On 14 Jul 2005 15:56:37 -0700, " wrote:



*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


As predicted, the Chuck spin begins....as does the "who, me?" routine.
Predictable.

And I am still waiting for the link to where I said my "on-topic posts are
*far*
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a *significant* amount." ...your quote (I added the *'s ).

I never said that. You know it. An apology is in order if you are man
enough to step to the plate Chuck.

Are you man enough to admit when *you* are wrong and slammed/flamed someone
for no reason?

1). I didn't slam or flame anybody- reason or not. I told altman that
you wouldn't be likely to post insults or make personal remarks because
you were too busy making on-topic contribtutions to the NG. By your own
count, your claim your on-topic posts certainly exceed my own. Where is
the slam? Where is the flame?

2). If I was wrong, perhaps it was when I made the statement that you
were unlikely to post personal insults or remarks. In fact, it looks as
though I was very incorrect when I stated you were unlikely to post
personal insults or remarks, and so of course I will do the proper,
honorable, thing. "I hereby apologize for my mischaracterization of
JimH as in individual unlikely to post insults or personal remarks."

Hopefully that squares us up on this. :-)

Mostest snide!

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

This thread has defined Chuck as a man and as a person.

Pathetic in both counts.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 15:56:37 -0700, "
wrote:



*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs
at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if
you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed
to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about
a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


As predicted, the Chuck spin begins....as does the "who, me?" routine.
Predictable.

And I am still waiting for the link to where I said my "on-topic posts
are
*far*
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering
mine
(yours) by a *significant* amount." ...your quote (I added the *'s ).

I never said that. You know it. An apology is in order if you are man
enough to step to the plate Chuck.

Are you man enough to admit when *you* are wrong and slammed/flamed
someone
for no reason?

1). I didn't slam or flame anybody- reason or not. I told altman that
you wouldn't be likely to post insults or make personal remarks because
you were too busy making on-topic contribtutions to the NG. By your own
count, your claim your on-topic posts certainly exceed my own. Where is
the slam? Where is the flame?

2). If I was wrong, perhaps it was when I made the statement that you
were unlikely to post personal insults or remarks. In fact, it looks as
though I was very incorrect when I stated you were unlikely to post
personal insults or remarks, and so of course I will do the proper,
honorable, thing. "I hereby apologize for my mischaracterization of
JimH as in individual unlikely to post insults or personal remarks."

Hopefully that squares us up on this. :-)

Mostest snide!

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



OK....I will post it. Here is what I said in that thread:

"My recent *on topic* posts far exceed yours. You have also started
far more *off topic* posts."

You accused me of saying my "on-topic posts are far more numerous than most
partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a significant
amount."

I await your apology.

You expect me to apologize because my memory of a month-old thread
included the words "significantly outnumber" rather than the actual
quote "far exceed"?

Go **** to windward.

The issue is whether you expressed the claim that you have denied
claiming, not what exact word was used in making the claim.. Clearly
you did make the claim, and you're now down to the Bill Clinton defense
of screwing around with the definition of "sex". How does that make you
feel, to be reduced to Clintonese?

And there are more of your quotes where that came from- but it's
obvious that dragging them out here one by one will only prolong your
technically oriented, desperate denials.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues
of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are
far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering
mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to
weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I
said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made
no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended
up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



OK....I will post it. Here is what I said in that thread:

"My recent *on topic* posts far exceed yours. You have also started
far more *off topic* posts."

You accused me of saying my "on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most
partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a
significant
amount."

I await your apology.

You expect me to apologize because my memory of a month-old thread
included the words "significantly outnumber" rather than the actual
quote "far exceed"?

Go **** to windward.

Don't spin it. You were wrong and purposefully exageragated what I actually
said in a lame attempt to make a point. I never said anything about other
participants here. My comment was about my *recent* posts compared to
yours. You know it. I know it.

The old "who me?" ploy has been played once too many times Chuckie.

This thread has defined you as to the type of man and type of person you
are....for all to see.

You are pathetic on both counts.

Go **** yourself.

Gould,
It is good to see you stay above the fray. Some people would try to be
snide and come across as a horses ass. I am glad you didn't.


wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs
at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


As predicted, the Chuck spin begins....as does the "who, me?" routine.
Predictable.

And I am still waiting for the link to where I said my "on-topic posts
are
*far*
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a *significant* amount." ...your quote (I added the *'s ).

I never said that. You know it. An apology is in order if you are man
enough to step to the plate Chuck.

Are you man enough to admit when *you* are wrong and slammed/flamed
someone
for no reason?

1). I didn't slam or flame anybody- reason or not. I told altman that
you wouldn't be likely to post insults or make personal remarks because
you were too busy making on-topic contribtutions to the NG. By your own
count, your claim your on-topic posts certainly exceed my own. Where is
the slam? Where is the flame?

2). If I was wrong, perhaps it was when I made the statement that you
were unlikely to post personal insults or remarks. In fact, it looks as
though I was very incorrect when I stated you were unlikely to post
personal insults or remarks, and so of course I will do the proper,
honorable, thing. "I hereby apologize for my mischaracterization of
JimH as in individual unlikely to post insults or personal remarks."

Hopefully that squares us up on this. :-)

Gould,
It is statements such as this one that made me change my mind about you
trolling for a fight. You would never stoop to that level.


wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
I changed my mind, I am sure you would never throw snotty remarks towards
Jim, you are above that. ; )


More specifically to the point, JimH is a mature, intelligent adult who
would certainly never give anybody a *reason* to toss snotty remarks in
his direction. By his own admission, he has a wealth of boating
knowledge and experience and is a prolific on-topic poster here.
Participation by such people should be encouraged, and I would
certainly be doing the NG a disservice to follow JimH around the NG and
dump buckets of personal crap into his threads. (Consider the
"impressive sniping" thread for example- it was of such extreme value
to the NG that I made only a single comment and it didn't even mention
JimH). We need more guys like JimH. That's exactly why I defended him
against the unwarranted personal attack. :-)

Harry,
I have asked Chuck the same question about you, and I have gotten some
thoughtful answers.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
wrote:

snip
And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


I know you like to look for the best in people...but sometimes you just
have to 'call a spade a spade'.


Chuck is among the most decent souls who post here. Why he even bothers
with the Assholes United is beyond me. I've asked him from time to time
and even gotten some thoughtful answers.


--
Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term.

On 13 Jul 2005 22:51:56 -0700, "
wrote:


To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

My brother's marina has two of these on the same pier he's on. I like
the styling, although they seem a little slab sided to me. It's kind
of like putting the sixties style cabin on a box and making the front
end pointy if you get my drift.

My brother went out on one and he said they tend to bounce a lot -
they don't seem to have any real weight to them. Any thoughts on
that?

Live long and prosper,

Tom