John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam,
since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a
governor and the president.

Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The
Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in
Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much.

So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead
tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is
not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country.

DSK

Here is an example of consensus building:

The Coalition Forces
The world, working together, to make a difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have
contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing
stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia,
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,
Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova,
Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea,
Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom


John H


35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have
only commited to humanitarian efforts.

On 9 Mar 2004 07:41:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam,
since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a
governor and the president.

Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The
Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in
Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much.

So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead
tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is
not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country.

DSK

Here is an example of consensus building:

The Coalition Forces
The world, working together, to make a difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have
contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing
stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia,
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,
Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova,
Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea,
Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom


John H


35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have
only commited to humanitarian efforts.

Which of the remaining 60-something would you consider important
additions, Cuba, Haiti, Zaire, Russia, North Korea...?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
John H wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in
Vietnam,
since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has
been a
governor and the president.

Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The
Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in
Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much.

So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead
tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is
not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country.

DSK

Here is an example of consensus building:

The Coalition Forces
The world, working together, to make a difference


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have
contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing
stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia,
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,
Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova,
Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea,
Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom


John H


35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have
only commited to humanitarian efforts.

35 out of 90 is *almost* a third? LMAO!!

"Jim--" wrote in message news:RYCdnYXn2eAzydPdRVn-
35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have
only commited to humanitarian efforts.

35 out of 90 is *almost* a third? LMAO!!


Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What's worse is that b'asskisser thinks someone really cares what he
thinks!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What's worse is that b'asskisser thinks someone really cares what he
thinks!

John H

Please show where the above is false.

"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are
approximations, hence the ALMOST.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Jim--" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good
at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are
approximations, hence the ALMOST.

In the context of your original post you should have said "more than" a
third, not "almost" a third.

No big deal. Laugh it off and move on. We all make mistakes.