wrote in message
oups.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?

I am glad to see more states passing Mandatory Boater Education Bills.
Currently 33 states currently require some kind of Boating Education
requirements. As more statistical information is available, hopefully we
will see a uniform boating education requirement in all states.


"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.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?

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...
I am glad to see more states passing Mandatory Boater Education Bills.
Currently 33 states currently require some kind of Boating Education
requirements. As more statistical information is available, hopefully we
will see a uniform boating education requirement in all states.


I agree. I hope those *uninformed Republicans* don't get in the way any
more.

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. The author's name is at the bottom
of the page, Dave Kutz. If you have an issue with his choice his
verbiage, please take it up with him. Thanks.

For what it's worth, if the people who were in opposition to the bill
were Republicans and if they were not able to argue on the specifics of
the proposal, they would indeed be Republicans and (on this issue, at
least) uninformed.

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,
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?

"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 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
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.


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.

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.

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.