"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:34:34 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:35:13 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:02:46 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H. wrote:
Mine is now winterized. Come on spring!


About Labor Day for you, right?

The first week day after striper season opens, or a week or so earlier
for
practice.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

I had a great test last Sunday on how my tarp setup will hold up to high
winds. We had close to 60 mph that morning. I checked the boat
yesterday
and my cheap vinyl tarp on pvc pipe frame over my old mooring cover held
up
just fine.

This setup with winter storage will cost me $25~$30/winter. Not bad.


Cool. Glad it works. I'm thinking of moving my boat next year, out of
the
boatel
and onto the trailer. The $2100/year, likely to go up, is getting to me.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

The yard I store at is free (for now). That obviously cuts down my
storage
fees considerably.

I put the basic mooring cover on, a cover in marginal condition.

I them purchased a vinyl tarp from http://tinyurl.com/7ph6z.

I used two 10' pieces of 1 1/4" PVC pipe, connected them together with a
union using PVC cleaner and cement (now a little over 20' long) and adding
elbows on the ends (I used the elbows at the end to prevent a harsh edge
cutting into the cover that goes over it.), I drilled holes through it
at
the center and ends, raised it, centered it on the windshield, flexed it
down to meet the bow rail and stern and tied it off at the ends and center
in such a way as to prevent it from shifting. I was able to throw the
vinyl tarp over that modest frame.

The cover then fit neatly over that modest frame. I tied the cover to the
trailer every 18" using cheap 1/4" poly rope.

Extra tarp material was tucked in and taped it to form a nice fit.

I cut some vent holes (reinforced with heavy duty all purpose tape and
coned
with the tape to prevent rain and snow from entering).

I figure I will get at least 2 years out of this cover with a total
investment of $60. Of that amount, $23 is in the frame and ropes which I
will use for many years to come.

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/9loro

I was thinking about getting a cover from Fisher Canvas but after seeing
how
this basic cover performed in high winds I will pass and save the $708
(based on a quote from them).


Looks good, but I'd sure check it after every snow fall.

--
John H.

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

Why?

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:01:12 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:34:34 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:35:13 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:02:46 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H. wrote:
Mine is now winterized. Come on spring!


About Labor Day for you, right?

The first week day after striper season opens, or a week or so earlier
for
practice.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

I had a great test last Sunday on how my tarp setup will hold up to high
winds. We had close to 60 mph that morning. I checked the boat
yesterday
and my cheap vinyl tarp on pvc pipe frame over my old mooring cover held
up
just fine.

This setup with winter storage will cost me $25~$30/winter. Not bad.


Cool. Glad it works. I'm thinking of moving my boat next year, out of
the
boatel
and onto the trailer. The $2100/year, likely to go up, is getting to me.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

The yard I store at is free (for now). That obviously cuts down my
storage
fees considerably.

I put the basic mooring cover on, a cover in marginal condition.

I them purchased a vinyl tarp from http://tinyurl.com/7ph6z.

I used two 10' pieces of 1 1/4" PVC pipe, connected them together with a
union using PVC cleaner and cement (now a little over 20' long) and adding
elbows on the ends (I used the elbows at the end to prevent a harsh edge
cutting into the cover that goes over it.), I drilled holes through it
at
the center and ends, raised it, centered it on the windshield, flexed it
down to meet the bow rail and stern and tied it off at the ends and center
in such a way as to prevent it from shifting. I was able to throw the
vinyl tarp over that modest frame.

The cover then fit neatly over that modest frame. I tied the cover to the
trailer every 18" using cheap 1/4" poly rope.

Extra tarp material was tucked in and taped it to form a nice fit.

I cut some vent holes (reinforced with heavy duty all purpose tape and
coned
with the tape to prevent rain and snow from entering).

I figure I will get at least 2 years out of this cover with a total
investment of $60. Of that amount, $23 is in the frame and ropes which I
will use for many years to come.

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/9loro

I was thinking about getting a cover from Fisher Canvas but after seeing
how
this basic cover performed in high winds I will pass and save the $708
(based on a quote from them).


Looks good, but I'd sure check it after every snow fall.

--
John H.

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

Why?


I would be worried that the slope isn't great enough to be sure wet snow will
fall off. But, I'm just looking at the picture.

--
John H.

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:25:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:07:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:02:52 +0100, Len

wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands

What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

Surprise me,

Regards, Len.

What's the Netherlands doing about the problems they're having with
Muslims,
Len? My friend in Stolwyjk seems to think there *is* a developing
problem
over
there, and that taxes can be raised only so far to keep giving money
to
folks
who aren't earning it.

Your friend is right. There is a problem developing over there. It's
pretty
much the same problem that developed here in the early 1960s when we
were
ignoring them pesky Negroes in places like Watts and Detroit. Now,
there's
them pesky brown people who just happen to be Muslims.


Luckily, our media and politicians don't continuously call them
'racists'.

Of course not. And here, if a father "sort of prefers" that his white
daughter not date black guys, we politely say "he just prefers it that
way".


?????????

You definitely have gone way over my head, intellectually.

Why is it liebrals that are always making issues about race, wanting to
count race, grant money and benefits by race etc. etc.?

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Why is it liebrals that are always making issues about race, wanting to
count race, grant money and benefits by race etc. etc.?

In interviews on yesterday's news, two of the young extremists said in no
uncertain terms that they were treated differently because of the color of
their skin. Of course, your news reports cater to infants like you, so they
give you what's easiest to swallow: Jihad!

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:10:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Why is it liebrals that are always making issues about race, wanting to
count race, grant money and benefits by race etc. etc.?

In interviews on yesterday's news, two of the young extremists said in no
uncertain terms that they were treated differently because of the color of
their skin. Of course, your news reports cater to infants like you, so they
give you what's easiest to swallow: Jihad!


From one of Len's posts :

*********************************************
I will repeat it one more time.
I think that
1) the way the US acted in going to war unilaterally,
2) conveniently changed the reasons from WMD to removing Saddam
3) it was discovered that Bush knew before going in, there were no
WMD's,

it is much simpler to convince a french kids or wherever in europe to
become jihadist when the US presents itself as big bully, as a selfish
nation, that puts itself above international law, has no interest in
the world community by pushing aside penalty court, kyoto treaty, and
a lot more.
*****************************************

This is where the 'jihad' concept arose. I've yet to hear a news report refer
to a 'jihad'. And I sure as hell didn't originate the term to describe what's
happening in France. Len used the term to show that the riots are because Bush
invaded Iraq.

You can agree or disagree with the logic, but I know of only one source for the
logic.

--
John H.

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

lmao......Doug just proved my point.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:10:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Why is it liebrals that are always making issues about race, wanting
to
count race, grant money and benefits by race etc. etc.?

In interviews on yesterday's news, two of the young extremists said in no
uncertain terms that they were treated differently because of the color
of
their skin. Of course, your news reports cater to infants like you, so
they
give you what's easiest to swallow: Jihad!


From one of Len's posts :

*********************************************
I will repeat it one more time.
I think that
1) the way the US acted in going to war unilaterally,
2) conveniently changed the reasons from WMD to removing Saddam
3) it was discovered that Bush knew before going in, there were no
WMD's,

it is much simpler to convince a french kids or wherever in europe to
become jihadist when the US presents itself as big bully, as a selfish
nation, that puts itself above international law, has no interest in
the world community by pushing aside penalty court, kyoto treaty, and
a lot more.
*****************************************

This is where the 'jihad' concept arose. I've yet to hear a news report
refer
to a 'jihad'. And I sure as hell didn't originate the term to describe
what's
happening in France. Len used the term to show that the riots are because
Bush
invaded Iraq.

You can agree or disagree with the logic, but I know of only one source
for the
logic.

--
John H.

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:32:45 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:10:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Why is it liebrals that are always making issues about race, wanting to
count race, grant money and benefits by race etc. etc.?

In interviews on yesterday's news, two of the young extremists said in no
uncertain terms that they were treated differently because of the color of
their skin. Of course, your news reports cater to infants like you, so they
give you what's easiest to swallow: Jihad!


From one of Len's posts :

*********************************************
I will repeat it one more time.
I think that
1) the way the US acted in going to war unilaterally,
2) conveniently changed the reasons from WMD to removing Saddam
3) it was discovered that Bush knew before going in, there were no
WMD's,

it is much simpler to convince a french kids or wherever in europe to
become jihadist when the US presents itself as big bully, as a selfish
nation, that puts itself above international law, has no interest in
the world community by pushing aside penalty court, kyoto treaty, and
a lot more.
*****************************************

This is where the 'jihad' concept arose.

I didn't say these kids are jihadists. They aren't. They are kids of
15, 16 years old with social problems. I guess that resembles the
Watts riots mentioned earlier.
But they are susceptible to jihadists recruitment.
By radical islamic people, close or closer to OBL and the likes. The
ones mr Bush was going to hunt down.


to a 'jihad'. And I sure as hell didn't originate the term to describe what's
happening in France. Len used the term to show that the riots are because Bush
invaded Iraq.


Again a caricature simplification that serves your purpose: ridiculize
so you won't have to answer properly...

In Holland we have a few dozen of boys that had been recruted and were
apprehended with chemicals, handgrenades, aut guns, etc. All of their
actions were (till now) a bit clumsy like using cell phones etc.
On the background there are the recruters, as far as know publically a
dozen: pakistani, egyptians and I thought a libian.

One of the youngsters, Mohammed B., that was recruted by them has
turned into a radical Islamic Jihadist. He has committed the ritual
killing of Theo van Gogh.
He's serving a life-sentence and will not be released ever.
It's this process of spreading that poses the increasing threat.
It's this process I am saying Bush's actions supply justification for.

Len.

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
"DSK" wrote:

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places like
Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?

Yep. But it would have been better to say "by 1600".

Herenando de Soto, using wealth he obtained as a leader in the
conquest of the Inca Empire, personally outfitted a 4 year
voyage that began in 1539 probably at about where Tampa Bay
Florida is today. He inflicted a campaign of terror all along
the way. He was also well aware that his army was spreading
disease as it went.

What he was not aware of was the effect his invasion had. He
purposely avoided to every degree he could any retracing of his
path. He was afraid his return would be met with organized
resistance. As it turned out, his outgoing path necessarily
crossed his incoming path on a least two occasions, and what he
found was virtually nothing. And 20 years later when other
explorers traveled through many of the same areas, they found
little of the civilization that de Soto had described. The
people where he had been were inundated by 1) the massive
violence of de Soto's invasion, and 2) by the death from de
Soto's disease ridden army.

Survivors scattered, and spread the diseases far more widely
than de Soto's army.

De Soto's army traveled through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
with his scouts going as far a Chicago.

De Soto single handedly depopulated much of what today is the
United States.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

DSK wrote:
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern and
south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by spanish
explorers. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.

So you are saying they ignored occupancy, but you insist that it
should have been mentioned if it happened? That isn't logical.

If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.

Ahem, try taking a look at the history of the Mayflower's
landing at Plymonth Rock. And keep in mind that that was 200
years *after* de Soto depopulated what is now the eastern US.

The European diseases were *still* making the rounds...

There is certainly no such in North Carolina, because the royal land
grants covering the area are still extant. AFAIK that's also true of all
the original colonies and the Louisiana Purchase.

No mention of Eskimos in my post

No, I mentioned the Eskimos because in your original statement, they
could well have been included. That's what happens when you make vague
and unsupportable claims, and at at the same time try to insert dramatic
statistics.

The only correction needed there is that of course it wasn't
pre-1700 and it wasn't the Spanish. But the Native populations
of Alaska suffered just about the exact same depopulation that
happened elsewhere. Due to the remote access it happened later,
but by about 1900 it was in full fury, and lasted well into the
life times of living people.

I lived for about 20 years in a place known as Salcha, where
there is still a cemetery (well hidden from casual tourists),
and the old village, and when I lived there the last surviving
Salcha Indian was my next door neighbor. She was one of the few
(a dozen or so) who had survived an epidemic in the late 1930's

In fact, at one time or another virtually *every* Native village
in Alaska was all but wiped out, with less that 15 or 20%
surviving. (Imagine what that does to a culture, when 90% of
the knowledge required to make it function disappears in a
matter of days.)

And while you've all heard of the wonderful race to Nome with
diptheria serum to save the Whites, you won't hear, even in the
1950's of anyone going to that effort to save the Natives.

It is a *disgusting* history, that continues today. We made a
deal with Native people to take their land, and the primary
payment for that was to be health care. Today the Indian Health
Service is funded at 50% of need. Think about that, and what it
means to Native children and elders. (Or to people like me, who
even though I am non-Native, must rely on the same health care
facilities.)

You mean the Indians? It's a bit late to defend them, although they may
end up buying the country back with casino proceeds.

How about if they just forclose on the mortgage for non-payment,
and take all their land back.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Jeff Rigby wrote:
".... When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.



Floyd Davidson wrote:
So you are saying they ignored occupancy, but you insist that it
should have been mentioned if it happened? That isn't logical.


Not at all. I'm saying that nobody claimed land based on lack of
occupancy, which is what Jeff said happened.


If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.


Ahem, try taking a look at the history of the Mayflower's
landing at Plymonth Rock. And keep in mind that that was 200
years *after* de Soto depopulated what is now the eastern US.


There were definitely Indians living around the Plymouth colony. Who do
you think fed the Pilgrims thru the first winter?

That's not to say that they *weren't* affected by plagues brought by the
Europeans, because tehy definitely were. But the Pilgrims certainly
didn't move into uninhabited land, nor did they claim it because it was
empty of humans.


The European diseases were *still* making the rounds...


Yep. They were in Europe, too. Funny how we still have the same problem
today.



The only correction needed there is that of course it wasn't
pre-1700 and it wasn't the Spanish. But the Native populations
of Alaska suffered just about the exact same depopulation that
happened elsewhere. Due to the remote access it happened later,
but by about 1900 it was in full fury, and lasted well into the
life times of living people.
...(snip for brevity)...


I wonder if the plagues in the far north were made worse by climate &
diet, too.




You mean the Indians? It's a bit late to defend them, although they may
end up buying the country back with casino proceeds.


How about if they just forclose on the mortgage for non-payment,
and take all their land back.


Hmm, did we take out an interest-only ARM on the place? Well, they'll be
pleased with my yard, I've been letting it go back to Nature for years.

DSK