|
He cannot fire Rove. There's be nobody left to determine policy.
"ed" wrote in message ... Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has NOTHING to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the Iraq war and now this proves you cant beleive what he says. wrote in message ups.com... Rove under fire White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Printable Version Email This Article Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter. With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I trust they will follow through on this pledge." Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is "disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our national security policy." In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name. Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal investigation was under way. He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. No comment Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about his business as usual Monday. The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way, thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his place in the innermost councils of the White House. Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged in blatant partisan political attacks." Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming her. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear material. In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative. Flat denial In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had nothing to do with the leak. McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004. Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the investigation. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: He cannot fire Rove. There's be nobody left to determine policy. The hell you say. There's still the Tinman with No Heart (Cheney), and the Lion without Bravery (Chickenhawk Rumsfeld) backing up the brainless Scarecrow. Let's not forget the First Dog. :-) |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive. They're also called "rice steamers." Here's one: http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units. I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I was wrong. :-) You was wrong. Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop burner. Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly. If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method of choice. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:18:23 -0700, "ed" wrote:
Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has NOTHING to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the Iraq war and now this proves you cant beleive what he says. wrote in message oups.com... Rove under fire White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Printable Version Email This Article Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter. With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I trust they will follow through on this pledge." Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is "disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our national security policy." In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name. Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal investigation was under way. He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. No comment Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about his business as usual Monday. The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way, thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his place in the innermost councils of the White House. Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged in blatant partisan political attacks." Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming her. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear material. In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative. Flat denial In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had nothing to do with the leak. McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004. Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the investigation. Bush said he would fire a violator of the law. Who violated the law? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive. They're also called "rice steamers." Here's one: http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units. I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I was wrong. :-) You was wrong. Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop burner. Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly. If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method of choice. For once, I have to agree with John. Perhaps some people have issues with measuring cups, or getting used to a particular stove. There are only 3 variables: Quantities, time and heat. Harry...tune into Emeril Live now and then. :-) |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:18:23 -0700, "ed" wrote: Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has NOTHING to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the Iraq war and now this proves you cant beleive what he says. wrote in message roups.com... Rove under fire White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Printable Version Email This Article Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter. With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I trust they will follow through on this pledge." Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is "disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our national security policy." In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name. Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal investigation was under way. He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. No comment Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about his business as usual Monday. The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way, thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his place in the innermost councils of the White House. Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged in blatant partisan political attacks." Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming her. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear material. In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative. Flat denial In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had nothing to do with the leak. McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004. Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the investigation. Bush said he would fire a violator of the law. Who violated the law? If you're around in 30 years, you'll find out. It'll probably take as long as it did to find out the identity of "deep throat". |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive. They're also called "rice steamers." Here's one: http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units. I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I was wrong. :-) You was wrong. Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop burner. Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly. If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method of choice. No ****.........once again harry show how little he knows -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. I have 3 wind up timers. :-) You are in contempt of court. Bailiff, whack this man's pee-pee. |
John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's letting on |
wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities fall into the category of "adult". We'll let you hang around the group if you like, but your duties will be limited to parking cars and licking boots. |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive. They're also called "rice steamers." Here's one: http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units. I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I was wrong. :-) You was wrong. Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop burner. Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly. If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method of choice. For once, I have to agree with John. Perhaps some people have issues with measuring cups, or getting used to a particular stove. There are only 3 variables: Quantities, time and heat. Harry...tune into Emeril Live now and then. :-) Crap. If you're agreeing with me, I must be doing something wrong. : ) -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. Most Chinese restaurants and most Japanese restaurants use rice cookers. They are good for more than just ordinary rice. Do you make homemade sushi? I do. With a rice cooker, you can make "sticky rice" properly so you can form it into the shapes you want for your sushi. I heard Fritz was divorced because, among other things, he burned cooking bag rice. Sticky rice comes out fine in a pot with a lid. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:31:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. I have 3 wind up timers. :-) You are in contempt of court. Bailiff, whack this man's pee-pee. One watch and a good mind work as well as three timers, unless the dog pees on the floor while you're cooking. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities fall into the category of "adult". We'll let you hang around the group if you like, but your duties will be limited to parking cars and licking boots. Is this one of Kevin's more 'adult' moments? "Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?" -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities fall into the category of "adult". I guess that rules you out. So all that is left on *your* side of the fence is Kevin Noble. You must be awful proud Dougy. |
Living in an area of almost an Asian majority, you see lots of rice cookers
for sale in the stores. I do not eat that much rice, and do not want to waste more counter space. And I have no problem cooking rice in a pan. "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. Most Chinese restaurants and most Japanese restaurants use rice cookers. They are good for more than just ordinary rice. Do you make homemade sushi? I do. With a rice cooker, you can make "sticky rice" properly so you can form it into the shapes you want for your sushi. I heard Fritz was divorced because, among other things, he burned cooking bag rice. Sticky rice comes out fine in a pot with a lid. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:03:02 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote: Living in an area of almost an Asian majority, you see lots of rice cookers for sale in the stores. I do not eat that much rice, and do not want to waste more counter space. And I have no problem cooking rice in a pan. "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. Most Chinese restaurants and most Japanese restaurants use rice cookers. They are good for more than just ordinary rice. Do you make homemade sushi? I do. With a rice cooker, you can make "sticky rice" properly so you can form it into the shapes you want for your sushi. I heard Fritz was divorced because, among other things, he burned cooking bag rice. Sticky rice comes out fine in a pot with a lid. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD You're a great American, Bill! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive. They're also called "rice steamers." Here's one: http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units. I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I was wrong. :-) You was wrong. Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop burner. Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly. If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method of choice. For once, I have to agree with John. Perhaps some people have issues with measuring cups, or getting used to a particular stove. There are only 3 variables: Quantities, time and heat. Harry...tune into Emeril Live now and then. :-) Crap. If you're agreeing with me, I must be doing something wrong. : ) Damn, now I have to agree with Doug as well :-) He hit it on the nose.......quantities, time and heat. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-) You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute Rice. Most Chinese restaurants and most Japanese restaurants use rice cookers. They are good for more than just ordinary rice. Do you make homemade sushi? I do. With a rice cooker, you can make "sticky rice" properly so you can form it into the shapes you want for your sushi. I heard Fritz was divorced because, among other things, he burned cooking bag rice. Sticky rice comes out fine in a pot with a lid. I see harry continues with his lying ways........and proves he doesn't know how to cook either. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities fall into the category of "adult". We'll let you hang around the group if you like, but your duties will be limited to parking cars and licking boots. Is this one of Kevin's more 'adult' moments? "Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?" -- John H. John, how does that compare with YOUR famous quote, posted hundreds of times: "Harry, you're a ****ing liar"? |
HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. Kevin could not figure out the difference between libel and slander without a bitchslapping, can't figure out the proper use of "your" vs. "you're" or "there" and "their" yet he knows the law better than the law's author........and he wonders why he is still "King" What a mar00n. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing. No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities fall into the category of "adult". I guess that rules you out. So all that is left on *your* side of the fence is Kevin Noble. You must be awful proud Dougy. And wrong ************************************************** ************************** ***** "It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct. When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker. At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert." The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 ************************************************** ************************** ****8 |
On 14 Jul 2005 06:30:56 -0700, wrote:
John H. wrote: On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's letting on Conjecture. What tripe. Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. How is that conjecture? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Read it. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
"John H." wrote in message ... On 14 Jul 2005 06:30:56 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's letting on Conjecture. What tripe. Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. How is that conjecture? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Read it. But we all know Kevin's limits on reading comprehension! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On 14 Jul 2005 06:30:56 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: What law did Rove violate? -- John H. Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's letting on Conjecture. What tripe. Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of "any information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. How is that conjecture? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Read it. And this http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. |
wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? LMAO, poor harry and kevin have deluded themselves into thinking that their rantings somehow hurt me.......not to mention kevin's stalking behavior in an attempt to find out personal information about me. The bitch slapping kevin received really exposed him as the immature buffoon that he is. And he never could answer the question of "Had he stopped beating his wife yet?" |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? LMAO, poor harry and kevin have deluded themselves into thinking that their rantings somehow hurt me.......not to mention kevin's stalking behavior in an attempt to find out personal information about me. The bitch slapping kevin received really exposed him as the immature buffoon that he is. I don't care whether you are hurt or not. I'm just tossing back at you what you toss as Basskisser. That's all there is to it, ****head. So you must think Kevin is not capable of defending himself or his position in a discussion. I agree. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? LMAO, poor harry and kevin have deluded themselves into thinking that their rantings somehow hurt me.......not to mention kevin's stalking behavior in an attempt to find out personal information about me. The bitch slapping kevin received really exposed him as the immature buffoon that he is. I don't care whether you are hurt or not. I'm just tossing back at you what you toss as Basskisser. That's all there is to it, ****head. So you must think Kevin is not capable of defending himself or his position in a discussion. I agree. harry riding to the rescue of kevin......how cute..............one liar covering for another.......typical. BTW.........that would be toss AT, not toss AS...........harry and kevin....two peas in a pod.......and considering all the homosexual innuenedos they toss around, I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to their "relationship" |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? LMAO, poor harry and kevin have deluded themselves into thinking that their rantings somehow hurt me.......not to mention kevin's stalking behavior in an attempt to find out personal information about me. The bitch slapping kevin received really exposed him as the immature buffoon that he is. I don't care whether you are hurt or not. I'm just tossing back at you what you toss as Basskisser. That's all there is to it, ****head. So you must think Kevin is not capable of defending himself or his position in a discussion. I agree. You really should give up trying to guess what I am thinking. What I toss at Hert, Fritz, Smithers, and the rest of the starters on Assholes United has nothing to do with whether Bass is capable of defending himself. But it has everything to do with the indisputable fact that the members of Assholes United are not here to discuss boats, or even to engage in witty badinage. They're here to disrupt discussions, engage in name-calling, insulting posters whose politics they don't like, and in, general, "play" posters to see what kinds of reactions they can get. Sort of what you have been doing since you joined this NG. After all, you lead the group with over 20,000 OT posts, most of which involved flaming other folks or using foul language. You are the King of OT posters and flamers Krause. Hail to the king. You do this, too, but you're not on Assholes Anonymous, because you frequently engage in fishing and boating discussions in a meaningful way. I disagree with you on most of your philosophical underpinnings, but I believe you are here because you are a boater/fisherperson. Which I am. Thank you. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... HarryKrause wrote: wrote: HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive drinking or your physical abuse of her? I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too. That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on. Are you saying that he abused his child, his wife divorced him, and he has custody of the child? Ouch. I'm not sure about him having custody. It must be pretty ugly, though, he's a frequent poster to alt.support.divorce, and alt.support.single-parent, and others there hint at his indiscretions. Of course, like here, there are only a couple of people who even tolerate him. How is your marijuana crop this year Kevin? Did the marijuana NG you posted to for help give you some good advice? LMAO, poor harry and kevin have deluded themselves into thinking that their rantings somehow hurt me.......not to mention kevin's stalking behavior in an attempt to find out personal information about me. The bitch slapping kevin received really exposed him as the immature buffoon that he is. I don't care whether you are hurt or not. I'm just tossing back at you what you toss as Basskisser. That's all there is to it, ****head. So you must think Kevin is not capable of defending himself or his position in a discussion. I agree. You really should give up trying to guess what I am thinking. What I toss at Hert, Fritz, Smithers, and the rest of the starters on Assholes United has nothing to do with whether Bass is capable of defending himself. But it has everything to do with the indisputable fact that the members of Assholes United are not here to discuss boats, or even to engage in witty badinage. They're here to disrupt discussions, engage in name-calling, insulting posters whose politics they don't like, and in, general, "play" posters to see what kinds of reactions they can get. Sort of what you have been doing since you joined this NG. After all, you lead the group with over 20,000 OT posts, most of which involved flaming other folks or using foul language. typical harry the hypocrite......with his 30+ posts a day, all off topic unless he is lying about his boat ownership or mythical boating trips. You are the King of OT posters and flamers Krause. Hail to the king. You do this, too, but you're not on Assholes Anonymous, because you frequently engage in fishing and boating discussions in a meaningful way. I disagree with you on most of your philosophical underpinnings, but I believe you are here because you are a boater/fisherperson. Which I am. Thank you. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: typical harry the hypocrite......with his 30+ posts a day, all off topic unless he is lying about his boat ownership or mythical boating trips. Awww...the poor widdle tosser of insults is reduced to counting and typo corrections. How's your kid, Paul? On drugs yet? Unbelievable. You just wrote: "But it has everything to do with the indisputable fact that the members of Assholes United are not here to discuss boats, or even to engage in witty badinage. They're here to disrupt discussions, engage in name-calling, insulting posters whose politics they don't like, and in, general, "play" posters to see what kinds of reactions they can get." Sort of like what you just did and have been doing here for years. So you are the President of the Assholes United Club Krause? |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: typical harry the hypocrite......with his 30+ posts a day, all off topic unless he is lying about his boat ownership or mythical boating trips. Awww...the poor widdle tosser of insults is reduced to counting and typo corrections. How's your kid, Paul? On drugs yet? Unbelievable. You just wrote: "But it has everything to do with the indisputable fact that the members of Assholes United are not here to discuss boats, or even to engage in witty badinage. They're here to disrupt discussions, engage in name-calling, insulting posters whose politics they don't like, and in, general, "play" posters to see what kinds of reactions they can get." Sort of like what you just did and have been doing here for years. So you are the President of the Assholes United Club Krause? It is so funny to watch the likes of harry and kevin soil themselves when you throw their own tactics back in their faces. Constantly whining about others doing the very thing they are guilty of. LMAO |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com