|
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... The odds of this being a mere coincidence are nearly zero. There is a very remote possiblity that JimH found "Skippers" format in the attack thread so "inspiring" that he deliberately or unconciously copied it (when he inserted his personal attack post into a friendly discussion of contrasting ideas and perceptions). I don't know Chuck. I posed a question here that "Skipper" answered quickly and correctly. It would have taken a bit of time and research in Google for someone else to arrive at the correct answer. I think it is the same person, although he does make a distinction between the "old" Skipper and the new, revived "Skipper". Eisboch I would like to know how I could have known all that personal information the Skipper has thus far shared in various threads. Separating a quote with either ======== or +++++++ has been a trait of mine for a while. I don't think it is unique though. Still waiting for the apology Chuck. |
+++++++++
Chuck, You crave attention. So does Harry You are a word crafter. So is Harry. You claim great knowledge of boats. So does Harry. You are into cameras and photography So is Harry. You are a political extremist. So is Harry. You have rental property. So does Harry. Your personality is much like Harry's You are an expert on everything. So is Harry You torment Skipper. So does Harry You avoided military service. So did Harry You claimed "I served my country a different way". I believe those were Harry's exact words. You think your **** doesn't stink. So does Harry Should we assume that you and Harry are one and the same? ++++++++++ wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuck, it seems that approach, guilty until proven innocent, is a favorite of liberals. -- Are there many conservatives who cannot recognize individual behavior and must fit everything observed into one of a few stereotypes? And the person who said this would certainly fit that bill, eh Chuck? ;-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I always enjoy seeing some right winger blowing down the freeway with his yellow plastic "support our troops" sticker plastered over a door ding on the fender of his Suburban. I often honk and wave, with all my fingers. I am in complete agreement with the literal meaning of that sentiment, (but not the "code" talk it stands for in many cases-"Hurrah for the invasion of Iraq"). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Close, but no cigar. If I had said "all right wingers blow down the freeway in Suburbans......." that would be a stereotype. If you read carefully, I said "some right wingers" blow down the freeway........" I also said I was in complete agreement with the literal meaning of the bumper sticker. I doubt that John H is often in complete agreement with the literal meaning of any of my opinions. Had John said, "a favorite of some liberals" he would not have been stereotyping, but he didn't. He claims to be a fan of binary thinking, and in binary thinking stereotypes are probably indispensible. |
This sounds more like the new Skipper than JimH. Is it possible JiminFl,
Skipper, JimH, and Smithers are one in the same? "JIMinFL" wrote in message ink.net... +++++++++ Chuck, You crave attention. So does Harry You are a word crafter. So is Harry. You claim great knowledge of boats. So does Harry. You are into cameras and photography So is Harry. You are a political extremist. So is Harry. You have rental property. So does Harry. Your personality is much like Harry's You are an expert on everything. So is Harry You torment Skipper. So does Harry You avoided military service. So did Harry You claimed "I served my country a different way". I believe those were Harry's exact words. You think your **** doesn't stink. So does Harry Should we assume that you and Harry are one and the same? ++++++++++ wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuck, it seems that approach, guilty until proven innocent, is a favorite of liberals. -- Are there many conservatives who cannot recognize individual behavior and must fit everything observed into one of a few stereotypes? And the person who said this would certainly fit that bill, eh Chuck? ;-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I always enjoy seeing some right winger blowing down the freeway with his yellow plastic "support our troops" sticker plastered over a door ding on the fender of his Suburban. I often honk and wave, with all my fingers. I am in complete agreement with the literal meaning of that sentiment, (but not the "code" talk it stands for in many cases-"Hurrah for the invasion of Iraq"). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Close, but no cigar. If I had said "all right wingers blow down the freeway in Suburbans......." that would be a stereotype. If you read carefully, I said "some right wingers" blow down the freeway........" I also said I was in complete agreement with the literal meaning of the bumper sticker. I doubt that John H is often in complete agreement with the literal meaning of any of my opinions. Had John said, "a favorite of some liberals" he would not have been stereotyping, but he didn't. He claims to be a fan of binary thinking, and in binary thinking stereotypes are probably indispensible. |
I would have to agree, I don't believe I have seen any one use the
expression or the punctuation in rec.boats before, but it might be common in certain parts of the country or forums. wrote in message oups.com... Starbuck wrote: Chuck, What was the evidence that lead you to believe it was JimH, do you have the exact expression and punctuation? The original post in the attack thread "Open Letter to Chuck Gould" was formatted with a question about "what do you think about his little gem"? A series of ++++++++++'s outlined the top and bottom of a quote extracted from an old post of mine. Skipper had never formatted a post like that, that I could recall, in all the years he was a prolific poster here. About a week later, an attack post from JimH used the *exact* same format, even extracting a statement from context and asking about a "little gem". A series of +++++++++++'s set off the top and bottom of the quote. The odds of this being a mere coincidence are nearly zero. There is a very remote possiblity that JimH found "Skippers" format in the attack thread so "inspiring" that he deliberately or unconciously copied it (when he inserted his personal attack post into a friendly discussion of contrasting ideas and perceptions). You notice a guy hanging around outside a building. He's hiding his face, but wearing a yellow cowboy hat, red vest, polka dot pants, green shoes and is smoking a cigar. You're not really sure who it is. After concluding business in the building, you walk out and see a cigar-smoking guy wearing a yellow cowboy hat, red vest, polka dot pants, and green shoes hanging around in the same location. On the way out, you see his face and recognize him as so-and-so. Wouldn't most people conclude it was the very same guy seen on the way in? There's no proof, of course. Why, during the time you were in the building the first person could have wandered off, and an entirely different person with the same exceptionally unique wardrobe could have, coincidentally, happened along and decided to smoke a cigar in exactly the same spot. Could have, but we routinely punish defendants for crimes when the only defense was an equally weak "could have been......" If the sock-puppetmaster is proven to be somebody else, I will apologize to JimH. The only other likely possibilty (based on some of the phrasing in the latest round of sock-puppet attack posting) is so far back in the pack that the person isn't even to the clubhouse turn when my primary suspect is crossing the wire. :-) The whole thing is pretty silly and a waste of time. JimH will have his apology when and if ever this proves to be somebody else. I think the cigar smoker in the yellow cowboy hat and polka dot pants noticed on the way in is the same cigar smoker noticed on the way out, and I have expressed that opinion. wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: Farrakhan is now stating that the levees *were* (not "may have been") blown up to flood the black areas and save the white areas from flooding around New Orleans. Farrakhan is an extremist. As a guy firmly entrenched in the middle of the road (insert grin), sometimes I wish these radical characters would pipe down a bit. It gives the Limbaugh League and the Hannity Clan a really noisy target and the next thing you know the talk is going around, "Here's what liberals *all* think about this or that........." Are you are saying that you are 'middle of the road' politically and represent the majority of views/opinions of US citizens Chuck? Did you miss "insert grin"? Compared to Farrakhan, I am middle of the road. I don't care whether my views agree or disagree with the majority- I think for myself, and the majority do not think at all. BTW: How are you working on that apology you owe me? ;-) It will be forthcoming if and when I'm convinced that somebody else was sock-puppeting Skipper. There is compelling evidence that it was your handiwork, and no evidence so far that it was anybody else. |
Eisboch,
I knew the answer to your question and the question from Don. Since the real Skipper kept it front and center for over a year, it would be common knowledge to most regulars. "Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... The odds of this being a mere coincidence are nearly zero. There is a very remote possiblity that JimH found "Skippers" format in the attack thread so "inspiring" that he deliberately or unconciously copied it (when he inserted his personal attack post into a friendly discussion of contrasting ideas and perceptions). I don't know Chuck. I posed a question here that "Skipper" answered quickly and correctly. It would have taken a bit of time and research in Google for someone else to arrive at the correct answer. I think it is the same person, although he does make a distinction between the "old" Skipper and the new, revived "Skipper". Eisboch |
JimH,
The personal info "Skipper" included in his insults to Chuck was more than I have ever read in rec.boats. What didn't seem correct was the anger "Skipper" displayed towards Chuck. Skipper never agree with Chuck's politics, and would trade friendly barbs with Chuck, I never saw him express anger or hatred towards him. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... The odds of this being a mere coincidence are nearly zero. There is a very remote possiblity that JimH found "Skippers" format in the attack thread so "inspiring" that he deliberately or unconciously copied it (when he inserted his personal attack post into a friendly discussion of contrasting ideas and perceptions). I don't know Chuck. I posed a question here that "Skipper" answered quickly and correctly. It would have taken a bit of time and research in Google for someone else to arrive at the correct answer. I think it is the same person, although he does make a distinction between the "old" Skipper and the new, revived "Skipper". Eisboch I would like to know how I could have known all that personal information the Skipper has thus far shared in various threads. Separating a quote with either ======== or +++++++ has been a trait of mine for a while. I don't think it is unique though. Still waiting for the apology Chuck. |
|
"Starbuck" wrote in message ... Eisboch, I knew the answer to your question and the question from Don. Since the real Skipper kept it front and center for over a year, it would be common knowledge to most regulars. Since I posted that reply to Chuck, something has occurred to make me think again. I think there's something funny going on here and I am too computer stupid to figure it out. I'll explain later. Eisboch |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The "new" Skipper isn't the Skipper of old. Period. I suspect you are right. Whoops! Excuse me ... I suspect you are correct. Eisboch |
Where did I claim to be a fan of binary thinking? How would you define 'binary thinking'? How do stereotypes and binary thinking go together? Are you stereotyping binary thinkers? (If such things exist?) -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." ROTFLMAO. John, check your sig. You have used that sig to claim for months and months that one must employ binary thinking to reach any sort of decision. Stereotypes facilitate binary thinking because, with a stereotype, entire groups of people can be reduced to a single factor subject to a preexisting conclusion. When you reduce your question to two single factors, you have a binary proposition. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com