Yo!! Thunder...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Later,

Tom

PS: I would have emailed you on this ignoring wrecked boats, but I
didn't know if your addy was any good.

Uh...did you skip over this bit:

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether
Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly
two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush
adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation."

If Libby lied and obstructed, that is a federal crime. Bill Clinton was
impeached by the rabid-right US House of Representatives for lying about a
blow job.



Nope, *for lying*, period.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Later,

Tom

PS: I would have emailed you on this ignoring wrecked boats, but I
didn't know if your addy was any good.

Uh...did you skip over this bit:

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether
Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly
two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush
adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation."

If Libby lied and obstructed, that is a federal crime. Bill Clinton was
impeached by the rabid-right US House of Representatives for lying about
a blow job.

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Later,

Tom

PS: I would have emailed you on this ignoring wrecked boats, but I
didn't know if your addy was any good.

Uh...did you skip over this bit:

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether
Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly
two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush
adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation."

If Libby lied and obstructed, that is a federal crime. Bill Clinton was
impeached by the rabid-right US House of Representatives for lying about
a blow job.

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

Yes, depending on the conversation, of course.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:52:41 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?

A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.

If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?

A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:04 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:52:41 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?



Why should he when people like you facilitate him, John?
Do you ever consider the negative consequences of some of what you do here?
You are the #1 facilitator of useless souls like Skipper, Tuuk,
Smithers, et al.
Reflect upon it.

Please enlighten me. You have done so much to make this a good group that I know
you've got the right answers.

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Harry Krause wrote:

A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer

You had no legitimate business dealings with Chuck, and he certainly is
not unscrupulous.

You're still boatless and in Dumpsterville, Kansas. Deal with that.

You still looking for a grown up boat capable of far more than a Parker:

http://www.ablboats.com/details.asp?ListingID=70642

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"John H." wrote:

I though you had stopped that?

A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.

I will cease! Thanks for the reminder.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.
I though you had stopped that?
A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.


Are you serious? Skipper has no class whatsoever. It is telling that you
think he might.

Harry, I think that even you have *some* class. You seldom show it in the group,
and most often show a lack of it, but I still see enough decent posts to know
you *have* some.

Furthermore, I have no control over the posting of Tuuk, or anyone else. I
surely do not have the power to make easier (facilitate) the postings of
*anyone* in the group.

But, if it makes you feel better to call me 'facilitator', help yourself. I just
think, rather, that there are a lot of people who dislike you. And, it has
nothing to do with your politics.

Also, as Sears, Kohls, Wal-Mart, and Costco are *not* using "Merry Christmas" in
their greetings this year (so they'll be more PC), I'll not be doing my
Christmas shopping in any of these stores.

I figure you'll like that!

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than
lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving
exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we?
There
are scoundrels out there.
I though you had stopped that?
A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck
hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.


Are you serious? Skipper has no class whatsoever. It is telling that you
think he might.

Harry, I think that even you have *some* class. You seldom show it in the
group,
and most often show a lack of it, but I still see enough decent posts to
know
you *have* some.

Furthermore, I have no control over the posting of Tuuk, or anyone else. I
surely do not have the power to make easier (facilitate) the postings of
*anyone* in the group.

But, if it makes you feel better to call me 'facilitator', help yourself.
I just
think, rather, that there are a lot of people who dislike you. And, it has
nothing to do with your politics.

Also, as Sears, Kohls, Wal-Mart, and Costco are *not* using "Merry
Christmas" in
their greetings this year (so they'll be more PC), I'll not be doing my
Christmas shopping in any of these stores.

Include Target in that list.

Does the Vatican have an online gift shop?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

JohnH,
When you respond to Harry you are facilitating him. For the sake of
humanity, please stop. ; )


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:52:41 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than
lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?



Why should he when people like you facilitate him, John?
Do you ever consider the negative consequences of some of what you do
here?
You are the #1 facilitator of useless souls like Skipper, Tuuk,
Smithers, et al.
Reflect upon it.

Please enlighten me. You have done so much to make this a good group that
I know
you've got the right answers.

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Later,

Tom

PS: I would have emailed you on this ignoring wrecked boats, but I
didn't know if your addy was any good.

Uh...did you skip over this bit:

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether
Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly
two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush
adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation."

If Libby lied and obstructed, that is a federal crime. Bill Clinton was
impeached by the rabid-right US House of Representatives for lying about
a blow job.

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.


Actually the lie was in a sexual harassment suit. Lies in court to prevent
conviction of sexual harassment and paying big bucks to the harassed. A
little bit different than just lies about sex (?) with an employee. And the
defendant did pay $850,000 to plaintiff. So there must have been some
sexual harassment!

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:27:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than
lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving
exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we?
There
are scoundrels out there.
I though you had stopped that?
A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.

I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck
hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.


Are you serious? Skipper has no class whatsoever. It is telling that you
think he might.

Harry, I think that even you have *some* class. You seldom show it in the
group,
and most often show a lack of it, but I still see enough decent posts to
know
you *have* some.

Furthermore, I have no control over the posting of Tuuk, or anyone else. I
surely do not have the power to make easier (facilitate) the postings of
*anyone* in the group.

But, if it makes you feel better to call me 'facilitator', help yourself.
I just
think, rather, that there are a lot of people who dislike you. And, it has
nothing to do with your politics.

Also, as Sears, Kohls, Wal-Mart, and Costco are *not* using "Merry
Christmas" in
their greetings this year (so they'll be more PC), I'll not be doing my
Christmas shopping in any of these stores.

Include Target in that list.

Does the Vatican have an online gift shop?


Don't know. But everything you'd ever want to know (or be misled about) the
Vatican is right he http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/vt.html

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Good point.


On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:40:54 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

JohnH,
When you respond to Harry you are facilitating him. For the sake of
humanity, please stop. ; )


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:52:41 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than
lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.

I though you had stopped that?



Why should he when people like you facilitate him, John?
Do you ever consider the negative consequences of some of what you do
here?
You are the #1 facilitator of useless souls like Skipper, Tuuk,
Smithers, et al.
Reflect upon it.

Please enlighten me. You have done so much to make this a good group that
I know
you've got the right answers.

--
John H.

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



--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Harry,
I hate to disagree with you, but I am not on the opposite side of the
political spectrum from you. If it makes you feel better about yourself to
assume this, feel free. I will not hold that against you.




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than
lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving
exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we?
There
are scoundrels out there.
I though you had stopped that?
A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.
I'd probably have vented some.
You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck
hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.

Are you serious? Skipper has no class whatsoever. It is telling that you
think he might.

Harry, I think that even you have *some* class. You seldom show it in the
group,
and most often show a lack of it, but I still see enough decent posts to
know
you *have* some.

Furthermore, I have no control over the posting of Tuuk, or anyone else.
I
surely do not have the power to make easier (facilitate) the postings of
*anyone* in the group.

But, if it makes you feel better to call me 'facilitator', help yourself.
I just
think, rather, that there are a lot of people who dislike you. And, it
has
nothing to do with your politics.


I never said you had control over Tuuk or any of the other retardos. I
said you facilitated them. Control and facilitate do not have the same
meaning.

Almost all of those who "dislike" me here are on the opposite side of the
political spectrum.


--
You were right, it's all abut character. Impeach Bush Now.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:19:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0600, Skipper wrote:

"John H." wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
So, I guess that lying about a conversation is a higher crime than lying
about a actual physical sexual encounter between boss and employee.
If we were discussing a certain NW boat broker, well yes, I'd say it
was. There needs to be a certain amount of trust when giving exclusives
to these agents. If that confidence is not honored, where are we? There
are scoundrels out there.
I though you had stopped that?
A couple questions, John. How would you react if you had business
dealing with an unscrupulous boat dealer who then published false
stories about you to Usenet? Do you think unscrupulous boat dealers
(those with the business ethics of a used car salesman) should be
reported? Please respond honestly.
I'd probably have vented some.

You said you were stopping. I simply reminded you. Of course, Chuck hasn't
stopped either, but I thought maybe you were going to show more class.

Are you serious? Skipper has no class whatsoever. It is telling that you
think he might.

Harry, I think that even you have *some* class. You seldom show it in the group,
and most often show a lack of it, but I still see enough decent posts to know
you *have* some.

Furthermore, I have no control over the posting of Tuuk, or anyone else. I
surely do not have the power to make easier (facilitate) the postings of
*anyone* in the group.

But, if it makes you feel better to call me 'facilitator', help yourself. I just
think, rather, that there are a lot of people who dislike you. And, it has
nothing to do with your politics.


I never said you had control over Tuuk or any of the other retardos. I
said you facilitated them. Control and facilitate do not have the same
meaning.

Almost all of those who "dislike" me here are on the opposite side of
the political spectrum.

1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?

2. What about all the rest?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

JohnH,
fa·cil·i·tate
To make easy or easier:
You make it too easy for me to post in rec.boats. You better stop that.
; )

What Harry means is you should not respond to anyone he doesn't want you to
respond to. If everyone in here would just listen to Harry and do what
Harry wants, rec.boats would be a much better place.





"John H." wrote in message Almost all of those
who "dislike" me here are on the opposite side of
the political spectrum.

1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?

2. What about all the rest?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Harry,
I hate to disagree with you on this one, but JohnH does not encourage or
discourage any of my posts. I am able to make up my own mind as to what I
post.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:


1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?


1. a. trans. To render easier the performance of (an action), the
attainment of (a result); to afford facilities for, promote, help forward
(an action or process).



¶2. To lessen the labour of, assist (a person).


3. Physiol. To increase the likelihood of, strengthen (a response); to
bring about the transmission of (an impulse). (Cf. facilitation 3.)


In sum, you facilitate by encouraging the perpetrators of the behavior
under discussion.





--
Blind faith in Bush's bad leadership is not patriotism.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:45:36 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

JohnH,
fa·cil·i·tate
To make easy or easier:
You make it too easy for me to post in rec.boats. You better stop that.
; )

What Harry means is you should not respond to anyone he doesn't want you to
respond to. If everyone in here would just listen to Harry and do what
Harry wants, rec.boats would be a much better place.





"John H." wrote in message Almost all of those
who "dislike" me here are on the opposite side of
the political spectrum.

1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?

2. What about all the rest?

--
John H.

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


You and I seem to agree on the definition of 'facilitate'. What am I doing that
makes it easier for you, et al, to post here. Is whatever I'm doing able to
discriminate, or does it facilitate *everyone's* posting?

If I'm able to facilitate some posts, could I also hinder other posts?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

JohnH,
I wish you would stop facilitating Harry's posts and get to work on
hindering him. ; )

John between you and me, I think Harry has gone off the deep end.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:45:36 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

JohnH,
fa·cil·i·tate
To make easy or easier:
You make it too easy for me to post in rec.boats. You better stop that.
; )

What Harry means is you should not respond to anyone he doesn't want you
to
respond to. If everyone in here would just listen to Harry and do what
Harry wants, rec.boats would be a much better place.





"John H." wrote in message Almost all of
those
who "dislike" me here are on the opposite side of
the political spectrum.

1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?

2. What about all the rest?

--
John H.

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


You and I seem to agree on the definition of 'facilitate'. What am I doing
that
makes it easier for you, et al, to post here. Is whatever I'm doing able
to
discriminate, or does it facilitate *everyone's* posting?

If I'm able to facilitate some posts, could I also hinder other posts?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:48:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:


1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?


1. a. trans. To render easier the performance of (an action), the
attainment of (a result); to afford facilities for, promote, help
forward (an action or process).



¶2. To lessen the labour of, assist (a person).


3. Physiol. To increase the likelihood of, strengthen (a response);
to bring about the transmission of (an impulse). (Cf. facilitation 3.)


In sum, you facilitate by encouraging the perpetrators of the behavior
under discussion.

Do I render the behavior easier? Do I lessen the labor of these posters? Or, do
I do something physiological to them? (I'm not going very far in that
direction!)

Would Metamucil be something that meets definition number three?

Do you not think that your constant derogatory comments 'facilitate' responses?

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:49:58 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

Harry,
I hate to disagree with you on this one, but JohnH does not encourage or
discourage any of my posts. I am able to make up my own mind as to what I
post.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:


1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?


1. a. trans. To render easier the performance of (an action), the
attainment of (a result); to afford facilities for, promote, help forward
(an action or process).



¶2. To lessen the labour of, assist (a person).


3. Physiol. To increase the likelihood of, strengthen (a response); to
bring about the transmission of (an impulse). (Cf. facilitation 3.)


In sum, you facilitate by encouraging the perpetrators of the behavior
under discussion.





--
Blind faith in Bush's bad leadership is not patriotism.


Now you've hurt his self-esteem.

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

JohnH,
It is funny that Harry has followed everyone of your posts with a snide
comment, but that is ok. NPD is a terrible thing.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:49:58 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

Harry,
I hate to disagree with you on this one, but JohnH does not encourage or
discourage any of my posts. I am able to make up my own mind as to what I
post.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:


1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?


1. a. trans. To render easier the performance of (an action), the
attainment of (a result); to afford facilities for, promote, help
forward
(an action or process).



¶2. To lessen the labour of, assist (a person).


3. Physiol. To increase the likelihood of, strengthen (a response);
to
bring about the transmission of (an impulse). (Cf. facilitation 3.)


In sum, you facilitate by encouraging the perpetrators of the behavior
under discussion.





--
Blind faith in Bush's bad leadership is not patriotism.


Now you've hurt his self-esteem.

--
John H.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:13:47 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

JohnH,
It is funny that Harry has followed everyone of your posts with a snide
comment, but that is ok. NPD is a terrible thing.


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:49:58 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

Harry,
I hate to disagree with you on this one, but JohnH does not encourage or
discourage any of my posts. I am able to make up my own mind as to what I
post.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:


1. What, to your way of thinking, does 'facilitate' mean?


1. a. trans. To render easier the performance of (an action), the
attainment of (a result); to afford facilities for, promote, help
forward
(an action or process).



¶2. To lessen the labour of, assist (a person).


3. Physiol. To increase the likelihood of, strengthen (a response);
to
bring about the transmission of (an impulse). (Cf. facilitation 3.)


In sum, you facilitate by encouraging the perpetrators of the behavior
under discussion.





--
Blind faith in Bush's bad leadership is not patriotism.


Now you've hurt his self-esteem.

--
John H.

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


Harry, the great facilitator!!

--
John H.

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