I enjoy taking vacations off season, it is quieter and less expensive. When
my kids were young, we took them to Disney World the week after Labor Day.
We walked directly onto every ride, without any waiting. We could get into
every restaurant without a reservation, and it was cooler than the summer.
I have taken many Caribbean Vacations in the summer, I think the thrill of a
hurricane adds to the excitement. You can buy insurance cheaply to protect
from extreme weather.

The only problem with Hawaii off season is the rain, the weather is great
year round.

Now if I owned a 36' Lobster Boat, I know I would have to take my vacations
off season. ; )




"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Skip Starbuck" wrote in message
...
JohnH,
In all of the groups I read, Harry is the only person who takes a
vacation,
and then posts in the morning, again in the afternoon, and then again
in the
evening. I would have no desire to post while on vacation, but my wife
would be very upset if I found posting on rec.boats more enjoyable than
having a vacation with her.

Then again, if my wife (did I mention she is a young beautiful bride?)
was
married to someone like Harry, she might prefer if I was typing away in
rec.boats than spending time with her.

Did anyone notice that harry went to hawaii in the extreme
offseason?.......looks like he is spending all his money on gas for his
lobsta boat.



"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:16:03 -0400, "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.


In three weeks we leave for our Disney Cruise. Please keep track of
the
number
of posts and amount of time I spend trying to attract the attention of
folks
while I'm on vacation!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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

Faking this vacation sucks.

Anything, ANYTHING, to get away from those local polluted waters and
pretend you're in the vast Pacific, huh?

--
Skipper

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Faking this vacation sucks.


Harry,
it is ok, we understand your need to seek emotional support.

This guy sounds more and more like the real Skipper. If he isn't, I am very
impressed that anyone would be able to spoof an IP from Derby Kansas. When
Krause tried to "spoof" someone he screwed up because his IP and his sock
puppet had the same IP.

This guy, whoever he is, is much smarter than Krause.


"Skipper" wrote in message
...
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

"Mr. Skip Starbuck" wrote:

This guy sounds more and more like the real Skipper...This guy,
whoever he is, is much smarter than Krause.

Indeed!

--
Skipper

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
"Mr. Skip Starbuck" wrote:

This guy sounds more and more like the real Skipper...This guy,
whoever he is, is much smarter than Krause.

Indeed!

--
Skipper

Skipper wrote:
*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


More evidence the sock puppet isn't the real Skipper. Here's a post
from the real Skipper from back in 2001:

Quote:

Chuck Gould does not spam the NG. Your comments should go to spammers
Lee and Low Blow.

Chuck is an honest broker. Had I used him as my representative for a
boat I'd seen before contacting him, he would have saved us a lot of
grief by an unethical listing broker. I felt an obligation to the
listing broker who had originally shown us the boat. That was a
mistake.
If you meet Chuck, I think you'd offer him a apology for your
unfortunate condemnation.

End quote:

If this were the real Skipper, one would have to ask the following
question:

"Were you a lying sack of crap in 2001, or are you a lying sack of crap
now?"


Fortunately, it's a goofy sock puppet. Either that or the meds aren't
working anymore. I can't believe Dave woujld undergo such a radical
change in personality, and show up here gunning for people with no
provocation whatsoever. Gotta be a sock puppet, a conclusion I continue
to support based on an analysis of posting style.

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.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Moral evaluation and judgments influence the group of factors selected
for consideration in a decision.

On 2 Oct 2005 16:33:08 -0700, wrote:


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.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Moral evaluation and judgments influence the group of factors selected
for consideration in a decision.

The factors selected for consideration or evaluation may be multiple. However,
the final decision is a result of binary thinking -- either yes or no, this or
that.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 2 Oct 2005 16:30:07 -0700, wrote:


Skipper wrote:
*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


More evidence the sock puppet isn't the real Skipper. Here's a post
from the real Skipper from back in 2001:

Quote:

Chuck Gould does not spam the NG. Your comments should go to spammers
Lee and Low Blow.

Chuck is an honest broker. Had I used him as my representative for a
boat I'd seen before contacting him, he would have saved us a lot of
grief by an unethical listing broker. I felt an obligation to the
listing broker who had originally shown us the boat. That was a
mistake.
If you meet Chuck, I think you'd offer him a apology for your
unfortunate condemnation.

End quote:

If this were the real Skipper, one would have to ask the following
question:

"Were you a lying sack of crap in 2001, or are you a lying sack of crap
now?"


Fortunately, it's a goofy sock puppet. Either that or the meds aren't
working anymore. I can't believe Dave woujld undergo such a radical
change in personality, and show up here gunning for people with no
provocation whatsoever. Gotta be a sock puppet, a conclusion I continue
to support based on an analysis of posting style.

The issue is whether or not JimH is the sock puppet, as you said. He's shown
some evidence which sure seems to indicate he isn't.

What say you?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes