Link to some obserations about a boat
 

Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

Chuck, again I really enjoy reading your article. If I had known you were in
my neck of the woods, you should have let me known, I would have bought you
lunch. Again thanks for the great reading.

Ed
wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

wrote:
wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

Not likely. Why would you even begin to think that JimH would be on my
case over this, or anything else? JimH is far too busy making useful
contribtutions to the NG. By his own count, (and what reason would we
have to doubt his word?) his on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine by a significant
amount.

Besides, few people would have the 'nads to protest (in this forum)
something posted elsewhere. Someone can justify getting all cranked up
about posting the link, if desired, but if anyone decides to make a lot
of insulting personal remarks in the other forum I have the ability to
simply delete such useless, OT, flaming, crap- and I will. :-)

wrote in message
ps.com...


wrote:
wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

Not likely. Why would you even begin to think that JimH would be on my
case over this, or anything else? JimH is far too busy making useful
contribtutions to the NG. By his own count, (and what reason would we
have to doubt his word?) his on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine by a significant
amount.

Liar. Please provide proof that I said that Chuck. I never did, and you
know it.



Besides, few people would have the 'nads to protest (in this forum)
something posted elsewhere. Someone can justify getting all cranked up
about posting the link, if desired, but if anyone decides to make a lot
of insulting personal remarks in the other forum I have the ability to
simply delete such useless, OT, flaming, crap- and I will. :-)


Why the need to throw me into this thread of yours Chuck?

Are you that obsessed with me Chuck that *you* had to turn your own boating
thread into an OT flaming thread.

Pretty pathetic.

??????!

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. May I suggest you not
press this issue? It will come back to bite you on the arse as you'll
surely be reduced to parsing individual syllables in an attempt to
maintain your denial that you ever said you make a relatively high
number of boating posts and that they specifically outnumber my own. I
don't bother keeping a journal of your stuff, so if you're running the
"don't archive" bit to flush the evidence of previous statements I
won't be able to produce the statements- but otherwise, no problem.
None what so ever. I seem to recall once posting "google is not your
friend" or something very similar in response to one of those claims,
so even if I can't remember your exact words I'll soon remember my
response closely enough to track down the exchange. In your position on
this issue, a wise man would stand down.

2. But am I confused, or what? Somebody else says "JimH will be on your
butt for posting a boating item", and I came to your defense stating
first that there should be no reason for anybody to assume you would be
on my butt for something, and secondly that you were too busy making
useful contributions to the NG to bother chasing somebody around the
internet. I repeated your claim (and declined to dispute) that your are
a leading on-topic poster and post more on-topic material than I do.

How is that an "OT, flaming" remark?

What reason would you have to assume that my general statement about
unnamed individuals who might, hypothetically, respond to some comments
about a boat with personal insult was intended to apply to you? Do you
somehow see your own reflection in that generic description? I would be
very curious to know......

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.

Now spin on Mr. Spinmeister.

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


wrote in message
ps.com...


wrote:
wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

Not likely. Why would you even begin to think that JimH would be on my
case over this, or anything else? JimH is far too busy making useful
contribtutions to the NG. By his own count, (and what reason would we
have to doubt his word?) his on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine by a significant
amount.

Besides, few people would have the 'nads to protest (in this forum)
something posted elsewhere. Someone can justify getting all cranked up
about posting the link, if desired, but if anyone decides to make a lot
of insulting personal remarks in the other forum I have the ability to
simply delete such useless, OT, flaming, crap- and I will. :-)

Yep. And *he* was the one who turned it OT and did the flaming.

I did not take his little troll until he threw me into it by accusing me of
saying things I never said.

He ruined his own thread when he claimed in his initial post to the thread
that others would.

Time for Chuck to take another break from this place.


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


wrote in message
ps.com...


wrote:
wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments
about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow, I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear. Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so, and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

Not likely. Why would you even begin to think that JimH would be on my
case over this, or anything else? JimH is far too busy making useful
contribtutions to the NG. By his own count, (and what reason would we
have to doubt his word?) his on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine by a significant
amount.

Besides, few people would have the 'nads to protest (in this forum)
something posted elsewhere. Someone can justify getting all cranked up
about posting the link, if desired, but if anyone decides to make a lot
of insulting personal remarks in the other forum I have the ability to
simply delete such useless, OT, flaming, crap- and I will. :-)

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Yep. And *he* was the one who turned it OT and did the flaming.

I did not take his little troll until he threw me into it by accusing me
of
saying things I never said.

He ruined his own thread when he claimed in his initial post to the thread
that others would.

Time for Chuck to take another break from this place.

Just another liebral whining about others doing what they themsleves are
guilty of.




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


wrote in message
ps.com...


wrote:
wrote:
Oh, oh. Here we go again- another boating related post. :-)

(To avoid the outraged screams that I might dare to post comments
about
a boat here, as well as the personal insults that inevitably follow,
I
will simply provide a link to a site where the comments appear.
Those
who view the comments will have made a deliberate effort to do so,
and
can't claim that I'm polluting the rec.boats NG.)

To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...frm/thread/bf8
bbc2222f751d8/cb22423fd39d7e52#cb22423fd39d7e52

Those who would rather not, please don't. Thanks.

JimH will be all over you for daring to post something about boats!!

Not likely. Why would you even begin to think that JimH would be on my
case over this, or anything else? JimH is far too busy making useful
contribtutions to the NG. By his own count, (and what reason would we
have to doubt his word?) his on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine by a significant
amount.

Besides, few people would have the 'nads to protest (in this forum)
something posted elsewhere. Someone can justify getting all cranked up
about posting the link, if desired, but if anyone decides to make a lot
of insulting personal remarks in the other forum I have the ability to
simply delete such useless, OT, flaming, crap- and I will. :-)

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.

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



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.

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?

*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.



Now spin on Mr. Spinmeister.

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.

You google it.....you supposedly found it. Post it Chuck. Post what I said
in that thread as I did not say my "on-topic posts are far more numerous
than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a
significant amount."

I never said that and you know it. Liar.

So are you man enough to apologize?

I guess not.

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.

*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. :-)

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. :-)

On 14 Jul 2005 15:24:04 -0700, " wrote:



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.

Most snide!

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

On 14 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0700, " wrote:



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. :-)

Moster snide!

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

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
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


This is one of the "walkthrough" items I do every month, and we don't
get underway in the boat or claim that we have. The dealer says the
boat will do over 30mph, and depending on sea state its easy to imagine
there could indeed be quite a bit of bouncing. Some of the
characteristics that make the boat trailerable, such as the light
displacement and short waterline, give it a short and shallow
"footprint". Peeling off some speed *should* reduce the bounce, but one
would need to take the boat out to determine whether bouncing is much
of a problem and how speed related it might be. Proper adjustment of
trim and tabs would also have an effect on the amount of bouncing
experienced.

The "slab sides" are part of the evolution of this model. When it was
introduced, there was less freeboard but there was an engine box in the
cockpit. Inceasing the freeboard made it possible to place the engine
under a hatch in the cockpit and free'd up a lot of additional space.
Just another one of the compromises that every boat on the market is
forced to deal with: more of this means less off- or too much of-
something else.

John H. wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0700, " wrote:



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. :-)

Moster snide!

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


Why would you characterize my remarks as "snide"?
Are you saying my favorable characterization of JimH is untrue?
Why would you think that?
Must I begin defending this fine, prolific on-topic contributor from an
even greater number of attacks? Just a few posts ago, he expressed his
own admiration for me by suggesting I undertake a task that most people
would find physiologically impossible. He surely has a high regard for
my abilities, and apparently considers some of them almost
supernatural- what reason would I have to think less of him than he
does of me?

Real Name wrote:
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.

I'm flattered that you found time in the midst your own vast numbers of
positive, on-topic, not-personally oriented contributions to the NG to
even bother evaluating my motives.

And if I *were* trolling for a fight, JimH would be the last person I
would expect to take the bait.

Real Name wrote:
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.

As am I. My favorable remarks about JimH could only be considered
"snide" by those who believe that they're untrue.

*JimH* wrote:
"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.


This thread speaks for itself Krause.

Apologize all you want for Chuck Gould but his personal ethics and morals
are clearly evidenced by his replies.

A pathetic old man.....just like you Krause...no wonder you are comrades.


Thanks, JimH. May I be truly worthy of your continued esteem.

I am a bit confused, however, by a previous conversation.

From your position of moral and intellecual superiority, perhaps you
can clarify how your response "Go **** Yourself" addressed my concern
that the phrase that you didn't use ("substantially outnumber") carries
an entirely different meaning than the phrase you admit using,(while
making the claim you deny making) "far exceed"? For those of us with
old, and pathetic intellects there is a specific disconnect between "I
didn't claim anything of the sort" and "These are the exact words I
used..." (when I didn't claim anything of the sort). I await a crumb or
two from your highly elevated table......

wrote in message
oups.com...


Real Name wrote:
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.

As am I. My favorable remarks about JimH could only be considered
"snide" by those who believe that they're untrue.


And the wheel goes round and round.....

wrote:
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?


That bunch of pig-pilers can't follow a thread if their collective
lives depended on it!!!!!

*JimH* wrote:

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


I love how you come and start insulting, and Fritz is right there with
his nose stuck up your ass. I find it odd that you chastise others for
name calling, and insulting, but then YOU do it, and also you don't
chastise your boyfriend Fritz for doing the same.

wrote:
*JimH* wrote:

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


I love how you come and start insulting, and Fritz is right there with
his nose stuck up your ass. I find it odd that you chastise others for
name calling, and insulting, but then YOU do it, and also you don't
chastise your boyfriend Fritz for doing the same.

Oh no. Here I am once again called upon to defend the morally and
intellectually superior JimH against an unwarranted personal attack. No
rest for the weary....

Please be aware that JimH is graciously offering the rest of us the
benefit of his superior moral standards. He is capable of seeing things
in ways that those of more "pathetic" stature or more advanced age
cannot ever hope to appreciate. When JimH makes personal remarks, he is
surely motivated by a generous concern for the welfare of his fellow
human beings and is hoping that his criticisms will be considered
instructive commentary. I would be surprised to learn that improving
the morals, ethics, personalities, and intellects of others isn't one
of JimH's highest priorities. While he has never shared his line of
work with the NG, I think it rather obvious that he must be a highly
respected *judge* to whom other jurists flock for sage opinions.
Perhaps we'll soon see his name discussed in connection with a vacancy
on the Supreme Court. We are truly lucky to have JimH take so many
hours out of every busy day to instruct the rest of us in our
shortcomings and deficiencies.

It is only fitting that JimH have a few "disciples" at his command, so
while the actions and comments of others posting here might be
individually questionable, it all makes sense when one considers that
they have been enlisted in the crusade to improve the morals,
personalities, and intellects of mankind by the exalted JimH. One
blessed and baptized by the leader, these fellow-travelers should
likewise be exempt from any criticism. Remember, they are only hoping
to improve the rest of us to a point where we reach their own lofty
standards. That's a very noble mission.

Why torment JimH or his apostles so? It only distracts them from their
important work.

On 15 Jul 2005 07:40:54 -0700, " wrote:



John H. wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0700, " wrote:



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. :-)

Moster snide!

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


Why would you characterize my remarks as "snide"?
Are you saying my favorable characterization of JimH is untrue?
Why would you think that?
Must I begin defending this fine, prolific on-topic contributor from an
even greater number of attacks? Just a few posts ago, he expressed his
own admiration for me by suggesting I undertake a task that most people
would find physiologically impossible. He surely has a high regard for
my abilities, and apparently considers some of them almost
supernatural- what reason would I have to think less of him than he
does of me?

Lend me your ears. I come not to put down JimH, but to praise him!

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