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


Funny comment from a guy who is one of the few proven liars in the
group.
("That old ad did have my address and phone number, I edited them out
early this morning"). Just because you finally confessed and apologized
for that whopper that doesn't give you license to call "liar" when
somebody makes a general statement (saying that you claim to post that
way all the time and the microscopically correct and exact quote turns
out to be a statement that it had "been a trait for a while.") Yeah,
your "edited the ad" story was a small lie, but having told it sort of
knocks the legs out from under your high liar-hunting horse, doesn't
it?


Chuck finally 'takes the gloves off'!
Unfortunately, trying to be understanding and forgiving in this newsgroup
is viewed as a weakness.

Chuck took the gloves off several days ago when he came up with this
ridiculous allegation.

I have posted my proof.

Let's see how long it takes Chuck to apologize to me for his whopper of a
lie.

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:05:38 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


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


Funny comment from a guy who is one of the few proven liars in the
group.
("That old ad did have my address and phone number, I edited them out
early this morning"). Just because you finally confessed and apologized
for that whopper that doesn't give you license to call "liar" when
somebody makes a general statement (saying that you claim to post that
way all the time and the microscopically correct and exact quote turns
out to be a statement that it had "been a trait for a while.") Yeah,
your "edited the ad" story was a small lie, but having told it sort of
knocks the legs out from under your high liar-hunting horse, doesn't
it?


Chuck finally 'takes the gloves off'!
Unfortunately, trying to be understanding and forgiving in this newsgroup
is viewed as a weakness.

Chuck took the gloves off several days ago when he came up with this
ridiculous allegation.

I have posted my proof.

Let's see how long it takes Chuck to apologize to me for his whopper of a
lie.


Jim, I don't think the phrase 'whopper of a lie' is really appropriate, do you?
If he thought you were spoofing Skipper, and so stated, then he wasn't lying. He
was stating a belief, which may have been erroneous.

If Bush thought there were WMD in Iraq, and so stated, then he wasn't lying. He
was stating a belief, which may have been erroneous.

By using the phrase 'whopper of a lie', you are putting Chuck in the same
category as a couple of other folks in the group. He may be mistaken, and he may
owe you an apology, but he sure doesn't belong with those two!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:05:38 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


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


Funny comment from a guy who is one of the few proven liars in the
group.
("That old ad did have my address and phone number, I edited them out
early this morning"). Just because you finally confessed and apologized
for that whopper that doesn't give you license to call "liar" when
somebody makes a general statement (saying that you claim to post that
way all the time and the microscopically correct and exact quote turns
out to be a statement that it had "been a trait for a while.") Yeah,
your "edited the ad" story was a small lie, but having told it sort of
knocks the legs out from under your high liar-hunting horse, doesn't
it?


Chuck finally 'takes the gloves off'!
Unfortunately, trying to be understanding and forgiving in this
newsgroup
is viewed as a weakness.

Chuck took the gloves off several days ago when he came up with this
ridiculous allegation.

I have posted my proof.

Let's see how long it takes Chuck to apologize to me for his whopper of a
lie.


Jim, I don't think the phrase 'whopper of a lie' is really appropriate, do
you?
If he thought you were spoofing Skipper, and so stated, then he wasn't
lying. He
was stating a belief, which may have been erroneous.

If Bush thought there were WMD in Iraq, and so stated, then he wasn't
lying. He
was stating a belief, which may have been erroneous.

By using the phrase 'whopper of a lie', you are putting Chuck in the same
category as a couple of other folks in the group. He may be mistaken, and
he may
owe you an apology, but he sure doesn't belong with those two!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

The fact that he made the allegation with no proof is a whopper of a lie to
*me*.

*JimH* wrote:

Chuck took the gloves off several days ago when he came up with this
ridiculous allegation.

Let's see how long it takes Chuck to apologize to me for his whopper of a
lie.

You really need to have personal dealings with this blowhard to KNOW
he's a charlatan. Must be his used car salesman training. Believe me,
Chucky IS a charlatan. You will only get an apology AFTER the cows have
come home. He KNOWS you are correct now.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:

You ain't Skipper.

And you ain't Krause. He would NEVER go out West for real boating
adventures, particularly into the real waters of the Pacific. Krazy
Kerry Krause is strictly a local East Coast polluted pond kinda boater.
He's just not up The Challenge.

Besides, Krause knows how to write.

--
Skipper

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:13:37 -0400, PocoLoco
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:08:51 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:48:48 -0400, PocoLoco
wrote:

On 30 Sep 2005 19:47:48 -0700, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 18:12:35 -0700, wrote:

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.

Not really.

Mathematically, in particular when building a truth table, any number
of inputs always resolve to two states - 1 and 0 (yes/no,
true/false).
This is true for any number system actually no matter how it is
expressed. But I digress.

There are varying decision states in truth tables, but they still
resolve to 1 or 0.

In fact, if you combine varying states of NOT, OR, AND, NOR, NAND and
EOR and resolve their states, you always end up with either 1 or 0.

This is true for any given number of inputs.

So, in effect, almost all decisions, if proper rules of logic are
applied, are binary - yes/no, true/false.

Can't be any other way.


Only when probable results are considered. Many decisions require moral
judgment and evaluation and in some cases will transcend the bounds of
objectivity or logic.

Example?

Judgement and evaluation are part of the decision making process, but
they are
not the decision.

Not really.

Judgment and evaluation are emotive states and not relevant.

Only facts can resolve true/false statements.

We disagree. Evaluating alternatives is part of the process. We use facts
to
evaluate alternatives.

There are no "alternatives". Once you start searching for
alternatives, then the process of discovering the truth is corrupted.

The truth is what ever the wife evaluates and emotes.

It looks like Harry see's "Smithers" everywhere he looks.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

You ain't Skipper.

And you ain't Krause. He would NEVER go out West for real boating
adventures, particularly into the real waters of the Pacific. Krazy
Kerry Krause is strictly a local East Coast polluted pond kinda boater.
He's just not up The Challenge.

Besides, Krause knows how to write.

--
Skipper


--

Sorry, Smithers, but I didn't spend all those hours on damned airplane to
get to Hawai'i so I could piddle around on a boat. Been out fishing here
twice, and that was sufficient in "boating." I even played a round of
golf, which is not among my favorite sports. Went snokeling, tried
surfing, visited a shooting range, flew to another island to see
volcanoes, took a couple of nature hikes, took in a museum, ate
interesting food, kayaked a river, toured a couple of farms and a
plantation, et cetera. You know, the touristy stuff. Great fun.





Republicans: Incompetence. Indictments. Misguided policies. Misplaced
priorities.

Harry,
You posted a week's worth of activities, how did you get all that great
stuff done in 4 days, especially since you have been posting on rec.boats
through out each of the 4 days you have been in Hawaii. I am beginning to
think this Harry Krause might be "Smithers".

I think we all are being "Smithered" again.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

You ain't Skipper.

And you ain't Krause. He would NEVER go out West for real boating
adventures, particularly into the real waters of the Pacific. Krazy
Kerry Krause is strictly a local East Coast polluted pond kinda boater.
He's just not up The Challenge.

Besides, Krause knows how to write.

--
Skipper


--

Sorry, Smithers, but I didn't spend all those hours on damned airplane to
get to Hawai'i so I could piddle around on a boat. Been out fishing here
twice, and that was sufficient in "boating." I even played a round of
golf, which is not among my favorite sports. Went snokeling, tried
surfing, visited a shooting range, flew to another island to see
volcanoes, took a couple of nature hikes, took in a museum, ate
interesting food, kayaked a river, toured a couple of farms and a
plantation, et cetera. You know, the touristy stuff. Great fun.





Republicans: Incompetence. Indictments. Misguided policies. Misplaced
priorities.

Mr. Starbuck wrote:
Harry,
You posted a week's worth of activities, how did you get all that great
stuff done in 4 days, especially since you have been posting on rec.boats
through out each of the 4 days you have been in Hawaii. I am beginning to
think this Harry Krause might be "Smithers".

I think we all are being "Smithered" again.



Who would know better than you...Smithers?

Harry Krause wrote:


Sorry, Smithers, but I didn't spend all those hours on damned airplane
to get to Hawai'i so I could piddle around on a boat...You know,(just
did) the touristy stuff.

Just the wimpy touristy stuff, huh? Well then, you might just be the
Harry Krause we know about.

--
Skipper