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
oglegroups.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,
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)

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