes were a result of them being
*uninformed* but not so with the dissenting democrat votes. big grin

That should not be hard to do seeing you got so many hits on your google
search. another big grin

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.


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?

Oops - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet - POLITICS!!!

And the thread goes straight into the crapper.

You guys need help - really.


Direct your criticism to the person starting the partisan politics
thread....and it isn't me.