|
OT--Farrakhan states levees *were* blown up.
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. "Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee," Farrakhan explained, before cautioning that the New Orleans Democrat "didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater." Farrakhan then added: "I say they blew it [up]." "Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall," Farrakhan said. "One diver - a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Making this kind of accusation is akin to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The man ought to put up proof...or be arrested for inciting a riot. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... 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. "Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee," Farrakhan explained, before cautioning that the New Orleans Democrat "didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater." Farrakhan then added: "I say they blew it [up]." "Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall," Farrakhan said. "One diver - a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Making this kind of accusation is akin to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The man ought to put up proof...or be arrested for inciting a riot. He, kevin and harry ought to be locked up and put away for gross stupidity. |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:48:54 -0400, "P Fritz"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... 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. "Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee," Farrakhan explained, before cautioning that the New Orleans Democrat "didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater." Farrakhan then added: "I say they blew it [up]." "Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall," Farrakhan said. "One diver - a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Making this kind of accusation is akin to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The man ought to put up proof...or be arrested for inciting a riot. He, kevin and harry ought to be locked up and put away for gross stupidity. In the same cell. They'd probably find kevin real purty! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... 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. He's a dumbass! |
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:48:54 -0400, "P Fritz" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... 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. "Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee," Farrakhan explained, before cautioning that the New Orleans Democrat "didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater." Farrakhan then added: "I say they blew it [up]." "Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall," Farrakhan said. "One diver - a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them." Well, debris chunks means it's a brick or concrete as the delta is all sand. So it's probably part of a concrete wall from a demolished house. Seems most of the buildings in that area are destroyed by fire (pre Katrina). That would be my first guess unless the chunk was found in a tree. sigh Besides we all saw the water flowing over the levee walls. |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:48:54 -0400, "P Fritz" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 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. "Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee," Farrakhan explained, before cautioning that the New Orleans Democrat "didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater." Farrakhan then added: "I say they blew it [up]." "Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall," Farrakhan said. "One diver - a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them." Well, debris chunks means it's a brick or concrete as the delta is all sand. So it's probably part of a concrete wall from a demolished house. Seems most of the buildings in that area are destroyed by fire (pre Katrina). That would be my first guess unless the chunk was found in a tree. sigh Besides we all saw the water flowing over the levee walls. And when a levee breaks there is always a huge cavern gouged by the water flowing through. One if the places I fish in the Sacramento Delta is lower sherman Island. A lake now that is about 12' deep. But the levee break is 50' deep. |
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........." |
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? |
"*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? BTW: How are you working on that apology you owe me? ;-) |
*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. |
|
Chuck,
What was the evidence that lead you to believe it was JimH, do you have the exact expression and punctuation? 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. |
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? Make that "suspected" until proven innocent. Guilt would be a matter for a court of law. Not guilty merely means there isn't sufficient proof. Few people are ever really "innocent". |
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"). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:37 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
wrote in message roups.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"). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That *was* a pretty good one, JimH. Chuck would have to agree. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
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. |
*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. |
*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? BTW: How are you working on that apology you owe me? ;-) Maybe when you apologize for your lies. Remember? |
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 |
"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. |
|
JIMinFL wrote: +++++++++ Chuck, You crave attention. So does Harry Arguable. You are a word crafter. So is Harry. So are tens of millions of others. You claim great knowledge of boats. So does Harry. I never claimed a thing. If somebody concludes I know something about boats, that would be their conclusion to draw. You are into cameras and photography So is Harry. So are tens of millions of others. You are a political extremist. So is Harry. Really? Harry's a moderate, I'm a liberal, and many voices in the NG are far more extreme than Harry's or mine. You have rental property. So does Harry. So do tens of millions of others. Your personality is much like Harry's Naw, if my personality were like Harry's I'd be flaming your arse in a major way. You are an expert on everything. So is Harry Really? Well thanks. I never really thought I was an expert on anything. Nice to see that you think so highly of me, and I'm sure Harry probably appreciates the compliment as well. You torment Skipper. So does Harry Yeah, I really torment Skipper. Just think of the torment the poor sock puppet is having to endure as he launches attack threads ("open letter to.....") and posts false, hateful, stories about his meetings with me that are not only untrue, but contradict comments the real Skipper made about those same meetings shortly after they occured. Yeah, I'm just beatin' hell out of the poor guy. You avoided military service. So did Harry You claimed "I served my country a different way". I believe those were Harry's exact words. I was drafted and fulfilled my obligation under the law. I don't know that the same can be said for Harry. You think your **** doesn't stink. So does Harry You have some basis for this claim? Depending on recent consumption, my **** can stink pretty badly. I've never discussed the smell of **** with Harry, so I can't comment there. Should we assume that you and Harry are one and the same? You can assume anything you like. But remember, if this were Harry he would have called you about 50 names by this point in the post. :-) ++++++++++ |
Starbuck wrote: 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. JimH claims he uses it here all the time. I should begin paying more attention to his posts. Had I been doing so, and if he does routinely use that style here, then I would have *immediately* recognized the pseudo-Skipper as JimH without watching to see which of my most enthusiastic detractors was amusing him/herself with this little game and would reveal themselves with a careless follow-up. Remember the "lower than squid sh**" phrase that unmasked "Dennis Compton"? That's exactly how sock puppeteers screw up. One should never run a sock puppet and post in the first person to the same forum- it doesn't take long before styling clues and phrasings shred the veil. |
|
wrote in message ups.com... Starbuck wrote: 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. JimH claims he uses it here all the time. Really? When did I say I use it "all the time" Chuck. This is very interesting. When you are cornered you result to spinning what folks say. It happened here. It happens most often. So when are you going to apologize to me Chuck? Are you man enough to do that or are you going to continues with your lies? |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Starbuck wrote: 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. JimH claims he uses it here all the time. Really? When did I say I use it "all the time" Chuck. This is very interesting. When you are cornered you result to spinning what folks say. It happened here. It happens most often. I was characterizing your statement, (in which you actually said that posting in that fasion "has been a trait of mine for a while"). Notice the lack of quotes around the three words you object to so strongly? You're getting all Bill Clinton here. Next we'll be defining "is". But no, you didn't say that you posted like that using the exact words "all the time", but you did say it had been a "trait (of yours) for a while." (Jeez Loueeze....talk about a spin........) No substantive difference between my characterication of your statement and your exact quote. Why would you claim there is? Hoping to deflect a bit of scrutiny, perhaps? In either case, you eagerly associated yourself with the very unusual style described. Good thing you're not a defense attorney. :-) I've only seen you post that way very very recently; if it has been a "trait, for a while" I should be paying more attention. I haven't noticed. Anyway, no apology for you until Sunday PM at the earliest. Off on the boat for an early fall overnight cruise in the morning. If I become convinced I am wrong in my assumption, I will apologize. So far, not convinced. Nothing to apologize for. That yellow hat, red vest, green shoes and cigar will screw you up every time. So when are you going to apologize to me Chuck? Are you man enough to do that or are you going to continues with your lies? 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? |
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." |
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. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:06:45 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
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. Nothing transcends the bounds of objectivity or logic chains - everything is either true or false - even in quantum states which is as close as you can get to a real metaphysical concept that actually works in the real world. Moral judgments are entirely subjective, but they can still be resolved into true/false statements - 1s and 0s if you examine the logic chain properly. I'll be the first to admit it is difficult, but still possible. There can be only one true and one false - no inbetween no matter how many different states of logic are used to process the answer. Be careful, you're stepping on the toes of a lot of liberals who claim conservatives are 'binary thinkers' and therefore bad. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com