|
"Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, It is unusual that you think Rush and company's standard of being fair and unbiased is one you should strive for. I personally find Rush and Company extremely biased nothing more than a propaganda machine, but then again, I do try to think for myself. I've never heard "Rush and crowd" make claims for being anything but conservative........the liebrals one the other hand, constantly deny what they are. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. |
Death Tax?? Nice talking point. Where did you learn that? From Rush
Scumbag? Hannity? Who? The "death tax" that the Republicans whine about is actually a capital gains tax on property that is being distributed to a person's heirs. The objective is to ensure that capital gains taxes are collected when assets are transferred to new owners. Why shouldn't the government collect capital gains taxes on estates that are in excess of a few million dollars? It isn't any different that the deceased selling the asset and paying capital gains taxes while they are still alive. If the asset transfers to new owners at death, why should this transaction be tax exempt? Estate taxes kick in when the estate value is in excess of several million dollars. I don't remember the cut off point, but it is so high that the percentage of estates that are actually affected is very small. Calling estate taxes "death taxes" make a cool sound bite that is easy to sell to those that are ignorant and incapable of critical thinking. The only people who benefit from the elimination of estate taxes are the very, very wealthy. The rest of get to pick up the tab for them. Any decent estate planner can arrange things so that the taxes are avoided anyway. Air America has some good shows and some not so good shows. Rush Scumbag, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and the rest of the right wing radio filth are so full of lies and deceptions that it is pathetic. Air America is a refreshing change to that crap. There used to be a very low limit as to the number of radio and TV stations could be owned by any one individual or corporation. It also didn't used to be possible to own all of the radio stations, or TV stations, or newspapers in a geographic region. The Republicans managed to remove these limitations. That is why Clear Channel has so many stations in so many markets. The ones in my area run Faux (Fox) Newsradio news. Their content is pathetic, just like their TV news is. Air America ROCKS!! |
" wrote in message oups.com... Death Tax?? Nice talking point. Where did you learn that? From Rush Scumbag? Hannity? Who? Yet another kool-aid drinking moonbat YAWN |
Starbuck wrote:
Well, if you aren't the Skipper it must be "Smithers" ...... or is it possible that you and Smithers are one and the same? I thought you were Smithers. Using so many handles, you're getting confused? |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " wrote in oups.com: Death Tax?? Nice talking point. Where did you learn that? From Rush Scumbag? Hannity? Who? The "death tax" that the Republicans whine about is actually a capital gains tax on property that is being distributed to a person's heirs. Incorrect. No "capital gains" are realized because no sale takes place (well, unless the heirs are FORCED to sell JUST TO PAY THE TAX). The objective is to ensure that capital gains taxes are collected when assets are transferred to new owners. There is no realized capital gain in such a transfer. Why shouldn't the government collect capital gains taxes on estates that are in excess of a few million dollars? Oh, I don't know, maybe because IT'S NOT THEIR ****ING MONEY. It isn't any different that the deceased selling the asset and paying capital gains taxes while they are still alive. Yes it is different, because THERE IS NO SALE. Estate taxes kick in when the estate value is in excess of several million dollars. I don't remember the cut off point, but it is so high that the percentage of estates that are actually affected is very small. So what? I'm not affect by it, but I'm against it. I don't know about you......but I sure hope that my daughter could one day be affected by it.....if you know what I mean ;-) That's because I have something called a VALUE SYSTEM. Apparently the only "value" you believe in is to **** over everybody else who you can - certain fringe groups of freaks excepted, I'm sure. |
AM Radio - famous for selling all sorts of silly medications to the elderly,
a la Paul Harvey. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, .... and your point is? Limbaugh and "Air America" are both political propaganda designed to bring an audience so they can sell advertising (I don't know what you mean by garlic pills). What was your point? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Limbaugh has only one purpose: To sell advertising and garlic pills. You know that. Everything else is a script. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, It is unusual that you think Rush and company's standard of being fair and unbiased is one you should strive for. I personally find Rush and Company extremely biased nothing more than a propaganda machine, but then again, I do try to think for myself. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. |
A transfer of ownership does indeed take place. After a certain dollar
amount is excluded from taxes, the rest of the value is taxed. It is called progressive taxation. Is that hard to understand? There is a realized gain when the asset ownership transfers. The dead person used to own it. Now it is being transferred to a person who may or may not be related to the decedent. That person has realized a substantial gain. The concept isn't that hard to understand, is it? What's up with the taxes the government takes out of my paycheck? IT'S MY ****ING MONEY!!! Why do they take it from me? Please explain. If you give a $100,00.00 boat to a friend or family member they have to pay a sales tax on it, even if it was a gift. How is this is different from an estate tax? There was no sale, technically. Why is sales tax charged? Please explain. Your values are such that you think that it is OK for extremely wealthy people to hand down assets from generation to generation without ever having to pay taxes on the capital gains the assets have accrued? That is quite interesting... and sad, too. My values don't include ****ing over anybody. If anything, I am a ****ee, not a ****er. It is amazing that more than 1/2 my income (and probably yours, too) goes to pay taxes of all kinds (income, sales, fuel, telecomm, real estate, personal property, etc, etc). Sheeple like you buy into the idea that an estate tax is a bad idea. Learn some critical thinking skills. They appear to be lacking, at the moment. I would be delighted if income tax, estate taxes and all the other targeted taxes went away and a national sales tax WITH NO EXCLUSIONS was implemented. Those that consume a lot would pay a lot. Those that don't, don't pay as much. It will never happen as the wealthy would end up paying way more in taxes than they do now. Those that have the gold, make the rules, and they have been making the rules to their advantage for quite a while, now. As long as we let it happen, it will continue. The USA is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not just wealthy white male property owners. We started that way, but we got better. ;-) |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " wrote in oups.com: A transfer of ownership does indeed take place. Not all "transfers of ownership" are sales. Maybe you're a stingy ******* and have never heard of the concept of "gifts". Do you want gifts taxed too? Oh yeah, they are already - it's called SALES tax because it occurs at the point of SALE. After a certain dollar amount is excluded from taxes, the rest of the value is taxed. It is called progressive taxation. Is that hard to understand? Progressive taxation is an entirely different concept from the death tax. There is a realized gain when the asset ownership transfers. The dead person used to own it. Now it is being transferred to a person who may or may not be related to the decedent. That person has realized a substantial gain. The concept isn't that hard to understand, is it? Obviously you don't know what the term "realized gain" means. If I buy a share of stock for $10 and next week it's worth $20 I DO NOT have a "realized gain" unless I SELL it, even though its value has appreciated. What's up with the taxes the government takes out of my paycheck? IT'S MY ****ING MONEY!!! Why do they take it from me? Please explain. I wish they didn't. That's the difference between you and me. If you give a $100,00.00 boat to a friend or family member they have to pay a sales tax on it, NO they do not. Your values are such that you think that it is OK for extremely wealthy people to hand down assets from generation to generation without ever having to pay taxes on the capital gains the assets have accrued? That is quite interesting... and sad, too. No, my values are such that the government didn't do anything to deserve stealing somebody else's money. It is very simple.........lets say that land that was originally purchased for $1000 is passed on death of the owner. The new owner's basis is still $1000, if he ever decided to sell, he pays capital gains on any gain, he he in turn passes it on to a third generation, the same holds until the property is sold. Cash would be transfered at a 0 basis, since any interest would have already been taxed. The only reason the liebrals want the death tax is for wealth redistribution. My values don't include ****ing over anybody. If anything, I am a ****ee, not a ****er. It is amazing that more than 1/2 my income (and probably yours, too) goes to pay taxes of all kinds (income, sales, fuel, telecomm, real estate, personal property, etc, etc). Sheeple like you buy into the idea that an estate tax is a bad idea. All those taxes are bad ideas. Every one of them. Why don't you try FIGHTING AGAINST a tax rather than FIGHTING FOR one? The USA is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not just wealthy white male property owners. I figured your argument would devolve into a racist sexist harangue. Surprised it happened this quickly. |
Not all "transfers of ownership" are sales. Maybe you're a stingy *******
and have never heard of the concept of "gifts". Do you want gifts taxed too? Oh yeah, they are already - it's called SALES tax because it occurs at the point of SALE. Gifts of money and/or valuable assets over a certain value ARE taxed. Is there a way around it? Progressive taxation is an entirely different concept from the death tax. Progressive taxation is one way of describing a graduated tax. Up to a certain point, taxes are none or very low. As the amount goes up so do the taxes. Obviously you don't know what the term "realized gain" means. If I buy a share of stock for $10 and next week it's worth $20 I DO NOT have a "realized gain" unless I SELL it, even though its value has appreciated. If you were to give the stock as a gift and the value was over a certain amount, tax would be due on the gift, even though no sale has taken place. Kinda sucks, but that's how it is. I wish they didn't. That's the difference between you and me. Here is a point we can both agree on. I wish they didn't as well. I would feel MUCH better about the tax burden I bear if it was evenly divided, but it isn't. In terms of percentage of income the poor don't pay much, the middle class pays a hell of a lot, and the wealthy hire tax lawyers weasel their way out of their fair share. The wealthy and corporations run the government nowadays, so they write the rules to their benefit. The middle class pays for the tax benefits enjoyed by the wealthy and the corporations. The "offshore" corporations pay almost nothing in US taxes. The laws need to be changed. Unfortunately, the wealthy and the corporations have proven the maxim that "we have the best government money can buy". It will never happen until the sheeple wake up and start voting in their own best interests. No, my values are such that the government didn't do anything to deserve stealing somebody else's money. Here is a point we both agree on. Stealing is illegal. Tax laws that are voted on by our elected representatives and signed into law. The ethics of tax laws are debatable. The legality is not. Me paying over 50% of my income out in taxes is legal. When the extremely wealthy and most large corporations pay far less, on a percentage basis in taxes, it is unethical. Legal, but unethical. We the people deserve better. All those taxes are bad ideas. Every one of them. Why don't you try FIGHTING AGAINST a tax rather than FIGHTING FOR one? Believe it or not, I am considered by most people who know me to be mostly republican in my views on fiscal policy. Not "republican" as in the dirtbags that are in control now. Republican in terms of government accountability for performance, fiscal responsibilty in taxation and spending, and keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible by keeping it small. I am also considered to be quite liberal in my social views as I believe in personal freedom AND personal responsibilty. You can't have one without the other. The "nanny" government that many liberals espouse goes totally against my beliefs. Sorry to disappoint you. I figured your argument would devolve into a racist sexist harangue. Surprised it happened this quickly. You snipped the key part of the paragraph. You also missed the point I made. You make the content of your character quite clear by describing my factual statements as "a racist sexist harangue" The original unedited statement was - begin quoted text The USA is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not just wealthy white male property owners. We started that way, but we got better. ;-) end quoted text This statement is factually correct and not at all racist. If you knew anything about the events from ~1760 (the start of the revolution) to 1789 (Constitution), to 1920 (women got the right to vote) and on to the fifties and sixties (civil rights, voting rights enforced for minorities) , you would understand what I meant. You didn't get it... not that I am surprised. DAGS on "emoticons" and you will find out what ;-) means. Try opening your mind a bit. Stretch it a little. It is good for the intellect to try to comprehend arguments that don't agree with yours. |
What kind of boat do you own. Do you have a pic?
|
The only reason the liebrals want the death tax is for wealth
redistribution. There may some truth to the idea of "wealth redistribution", although that isn't the "social engineering" goal of estate taxes for the extremely wealthy. If I remember correctly, the objective was to prevent the establishment of an "aristocracy" in the USA. A merit based aristocracy could be a good thing. One based on inherited wealth can cause all kinds of problems. Look at European history. |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:31:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "PocoLoco" wrote in message .. . Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. Limbaugh is *not* fair and balanced, and he *does* say who is good and who is bad. That wasn't the point, but I can understand if you didn't get it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:54:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Limbaugh has only one purpose: To sell advertising and garlic pills. You know that. Everything else is a script. About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. Given your expertise on the subject, you must spend a lot of time listening to him. Why? Most rational people take him with a whole teaspoon of salt. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:34:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: AM Radio - famous for selling all sorts of silly medications to the elderly, a la Paul Harvey. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, .... and your point is? Limbaugh and "Air America" are both political propaganda designed to bring an audience so they can sell advertising (I don't know what you mean by garlic pills). What was your point? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Limbaugh has only one purpose: To sell advertising and garlic pills. You know that. Everything else is a script. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, It is unusual that you think Rush and company's standard of being fair and unbiased is one you should strive for. I personally find Rush and Company extremely biased nothing more than a propaganda machine, but then again, I do try to think for myself. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. So, Doug, are you trying to refute Chuck's statements about Air America? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
I have an 18' runabout. Got her this year. She is a one of a kind.
If you can derive my email address and send a private message, I'll email you a picture. What kind of boat do you have? |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. You really don't get it do you? People support Limbaugh by listening to him which draws advertisements, which sells a myriad of products. This results in people being employed to make those products, deliver those products to stores, and where stores sell thoses products. Limbaugh is an economic engine in the USA. People don't care if he is right or worng they just like to listen to him. |
" wrote in message oups.com... Death Tax?? Nice talking point. Where did you learn that? From Rush Scumbag? Hannity? Who? The "death tax" that the Republicans whine about is actually a capital gains tax on property that is being distributed to a person's heirs. And this property distribution only occurs when their is a death. The tax can only be levied and collected after someone dies. The objective is to ensure that capital gains taxes are collected when assets are transferred to new owners. The objective is to punish the accumulation of wealth and the subsequent passing of that wealth to the next generation. Why shouldn't the government collect capital gains taxes on estates that are in excess of a few million dollars? It isn't any different that the deceased selling the asset and paying capital gains taxes while they are still alive. If the asset transfers to new owners at death, why should this transaction be tax exempt? Why should they. The asset wasn't sold. Estate taxes kick in when the estate value is in excess of several million dollars. I don't remember the cut off point, but it is so high that the percentage of estates that are actually affected is very small. Why not raise it to $50 million or $100 million. Calling estate taxes "death taxes" make a cool sound bite that is easy to sell to those that are ignorant and incapable of critical thinking. The only people who benefit from the elimination of estate taxes are the very, very wealthy. The rest of get to pick up the tab for them. Any decent estate planner can arrange things so that the taxes are avoided anyway. What do you call partial birth abortion to make it sound not so cruel and inhumane. Air America has some good shows and some not so good shows. Rush Scumbag, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and the rest of the right wing radio filth are so full of lies and deceptions that it is pathetic. Air America is a refreshing change to that crap. Your opinion. There used to be a very low limit as to the number of radio and TV stations could be owned by any one individual or corporation. It also didn't used to be possible to own all of the radio stations, or TV stations, or newspapers in a geographic region. The Republicans managed to remove these limitations. That is why Clear Channel has so many stations in so many markets. The ones in my area run Faux (Fox) Newsradio news. Their content is pathetic, just like their TV news is. Air America ROCKS!! Never listened to it. I can't afford to buy a new radio. |
|
Don,
Is it possible that Skipper and Smithers are one and the same? "Don White" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Well, if you aren't the Skipper it must be "Smithers" ...... or is it possible that you and Smithers are one and the same? I thought you were Smithers. Using so many handles, you're getting confused? |
So what was your point of Rush Limbaugh purpose is to sell ad space. The
point of all commercial broadcast is to sell ad space. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... AM Radio - famous for selling all sorts of silly medications to the elderly, a la Paul Harvey. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, .... and your point is? Limbaugh and "Air America" are both political propaganda designed to bring an audience so they can sell advertising (I don't know what you mean by garlic pills). What was your point? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Limbaugh has only one purpose: To sell advertising and garlic pills. You know that. Everything else is a script. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, It is unusual that you think Rush and company's standard of being fair and unbiased is one you should strive for. I personally find Rush and Company extremely biased nothing more than a propaganda machine, but then again, I do try to think for myself. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? About as much as (or as little as) Limbaugh and his audience of retarded swine. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Skipper wrote: OlBlueEyes wrote: chuckgould wrote: : Nominee for today's "dumb as a post" post. Most Libs never learned HOW to think. Not much use in today's world for these ghetto trained "intellectuals." Little wonder this one migrated to selling used cars, ripping off the public and government in tax fraud schemes, and other assorted shyster "deals." -- Skipper Oh, look! It's supposedly "Skipper" again. But it isn't, as this unwarranted personal attack was obviously penned by a deranged and bitter a-hole. I have met Skipper, and it would be hard to describe him in such terms. So, psuedo-Skipper, Care to enthrall us with your wind-in-the-teeth tale of surviving hurricane force winds aboard your 22-foot Bayliner in the Sea of Cortez? The version where you claimed to have a bunch of gas cans strapped to the gunwales, (after some spoil sport observed that your boat doesn't have the fuel capacity to provide the range for the cruise you claimed to make), would be nice. Some details of how you managed to pour the fuel from those portable cans into your fuel tank, bouncing around in the midst of the Torito hurricane would be interesting as well. (It would probably be considered polite to spin that yarn "downwind" from the audience). Of course, you'd need to consult the "real" Skipper for that information. Why not check with him, if you can find him, and get back to us? Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. |
PocoLoco wrote: On 28 Sep 2005 08:48:27 -0700, wrote: Mule wrote: Scandals and lack of funds, is it all over for this left wing radio in a little over a year on the air? I just got the new channel guide from Sirius Satellite Radio and they have been taken off the guide, not sure if they are still on XM. Why "liberal radio" probably won't catch on in the long term: There is a different mindset between liberals and conservatives. (news flash, I know). Conservative radio is super successful because it is a group-think format. "You need to act, think, speak, a certain way to be a true and loyal American, and you certainly want to subscribe to the following attitudes and values:____________________" Stereotypical conservatives will more quickly gravitate toward a format where an authority figure (such as a preacher or a radio show host)defines who is good, who is bad, and which causes and candidates deserve political support. There is nothing particularly "wrong" with that, but it isn't how liberals tend to operate. We liberals have been badly out-organized by the right wing, and that trend is unlikely to reverse. Liberals are not only skeptical of conservatives, we're skeptical of one another more often than not. Sure, we'll turn out 100,000 for an anti-war march, but there's likely to be 50,000 "discussions" going on in the crowd about just *why* we should oppose the war. One can see this trend in politics. The (more conservative) Republicans continue to clean house (in all but the most porgressive states) because they have nearly everybody singing from the same sheet music most of the time. The (more liberal) Democrats are all over the field, rather than working together, because the liberals are often more concerned with being individuals than with forming a group of loyal worker bees willing to take orders from the top. A presumed majority of liberals doesn't want an "approved" liberal philosophy dispensed by a radio network. Based on ratings, many conservatives crave it. Do the folks on Air America not define who is good and who is bad? Are they truly fair and balanced, Chuck? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The folks on Air America might well define who is good and bad. I would have no idea. I don't listen to the station. My point was that liberals are less into group values and more into individual values than some other folks might be. The average liberal doesn't want somebody dictating some official liberal line about people or issues, and therefore there isn't much audience for this type of programming. The conservative counterparts, however, are enthisiastically received by a large number of people. |
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... Moving money from the pockets of the former middle class into the pockets of the investor class. Investor class? Do you know who is part of the the investor class? Everyone that has a 401k, IRA or pension plan. That money doesn't get put into a "lock box" and majically multiply. It is invested in corporations and other business endeavors to have that money multiply. Yes, indeed. I know that investor class who had all their money wrapped up in Tyco and Enron and Adelphia are feelin' real good about their returns. And United Airlines and a hundred others that will default on their pension plans. Corporate America, best friends with the Bush Administration, unless they're among the suckers who have to purchase fossil fuels. Where do you have your money invested? I hope its not in a mattress or buried under a rock. |
|
Tom,
Thanks for the correction. "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:37:38 -0400, "Starbuck" wrote: So what was your point of Rush Limbaugh purpose is to sell ad space. The point of all commercial broadcast is to sell ad space. No - their purpose is to make money by offering programming that attracts advertisers. Selling ad space is for newspapers and billboards. |
Chuck,
What made you think it was JimH? Somehow the writing style of Skipper and JimH never seemed similar to me. What is worse, calling someone of fraud or accusing someone of being a slanderous individual? wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Skipper wrote: OlBlueEyes wrote: chuckgould wrote: : Nominee for today's "dumb as a post" post. Most Libs never learned HOW to think. Not much use in today's world for these ghetto trained "intellectuals." Little wonder this one migrated to selling used cars, ripping off the public and government in tax fraud schemes, and other assorted shyster "deals." -- Skipper Oh, look! It's supposedly "Skipper" again. But it isn't, as this unwarranted personal attack was obviously penned by a deranged and bitter a-hole. I have met Skipper, and it would be hard to describe him in such terms. So, psuedo-Skipper, Care to enthrall us with your wind-in-the-teeth tale of surviving hurricane force winds aboard your 22-foot Bayliner in the Sea of Cortez? The version where you claimed to have a bunch of gas cans strapped to the gunwales, (after some spoil sport observed that your boat doesn't have the fuel capacity to provide the range for the cruise you claimed to make), would be nice. Some details of how you managed to pour the fuel from those portable cans into your fuel tank, bouncing around in the midst of the Torito hurricane would be interesting as well. (It would probably be considered polite to spin that yarn "downwind" from the audience). Of course, you'd need to consult the "real" Skipper for that information. Why not check with him, if you can find him, and get back to us? Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 28 Sep 2005 13:01:57 -0700, " Air America ROCKS!! Right. Keep on thinking that as it slowly disappears from any type of outlet. It's #1 or #2 in Portland and carried by a Clear Channel station (am620/kpoj). -rick- |
YUK YUK YUK ..... that is so funny. I am glad you keep reading my posts and
making such humorous comments. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: Starbuck wrote: Well, if you aren't the Skipper it must be "Smithers" ...... or is it possible that you and Smithers are one and the same? I thought you were Smithers. Using so many handles, you're getting confused? His mommy writes his names on his undies, usually, but ran out of markers. |
Heck Harry, even on vacation you have to read every one of my posts.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: Starbuck wrote: Well, if you aren't the Skipper it must be "Smithers" ...... or is it possible that you and Smithers are one and the same? I thought you were Smithers. Using so many handles, you're getting confused? His mommy writes his names on his undies, usually, but ran out of markers. |
Skipper wrote: wrote: Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? Is selling used cars a felony in Seattle? I do have it on pretty good authority that you tried to convince Skipper that that tax dodge scam you were working when he first met you was a legitimate "research organization doing a lot of good for underprivileged kids." I also heard that when he challenged you on your assertion that the scam was a legitimate "research" operation that you pulled out a fist full of "documentation" describing the "research." Did you actually believe your own street hustle? No, sock puppet. Selling used cars isn't a felony. But tax fraud is. The organization I worked for, for a while, was a legitimate 501C3 corporation. Much of the money raised went for educational programs and events for school-age kids. More could have, but that wasn't under my control. I was personally involved in some of the programs funded, so there goes your "street hustle" claim. The odor of your con was all too transparent. Is that why you've failed at so many brokerages? I do know those who succeed usually respect their clients requirements...and those that try to lead their clients to 90' steel wrecks when they inform you they're looking for 50' usually fail to make the sale. Oh yes, and what do you think of a broker who insists on showing you $400,000+++ boats when you gave him a target of $180,000? I can tell you what I think of that kind of "broker." Really, sock puppet? Here's some news for you. The real Skipper posted, to this forum, after meeting with me at my office that I was an "honest" broker that he enjoyed dealing with. Sock puppet; you've never apparently shopped for a boat any larger than would fit in a kiddy pool, but if you had you would know there is no such thing as being dragged kicking and screaming onto a boat you didn't ask to see. You think boats are kept in a drawer in the office, like a diamond ring? Also, the real Skipper would never claim that I showed him $400,000 boats. Why would I waste my time? Maybe the real skipper was walking down the dock, saw a good looking yacht and asked, "how much is that?" I imagine that an answer of "$400,000" might qualify as a "showing" of a $400,000 boat- but making a claim of this nature certainly reniforces my position that you are a semi-informed Googling sock puppet who gets confounded by trying to make up details from thin air. More news, sock puppet: I have never failed at any yacht brokerage. I left my second previous employer for a combination of reasons that climaxed when they cut my percentage. ("We had no idea anybody could make this much money on that program! That's more than anybody else is making, by far! Here, take this big cut- and look how much you'll still be making!") I was given an award for listing and selling the most boats in a year (out of six brokers) at the last brokerage where I worked. I guess it depends on how you define failure. The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. I believe the real Skipper had some real adventures to share and the NG gained from those reports. Don't worry, this skipper has learned the folly of sharing reports on a NG...And yes, weather reporting in remote areas of the Cortez is much better today than it was 50 years ago...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you, Chucky? You're just a local yokel, huh? No, sock puppet. The only thing the real Skipper ever contributed here were some lies about boating through Mexican hurricanes in his little Bayliner runabout, a non-stop mutual flame war with Harry Krause, and a perpetual threat to pump up the flat tires on his boat trailer, drag his unused Bayliner down to the Sea of Cortez and actually go boating, (if only Harry Krause would trailer his Sea Pro (and later) Parker to Mexico for some vague "challenge"). Perhaps that challenge involved some sort of martial arts contest. The real Skipper was easily recognized as an expert in one of the disciplines: Flung Poo |
Chuck,
I am curious, If you left because they cut your commission because you were too successful, why didn't you just go down the street. Certainly someone in Seattle would want to hire a very successful broker. wrote in message oups.com... Skipper wrote: wrote: Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? Is selling used cars a felony in Seattle? I do have it on pretty good authority that you tried to convince Skipper that that tax dodge scam you were working when he first met you was a legitimate "research organization doing a lot of good for underprivileged kids." I also heard that when he challenged you on your assertion that the scam was a legitimate "research" operation that you pulled out a fist full of "documentation" describing the "research." Did you actually believe your own street hustle? No, sock puppet. Selling used cars isn't a felony. But tax fraud is. The organization I worked for, for a while, was a legitimate 501C3 corporation. Much of the money raised went for educational programs and events for school-age kids. More could have, but that wasn't under my control. I was personally involved in some of the programs funded, so there goes your "street hustle" claim. The odor of your con was all too transparent. Is that why you've failed at so many brokerages? I do know those who succeed usually respect their clients requirements...and those that try to lead their clients to 90' steel wrecks when they inform you they're looking for 50' usually fail to make the sale. Oh yes, and what do you think of a broker who insists on showing you $400,000+++ boats when you gave him a target of $180,000? I can tell you what I think of that kind of "broker." Really, sock puppet? Here's some news for you. The real Skipper posted, to this forum, after meeting with me at my office that I was an "honest" broker that he enjoyed dealing with. Sock puppet; you've never apparently shopped for a boat any larger than would fit in a kiddy pool, but if you had you would know there is no such thing as being dragged kicking and screaming onto a boat you didn't ask to see. You think boats are kept in a drawer in the office, like a diamond ring? Also, the real Skipper would never claim that I showed him $400,000 boats. Why would I waste my time? Maybe the real skipper was walking down the dock, saw a good looking yacht and asked, "how much is that?" I imagine that an answer of "$400,000" might qualify as a "showing" of a $400,000 boat- but making a claim of this nature certainly reniforces my position that you are a semi-informed Googling sock puppet who gets confounded by trying to make up details from thin air. More news, sock puppet: I have never failed at any yacht brokerage. I left my second previous employer for a combination of reasons that climaxed when they cut my percentage. ("We had no idea anybody could make this much money on that program! That's more than anybody else is making, by far! Here, take this big cut- and look how much you'll still be making!") I was given an award for listing and selling the most boats in a year (out of six brokers) at the last brokerage where I worked. I guess it depends on how you define failure. The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. I believe the real Skipper had some real adventures to share and the NG gained from those reports. Don't worry, this skipper has learned the folly of sharing reports on a NG...And yes, weather reporting in remote areas of the Cortez is much better today than it was 50 years ago...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you, Chucky? You're just a local yokel, huh? No, sock puppet. The only thing the real Skipper ever contributed here were some lies about boating through Mexican hurricanes in his little Bayliner runabout, a non-stop mutual flame war with Harry Krause, and a perpetual threat to pump up the flat tires on his boat trailer, drag his unused Bayliner down to the Sea of Cortez and actually go boating, (if only Harry Krause would trailer his Sea Pro (and later) Parker to Mexico for some vague "challenge"). Perhaps that challenge involved some sort of martial arts contest. The real Skipper was easily recognized as an expert in one of the disciplines: Flung Poo |
PS, Sockpuppet:
Choke on this, won't you? (the brackets are just for fun, sorry, couldn't help myself) From the archives, April 16 2002 7:09 AM +++++++++++++++ We all make mistakes. I believe her wordy and somewhat insulting debate with Chuck Gould was nothing more than that, a small personal miscalculation. I've met Mr. Gould and have had business dealings with him. You would look long and hard to find a more honest and knowledgeable broker. His boating views *are* worthy of note. ++++++++++++++++++ I guess that answers your question about what the "real Skipper" thought about his business dealings with me. :-) |
In article , says...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... Moving money from the pockets of the former middle class into the pockets of the investor class. Investor class? Do you know who is part of the the investor class? Everyone that has a 401k, IRA or pension plan. That money doesn't get put into a "lock box" and majically multiply. It is invested in corporations and other business endeavors to have that money multiply. Yes, indeed. I know that investor class who had all their money wrapped up in Tyco and Enron and Adelphia are feelin' real good about their returns. And United Airlines and a hundred others that will default on their pension plans. Corporate America, best friends with the Bush Administration, unless they're among the suckers who have to purchase fossil fuels. Where do you have your money invested? I hope its not in a mattress or buried under a rock. My money is invested in my business -- the same business that covers its employees with exorbitantly expensive medical insurance, workers comp, social security and medicare taxes, etc. Our 401K doesn't include our own stock. The folks who run publicly traded companies are on a nasty treadmill that rewards foolish short term thinking. jps |
Starbuck wrote: Chuck, I am curious, If you left because they cut your commission because you were too successful, why didn't you just go down the street. Certainly someone in Seattle would want to hire a very successful broker. That's *exactly* what I did. I worked for about two years for the same brokerage following my experience with the commission cutters. When I left my final brokerage gig, the owners were extremely unhappy to see me go. They even kept my desk open for 6 months, just "in case" I wanted to come back. Despite sock puppet's wild allegations, I didn't fail as a yacht broker. I only left brokering (to take on a much larger, full time role at the magazine) after much personal agonizing and knowing full well it would cut my income substantially. The publication was in trouble, and needed a lot of attention. I knew I could always be a yacht broker, but this might be my only chance to be in the magazine business and to help save an important regional magazine with which I had been periperally involved with for a few years but had been around since 1965. This is all relatively ancient history- I've been full time with the magazine for almost 4 1/2 years now. I'm failing in the magazine business just like I failed at yacht brokering: our page count is double what it was in 2001, (means we've gone from 2 pages to 4, of course) editorial content is up about 40% (now 3 items per issue) and ad revenue has more than tripled. (from $100 a month to $325). Oh, and my income is no longer less than what I was making as a broker- I can almost make minimum wage out of my share of the pie most months. :-) Our publication is owned by an international firm, and I accept as reality there's always a remote chance that a stroke of a pen in Europe could obliterate us as an institution. Our publication itself is quite profitable, but we're only a small tile in a huge mosaic. (They print 19 titles in our district office alone). If that ever happens and I'm still not ready to retire (am able, thank my lucky stars, but then again I think living in a tent and eating pork 'n beans would be just ducky) I would go back to brokering and could work anywhere I decided to hang my hat. If you want to be "curious" about the credibilty of a story, you might check the sock-puppet's account of his experiences dealing with me as a broker against the item I pulled out of the archives and posted elsewhere on this thread. Obviously, the sock puppeteer has his/her wires crossed. In the very unlikely event that this latest attack post was generated by the "real" Skipper, any intelligent person would then have to wonder, "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Regardless of which answer one concludes is correct, the credibilty of my accuser would be thereby established. I continue to believe the latest incarnation of Skipper is a sock puppet. To think otherwise would force me to conclude that the real Skipper is a major A-hole. I'm not prepared to consign a guy that I halfway like (despite his numerous flaws) to that category, and I will resist until absolutely forced to do so. wrote in message oups.com... Skipper wrote: wrote: Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? Is selling used cars a felony in Seattle? I do have it on pretty good authority that you tried to convince Skipper that that tax dodge scam you were working when he first met you was a legitimate "research organization doing a lot of good for underprivileged kids." I also heard that when he challenged you on your assertion that the scam was a legitimate "research" operation that you pulled out a fist full of "documentation" describing the "research." Did you actually believe your own street hustle? No, sock puppet. Selling used cars isn't a felony. But tax fraud is. The organization I worked for, for a while, was a legitimate 501C3 corporation. Much of the money raised went for educational programs and events for school-age kids. More could have, but that wasn't under my control. I was personally involved in some of the programs funded, so there goes your "street hustle" claim. The odor of your con was all too transparent. Is that why you've failed at so many brokerages? I do know those who succeed usually respect their clients requirements...and those that try to lead their clients to 90' steel wrecks when they inform you they're looking for 50' usually fail to make the sale. Oh yes, and what do you think of a broker who insists on showing you $400,000+++ boats when you gave him a target of $180,000? I can tell you what I think of that kind of "broker." Really, sock puppet? Here's some news for you. The real Skipper posted, to this forum, after meeting with me at my office that I was an "honest" broker that he enjoyed dealing with. Sock puppet; you've never apparently shopped for a boat any larger than would fit in a kiddy pool, but if you had you would know there is no such thing as being dragged kicking and screaming onto a boat you didn't ask to see. You think boats are kept in a drawer in the office, like a diamond ring? Also, the real Skipper would never claim that I showed him $400,000 boats. Why would I waste my time? Maybe the real skipper was walking down the dock, saw a good looking yacht and asked, "how much is that?" I imagine that an answer of "$400,000" might qualify as a "showing" of a $400,000 boat- but making a claim of this nature certainly reniforces my position that you are a semi-informed Googling sock puppet who gets confounded by trying to make up details from thin air. More news, sock puppet: I have never failed at any yacht brokerage. I left my second previous employer for a combination of reasons that climaxed when they cut my percentage. ("We had no idea anybody could make this much money on that program! That's more than anybody else is making, by far! Here, take this big cut- and look how much you'll still be making!") I was given an award for listing and selling the most boats in a year (out of six brokers) at the last brokerage where I worked. I guess it depends on how you define failure. The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. I believe the real Skipper had some real adventures to share and the NG gained from those reports. Don't worry, this skipper has learned the folly of sharing reports on a NG...And yes, weather reporting in remote areas of the Cortez is much better today than it was 50 years ago...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you, Chucky? You're just a local yokel, huh? No, sock puppet. The only thing the real Skipper ever contributed here were some lies about boating through Mexican hurricanes in his little Bayliner runabout, a non-stop mutual flame war with Harry Krause, and a perpetual threat to pump up the flat tires on his boat trailer, drag his unused Bayliner down to the Sea of Cortez and actually go boating, (if only Harry Krause would trailer his Sea Pro (and later) Parker to Mexico for some vague "challenge"). Perhaps that challenge involved some sort of martial arts contest. The real Skipper was easily recognized as an expert in one of the disciplines: Flung Poo |
Chuck,
I agree the current Skipper is a sock puppet, but I have no idea who it is. My bet is that it is not JimH, but I could be wrong. Heck it could be Smithers. I also do not think everything "Skipper" relates is true, he seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is going after you with both barrels. He has related some stories I had never heard before, so this must go back a number of years. Money is not everything, and if you are enjoying your work at the magazine, that means much more than earning more and not enjoying yourself. I thought you had left selling used cars because you enjoyed selling boats more, and I thought you still enjoy your job as a boat broker, so I was surprised when you did a major career change so late in life. wrote in message oups.com... Starbuck wrote: Chuck, I am curious, If you left because they cut your commission because you were too successful, why didn't you just go down the street. Certainly someone in Seattle would want to hire a very successful broker. That's *exactly* what I did. I worked for about two years for the same brokerage following my experience with the commission cutters. When I left my final brokerage gig, the owners were extremely unhappy to see me go. They even kept my desk open for 6 months, just "in case" I wanted to come back. Despite sock puppet's wild allegations, I didn't fail as a yacht broker. I only left brokering (to take on a much larger, full time role at the magazine) after much personal agonizing and knowing full well it would cut my income substantially. The publication was in trouble, and needed a lot of attention. I knew I could always be a yacht broker, but this might be my only chance to be in the magazine business and to help save an important regional magazine with which I had been periperally involved with for a few years but had been around since 1965. This is all relatively ancient history- I've been full time with the magazine for almost 4 1/2 years now. I'm failing in the magazine business just like I failed at yacht brokering: our page count is double what it was in 2001, (means we've gone from 2 pages to 4, of course) editorial content is up about 40% (now 3 items per issue) and ad revenue has more than tripled. (from $100 a month to $325). Oh, and my income is no longer less than what I was making as a broker- I can almost make minimum wage out of my share of the pie most months. :-) Our publication is owned by an international firm, and I accept as reality there's always a remote chance that a stroke of a pen in Europe could obliterate us as an institution. Our publication itself is quite profitable, but we're only a small tile in a huge mosaic. (They print 19 titles in our district office alone). If that ever happens and I'm still not ready to retire (am able, thank my lucky stars, but then again I think living in a tent and eating pork 'n beans would be just ducky) I would go back to brokering and could work anywhere I decided to hang my hat. If you want to be "curious" about the credibilty of a story, you might check the sock-puppet's account of his experiences dealing with me as a broker against the item I pulled out of the archives and posted elsewhere on this thread. Obviously, the sock puppeteer has his/her wires crossed. In the very unlikely event that this latest attack post was generated by the "real" Skipper, any intelligent person would then have to wonder, "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Regardless of which answer one concludes is correct, the credibilty of my accuser would be thereby established. I continue to believe the latest incarnation of Skipper is a sock puppet. To think otherwise would force me to conclude that the real Skipper is a major A-hole. I'm not prepared to consign a guy that I halfway like (despite his numerous flaws) to that category, and I will resist until absolutely forced to do so. wrote in message oups.com... Skipper wrote: wrote: Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? Is selling used cars a felony in Seattle? I do have it on pretty good authority that you tried to convince Skipper that that tax dodge scam you were working when he first met you was a legitimate "research organization doing a lot of good for underprivileged kids." I also heard that when he challenged you on your assertion that the scam was a legitimate "research" operation that you pulled out a fist full of "documentation" describing the "research." Did you actually believe your own street hustle? No, sock puppet. Selling used cars isn't a felony. But tax fraud is. The organization I worked for, for a while, was a legitimate 501C3 corporation. Much of the money raised went for educational programs and events for school-age kids. More could have, but that wasn't under my control. I was personally involved in some of the programs funded, so there goes your "street hustle" claim. The odor of your con was all too transparent. Is that why you've failed at so many brokerages? I do know those who succeed usually respect their clients requirements...and those that try to lead their clients to 90' steel wrecks when they inform you they're looking for 50' usually fail to make the sale. Oh yes, and what do you think of a broker who insists on showing you $400,000+++ boats when you gave him a target of $180,000? I can tell you what I think of that kind of "broker." Really, sock puppet? Here's some news for you. The real Skipper posted, to this forum, after meeting with me at my office that I was an "honest" broker that he enjoyed dealing with. Sock puppet; you've never apparently shopped for a boat any larger than would fit in a kiddy pool, but if you had you would know there is no such thing as being dragged kicking and screaming onto a boat you didn't ask to see. You think boats are kept in a drawer in the office, like a diamond ring? Also, the real Skipper would never claim that I showed him $400,000 boats. Why would I waste my time? Maybe the real skipper was walking down the dock, saw a good looking yacht and asked, "how much is that?" I imagine that an answer of "$400,000" might qualify as a "showing" of a $400,000 boat- but making a claim of this nature certainly reniforces my position that you are a semi-informed Googling sock puppet who gets confounded by trying to make up details from thin air. More news, sock puppet: I have never failed at any yacht brokerage. I left my second previous employer for a combination of reasons that climaxed when they cut my percentage. ("We had no idea anybody could make this much money on that program! That's more than anybody else is making, by far! Here, take this big cut- and look how much you'll still be making!") I was given an award for listing and selling the most boats in a year (out of six brokers) at the last brokerage where I worked. I guess it depends on how you define failure. The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. I believe the real Skipper had some real adventures to share and the NG gained from those reports. Don't worry, this skipper has learned the folly of sharing reports on a NG...And yes, weather reporting in remote areas of the Cortez is much better today than it was 50 years ago...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you, Chucky? You're just a local yokel, huh? No, sock puppet. The only thing the real Skipper ever contributed here were some lies about boating through Mexican hurricanes in his little Bayliner runabout, a non-stop mutual flame war with Harry Krause, and a perpetual threat to pump up the flat tires on his boat trailer, drag his unused Bayliner down to the Sea of Cortez and actually go boating, (if only Harry Krause would trailer his Sea Pro (and later) Parker to Mexico for some vague "challenge"). Perhaps that challenge involved some sort of martial arts contest. The real Skipper was easily recognized as an expert in one of the disciplines: Flung Poo |
jps wrote in message ... My money is invested in my business -- the same business that covers its employees with exorbitantly expensive medical insurance, workers comp, social security and medicare taxes, etc. Our 401K doesn't include our own stock. The folks who run publicly traded companies are on a nasty treadmill that rewards foolish short term thinking. jps I owned and ran a privately held company for years that operated exactly like yours, as described in your first paragraph. In 2000 the company was purchased by a large, public company and all the rules changed. Positive quarterly reports became more important than producing a quality product. I realized after a while, however, that the senior management and board of directors were under immense pressure by outside analysts and investment managers of 401k and other investment plans to meet the quarterly numbers. These people in turn are under pressure by the individual investor to manage their portfolios for max returns. Collectively, all the "small" investors (via 401k and other retirement accounts) who probably have no idea where their money is invested, or what product the company makes, have only one interest - how much money are they making. So, it's a vicious circle. Fortunately for me, I was able to exit stage left, as it became more and more frustrating to convert a labor of love into the big company "corporate" style. Eisboch |
Eisboch wrote:
... I realized after a while, however, that the senior management and board of directors were under immense pressure by outside analysts and investment managers of 401k and other investment plans to meet the quarterly numbers. These people in turn are under pressure by the individual investor to manage their portfolios for max returns. Collectively, all the "small" investors (via 401k and other retirement accounts) who probably have no idea where their money is invested, or what product the company makes, have only one interest - how much money are they making. Well said. So, it's a vicious circle. Yep. Unfortunate. And a vicious circle that we should all take an interest in getting out of. Fortunately for me, I was able to exit stage left, as it became more and more frustrating to convert a labor of love into the big company "corporate" style. I'm in somewhat the same boat, except that I am not out of it yet and may never be. We have managed to form an enclave of sanity within the larger corporate structure, and at times it's better than before since we don't have any financial cliff-hangers any more. OTOH I am getting tired of fighting off greedy corporate hands plucking at our inventory, our MSAs, and our annual profit sharing. Regards |
I am still waiting for an apology from Chuck after his accusation.
"Starbuck" wrote in message ... Chuck, I agree the current Skipper is a sock puppet, but I have no idea who it is. My bet is that it is not JimH, but I could be wrong. Heck it could be Smithers. I also do not think everything "Skipper" relates is true, he seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is going after you with both barrels. He has related some stories I had never heard before, so this must go back a number of years. |
I am still waiting for an apology from Chuck.
"Starbuck" wrote in message ... Chuck, What made you think it was JimH? Somehow the writing style of Skipper and JimH never seemed similar to me. What is worse, calling someone of fraud or accusing someone of being a slanderous individual? wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Skipper wrote: OlBlueEyes wrote: chuckgould wrote: : Nominee for today's "dumb as a post" post. Most Libs never learned HOW to think. Not much use in today's world for these ghetto trained "intellectuals." Little wonder this one migrated to selling used cars, ripping off the public and government in tax fraud schemes, and other assorted shyster "deals." -- Skipper Oh, look! It's supposedly "Skipper" again. But it isn't, as this unwarranted personal attack was obviously penned by a deranged and bitter a-hole. I have met Skipper, and it would be hard to describe him in such terms. So, psuedo-Skipper, Care to enthrall us with your wind-in-the-teeth tale of surviving hurricane force winds aboard your 22-foot Bayliner in the Sea of Cortez? The version where you claimed to have a bunch of gas cans strapped to the gunwales, (after some spoil sport observed that your boat doesn't have the fuel capacity to provide the range for the cruise you claimed to make), would be nice. Some details of how you managed to pour the fuel from those portable cans into your fuel tank, bouncing around in the midst of the Torito hurricane would be interesting as well. (It would probably be considered polite to spin that yarn "downwind" from the audience). Of course, you'd need to consult the "real" Skipper for that information. Why not check with him, if you can find him, and get back to us? Why the anger Chuck? No particular reason beyond the fact that the psuedo-skipper poster accused me of a felony. It's disgust more than anger. Have you noticed that when some people lack the ability to discuss an issue on its merits they turn to personal attack? The real Skipper was the most outrageous fabricator of imaginary boating adventures ever seen in this forum. That's no small task, considering. It's ironic that his sockpuppet-master would make any comments impuning the honesty of other people or alleging "fraud" while munging Skipper's name. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com