| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
I just don't understand why...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:14:37 -0500, KMAN wrote:
snip What are you talking about now, you blithering idiot? Like I said, enjoy your NYE party! OvO |
I just don't understand why...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:19:46 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/10/05 3:25 AM: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:17:47 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip No, basically I don't care who you convort with, just don't kayak without a PFD and drown That did not seem to be your position, as you kept making weird references about their ages and some other cryptic comments about how whatever they were doing together somehow might have contributed to their deaths. and then get written up in the local rag! If you do that, then it becomes obligatory for this NG to discuss your stupid decisions that led up to your demise! Otherwise enjoy your trip! OvO This is amazing. You have gone full blown delusional! You are the only one on this newsgroup I can recall that did any such speculating about these two people. What the two were doing, why they were doing it, is not a concern to me in the context of this discussion, except how it affected their decision making ability. They made some stupid decisions, and the question was ask "Why?", and I suggested that certain elements were in place that often times leads to bad decisions. Richard was smart enough to figure out from my enuendo exactly what I was suggesting. This is one of the oldest pitfalls of mankind, and classically described in the story of King David and Bathsheba. The Christian faith is a faith that deals with the reality of the nature of man! I do not stick my head in the sand, or run around with pink colored glasses on. If you cannot figure out what I am saying, I would suggest that there is too much lead in your diet. You may try to cut back on the lead, and in the meantime, have a nice trip! I hang around this NG to pick up constructive ideas and info on the sport of recreational paddling of kayaks and canoes, this particular thread has developed to be as recently described as a "****ing contest", and has nothing to do with my stated interest, so I am going to move on as well. If in the future you desire to have an on topic discussion, I will be glad to hear from you. RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
|
I just don't understand why...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:49:26 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/10/05 3:27 PM: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:19:46 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/10/05 3:25 AM: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:17:47 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip No, basically I don't care who you convort with, just don't kayak without a PFD and drown That did not seem to be your position, as you kept making weird references about their ages and some other cryptic comments about how whatever they were doing together somehow might have contributed to their deaths. and then get written up in the local rag! If you do that, then it becomes obligatory for this NG to discuss your stupid decisions that led up to your demise! Otherwise enjoy your trip! OvO This is amazing. You have gone full blown delusional! You are the only one on this newsgroup I can recall that did any such speculating about these two people. What the two were doing, why they were doing it, is not a concern to me in the context of this discussion, except how it affected their decision making ability. They made some stupid decisions, and the question was ask "Why?", and I suggested that certain elements were in place that often times leads to bad decisions. What elements? And why do you think they had anything to do with what happened? Richard was smart enough to figure out from my enuendo exactly what I was suggesting. This is one of the oldest pitfalls of mankind, and classically described in the story of King David and Bathsheba. The Christian faith is a faith that deals with the reality of the nature of man! I do not stick my head in the sand, or run around with pink colored glasses on. You stick your head right up your ass, most of the time. That would explain your muddled thinking, and your even more muddled explanation of your comments about this tragic event. If you cannot figure out what I am saying, I would suggest that there is too much lead in your diet. You may try to cut back on the lead, and in the meantime, have a nice trip! Why make a comment if you are unprepared or unwilling to explain it beyond innuendo? Why is it a secret? I hang around this NG to pick up constructive ideas and info on the sport of recreational paddling of kayaks and canoes, this particular thread has developed to be as recently described as a "****ing contest", and has nothing to do with my stated interest, so I am going to move on as well. If in the future you desire to have an on topic discussion, I will be glad to hear from you. RkyMtnHootOwl OvO Discussing a tragedy in which two kayakers accompanied by a guide were out on the ocean without PFDs is relevant. But you turned it into some sort of soap opera with vague comments about two people you know nothing about, and then refused to explain them. You are getting into full blown delusion mode again. Get well soon. "Yes, I'm sure that you find reality boring, which is why you descend so often into what you call "satire", and what everyone else calls, "K-man's self-indulgent, and predictably boring, commentaries."" The above quote by some of Kman's other friend on the OTT.general who apparently have also had to deal with his insightful commentaries! His ****ing dance on this NG is his signature presense! Sort of like a dog marking what he thinks is his alpha territory! John F., I apologize to you and all the other serious paddlers here on RBP, for allowing this thread to continue so long, thinking that I could communicate with Kman. I have wearied of his foolishness, and after this comment will move on. I hope that my input in the future will be more constructively directed, and I will look forward to your helpful insight and experience. I have tried to move on from last years posting, and I present myself now, as RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:45:45 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , John Fereira at wrote on 12/10/05 2:13 PM: KMAN wrote in : What are you talking about now, you blithering idiot? I doubt that anyone but you really cares and I would conjecture that pretty much everyone else reading through would prefer that you take you're little ****ing match to email. I'm sure they'll just be big boys and girls and keep out of the splash zone. Apparently other NGs have also wearied of his input. Cyber-identities like Kman,"secretly know that their presentation sucks, so the presenter tries to subconsciously make up for it with a spiffy slide show. It just goes to prove the stage adage that a big smile and jazz hands can make up for bad dancing." Check out his slide show at: http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/ The above quote by some of Kman's other friend on the OTT.general who apparently have also had to deal with his insightful commentaries! His ****ing dance on this NG is his signature presense! Sort of like a dog marking what he thinks is his alpha territory! John F., I apologize to you and all the other serious paddlers here on RBP, for allowing this thread to continue so long, thinking that I could communicate with Kman. I have wearied of his foolishness, and after this comment will move on. I hope that my input in the future will be more constructively directed, and I will look forward to your helpful insight and experience. I have tried to move on from last years posting, and I present myself now, as RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at
wrote on 12/11/05 4:40 AM: On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:49:26 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/10/05 3:27 PM: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:19:46 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/10/05 3:25 AM: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:17:47 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip No, basically I don't care who you convort with, just don't kayak without a PFD and drown That did not seem to be your position, as you kept making weird references about their ages and some other cryptic comments about how whatever they were doing together somehow might have contributed to their deaths. and then get written up in the local rag! If you do that, then it becomes obligatory for this NG to discuss your stupid decisions that led up to your demise! Otherwise enjoy your trip! OvO This is amazing. You have gone full blown delusional! You are the only one on this newsgroup I can recall that did any such speculating about these two people. What the two were doing, why they were doing it, is not a concern to me in the context of this discussion, except how it affected their decision making ability. They made some stupid decisions, and the question was ask "Why?", and I suggested that certain elements were in place that often times leads to bad decisions. What elements? And why do you think they had anything to do with what happened? Richard was smart enough to figure out from my enuendo exactly what I was suggesting. This is one of the oldest pitfalls of mankind, and classically described in the story of King David and Bathsheba. The Christian faith is a faith that deals with the reality of the nature of man! I do not stick my head in the sand, or run around with pink colored glasses on. You stick your head right up your ass, most of the time. That would explain your muddled thinking, and your even more muddled explanation of your comments about this tragic event. If you cannot figure out what I am saying, I would suggest that there is too much lead in your diet. You may try to cut back on the lead, and in the meantime, have a nice trip! Why make a comment if you are unprepared or unwilling to explain it beyond innuendo? Why is it a secret? I hang around this NG to pick up constructive ideas and info on the sport of recreational paddling of kayaks and canoes, this particular thread has developed to be as recently described as a "****ing contest", and has nothing to do with my stated interest, so I am going to move on as well. If in the future you desire to have an on topic discussion, I will be glad to hear from you. RkyMtnHootOwl OvO Discussing a tragedy in which two kayakers accompanied by a guide were out on the ocean without PFDs is relevant. But you turned it into some sort of soap opera with vague comments about two people you know nothing about, and then refused to explain them. You are getting into full blown delusion mode again. Get well soon. "Yes, I'm sure that you find reality boring, which is why you descend so often into what you call "satire", and what everyone else calls, "K-man's self-indulgent, and predictably boring, commentaries."" Whaqt are you blathering about now? Why is it impossible for you to address the questions posed to you above? Here they are again: #1 What the two were doing, why they were doing it, is not a concern to me in the context of this discussion, except how it affected their decision making ability. They made some stupid decisions, and the question was ask "Why?", and I suggested that certain elements were in place that often times leads to bad decisions. What elements? And why do you think they had anything to do with what happened? #2 If you cannot figure out what I am saying, I would suggest that there is too much lead in your diet. You may try to cut back on the lead, and in the meantime, have a nice trip! Why make a comment if you are unprepared or unwilling to explain it beyond innuendo? Why is it a secret? The above quote by some of Kman's other friend on the OTT.general who apparently have also had to deal with his insightful commentaries! His ****ing dance on this NG is his signature presense! Sort of like a dog marking what he thinks is his alpha territory! You made comments here, in rec.boats.paddle, about two people who died while kayaking. You are unwilling to hold yourself accountable for explaining those comments, which makes you a scumbag. Whether or not I am Hitler or the Devil himself, that won't absolve you or your demonstrated dishonesty and related moral and ethical deficiences/ John F., I apologize to you and all the other serious paddlers here on RBP, for allowing this thread to continue so long, thinking that I could communicate with Kman. What's actually happened is you have quite deliberately refused to explain your comments about the two paddlers who have died. I have wearied of his foolishness, and after this comment will move on. You don't want to be held accountable for your statements and you are looking for excuses to run away. I hope that my input in the future will be more constructively directed That's very unlikely, given your enormous moral and ethical void. and I will look forward to your helpful insight and experience. I have tried to move on from last years posting, and I present myself now, as RkyMtnHootOwl OvO Ah, starting fresh as of this moment to be honest and accountable for your own comments? We'll see! |
I just don't understand why...
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at
wrote on 12/11/05 4:42 AM: On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:45:45 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , John Fereira at wrote on 12/10/05 2:13 PM: KMAN wrote in : What are you talking about now, you blithering idiot? I doubt that anyone but you really cares and I would conjecture that pretty much everyone else reading through would prefer that you take you're little ****ing match to email. I'm sure they'll just be big boys and girls and keep out of the splash zone. Apparently other NGs have also wearied of his input. LOL! Your promise to move on fell a little short! You lasted exactly two minutes! What a fool. And then, having humiliated yourself again on rec.boats.paddle, you go cyberstalking, trying in vain to dig yourself out with dishonest interpretations of information in other groups that you can't even understand! Cyber-identities like Kman,"secretly know that their presentation sucks, so the presenter tries to subconsciously make up for it with a spiffy slide show. It just goes to prove the stage adage that a big smile and jazz hands can make up for bad dancing." Check out his slide show at: http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/ There's no post like that on ott.general you lying idiot. If you are going to try to smear someone, you at least need to reference it. You are even more of a dishonest scumbag than I first thought! Here is the actual post, from my buddy Olaf. To preface the quote, one must of course be aware that at one time I participated in a thread about what makes a good powerpoint presentation, and that I was highly critical of powerpoint shows where the information on the screen mirrors the written information provided to the audience. Now, here is the actual quote (the post in its entirety) not the scumbag version posted by Tinkernhootowl: === in article , Olaf Timandahaff at wrote on 12/10/05 10:55 PM: Here's one for Kman,,,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Presentation softwa the harbinger of a useless business meeting Show me a PowerPoint presentation and I'll show you a useless company meeting. Electronic slide shows attempt to distract a bored audience where the meat of a presentation would ordinarily entertain them. No meat? Give them more sounds, animations, and transition effects. In the old days, speakers used to keep their notes to themselves; now, for some reason, they want to show them to the audience with fancy graphics. It's as though they secretly know that their presentation sucks, so the presenter tries to subconsciously make up for it with a spiffy slide show. It just goes to prove the stage adage that a big smile and jazz hands can make up for bad dancing. The uselessness of a meeting is directly proportional to the complexity of the PowerPoint presentation. If you want to quote me on that in the future, mark it down as Jem's Law. Jem Matson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/186/44/ === And here is my reply to Olaf: === in article , KMAN at wrote on 12/11/05 1:44 AM: Damn, now everyone knows I am Jem Matson! LOL. Beautifully said. I still can't get over how often this happens: the presenter hands out printed papers stapled neatly in the corner or perhaps in a nice little binder, and then proceeds to project the exact same information onto a screen and force you to listen to him/her read it off the screen. Having received the handout in the usual minutes of goofing around before the "presentation" begins, I've already read it from cover to cover before the first slide is shown. There is now nothing to do but wait as painful boring slide after painful boring slide passes by, eating up time that could have been used to take advantage of whatever expertise or experience it is the presenter is supposed to possess. Horrible! Just horrible! === The above quote by some of Kman's other friend on the OTT.general who apparently have also had to deal with his insightful commentaries! Yes, you stupid idiot, it's by Olaf, who posted a quote for me from Jem Matson, because he knew I would like it. Because it supports my own opinion about powerpoint presentations. His ****ing dance on this NG is his signature presense! Sort of like a dog marking what he thinks is his alpha territory! Or, you simply can't understand what is going on, because you suffer from some bizarre form of paranoid delusions, which are so serious that you spend time searching through usenet trying to make yourself feel better by misinterpreting threads that I am involved in. Pathetic! John F., I apologize to you and all the other serious paddlers here on RBP, for allowing this thread to continue so long, thinking that I could communicate with Kman. I have wearied of his foolishness, and after this comment will move on. You said that last time, idiot. I hope that my input in the future will be more constructively directed There's no reason to believe that this will happen, but good luck! and I will look forward to your helpful insight and experience. I have tried to move on from last years posting, and I present myself now, as RkyMtnHootOwl OvO So you are starting fresh....again! Get well soon. |
I just don't understand why...
RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:50:37 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:20:52 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message . .. snip Is your name Richard? No. This is a newsgroup, not Richard's email account. Why not answer the question? You're correct, this is not Richard's email account! It is more like a conversation. In a conversation only rude immature individuals butt into a discussion between two other individuals to interject their brain farts, when a statement has been made directly between the two individuals trying to have a serious conversation! The statements were not directed at you! So sit down and listen, you might learn something! OvO Dood: a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or association. As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion. It is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well... really STOOpid. b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising, since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between you and KMAN. c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake. It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential goodness of mankind, that he persists in trying to get you to respond politely; to engage in civilized discourse. I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty |
I just don't understand why...
RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:51:51 -0500, KMAN wrote: "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message oups.com... I'll get back to you when you improve yer reading comprehension skills to the point where yer response actually addresses my remarks. 'Til then, attempting to communicate with you is just a waste of my time, so I'm outta here. This is Tinkernhootowl we're talking about. You were expecting something logical and intelligent? LOL! snip And Kman cuddles up nice and close to Richard, Cute couple! I wonder if Richard saw this coming! Maybe they will go on the trip together? You mean, me with my "attributes" and KMAN with his "attributes"? Gee-Zeus, I can just imagine the innuendo you would post if you learned that I ever actually went boating with KMAN! Actually, I have boated with a number of people whom I first met on r.b.p over the last 10 or 12 years. Of current r.b.p participants I have met John Fereirra in New York and C1man in Missoula, and I have boated with McCrae (from MD), ven den Bergh (from Holland), Cable (from KY), Kelly (from MO), Mothra (currently in CA), CintiBud (from OH), and probably others I'm forgetting, although most of the old-timers like the RivieraRatt (OH), Leland Davis (NC), Chris Hipgrave (NC), a smart and entertaining lesbian whose name I'll keep to myself (MA), and Chris Bell (NC) (all of whom I've met and/or boated with) were driven out of r.b.p by a couple of idiots who were even more pathological than you. KMAN could conceivably become one of my boating companions IRL. I am planning a boating trip to CO, WY, and MT next summer (I haven't boated the Rockies since the summer of 2000) but I can guarantee you that YOU will not be one of the r.b.p correspondents whom I will ever attempt to meet or to boat with. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters ================================================== ==================== |
I just don't understand why...
On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
snip Dood: a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or association. Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time! In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following, a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept! Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is expected that one would always be the center of attention. As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion. And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being boorish, rude, and immature! However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses! And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made regarding the accidental death. I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out above! It is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well... really STOOpid. Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or intelligent enough to hear what is being said! Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished. But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!! b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising, since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between you and KMAN. Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the center of every conversation, and then making no substantive contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose! c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake. Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious". Now, I understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been a contributing factor. It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential goodness of mankind, Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then, we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism, but his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs! that he persists in trying to get you to respond politely; to engage in civilized discourse. I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over. If he really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding, instead of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of. His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better! My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any such detail to build some story board. It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other, or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no enuendo! Which do you prefer? To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG! Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and that if it had been going on, that could have been a major distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the subject of the discussion. I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! |
I just don't understand why...
On 12 Dec 2005 08:59:14 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
RkyMtnHootOwl wrote: On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:51:51 -0500, KMAN wrote: "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message oups.com... I'll get back to you when you improve yer reading comprehension skills to the point where yer response actually addresses my remarks. 'Til then, attempting to communicate with you is just a waste of my time, so I'm outta here. This is Tinkernhootowl we're talking about. You were expecting something logical and intelligent? LOL! snip And Kman cuddles up nice and close to Richard, Cute couple! I wonder if Richard saw this coming! Maybe they will go on the trip together? You mean, me with my "attributes" and KMAN with his "attributes"? Gee-Zeus, I can just imagine the innuendo you would post if you learned that I ever actually went boating with KMAN! I don't know, was there anything going on? As it turns out, your last trip was very short, so I doubt that much could have happened! Regarding previous trips, only you two really know! Actually, I have boated with a number of people whom I first met on r.b.p over the last 10 or 12 years. Of current r.b.p participants I have met John Fereirra in New York and C1man in Missoula, and I have boated with McCrae (from MD), ven den Bergh (from Holland), Cable (from KY), Kelly (from MO), Mothra (currently in CA), CintiBud (from OH), and probably others I'm forgetting, although most of the old-timers like the RivieraRatt (OH), Leland Davis (NC), Chris Hipgrave (NC), a smart and entertaining lesbian whose name I'll keep to myself (MA), and Chris Bell (NC) (all of whom I've met and/or boated with) were driven out of r.b.p by a couple of idiots who were even more pathological than you. A notable list, and sad that they left the RBP, but that is their choice. Most of them departed before I even showed up here, so I cannot claim any complicity in their departure. How the RBP has been conducted, and how it contributed to their departure in the past is debatable. If you chose to conduct it as a cocktail party as you described, then there will be some that will drive home drunk, and get lost on the way. If you want it more civil and monitored, then are you volunteering to be the monitor that makes sure we are all happy and safe. Hopefully your list of friends are still paddling and posting somewhere else that is satisfying there needs. Maybe they would come back if you yourself found a way to post substance here that we could all enjoy commenting on. I personally left during the summer, because I was having to much fun paddling to put up with the constant harangue here to spend much time posting. Though I did lurk during the summer, and I did not see any particular substance from you or any of your other friends going on in my absense. So though your old party is over, there is another cocktail party going on somewhere else down the street. If you are thirsty, go find it! Make new friends, find old ones! KMAN could conceivably become one of my boating companions IRL. Enjoy! I am planning a boating trip to CO, WY, and MT next summer (I haven't boated the Rockies since the summer of 2000) but I can guarantee you that YOU will not be one of the r.b.p correspondents whom I will ever attempt to meet or to boat with. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Meeting you here RBP is enjoyable enough to last a life time. Enjoy your trip to Co, Wy, and Mt next summer. There is lots of water and plenty of country for us all to have a good time. There should be good water since they are reporting record snowfall! Just don't drink and drive! I would not want you to get lost on the way home! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at
wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM: On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: snip Dood: a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or association. Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time! In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following, a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept! Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is expected that one would always be the center of attention. As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion. And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being boorish, rude, and immature! Actually, it was made as a statement, rather than a "thought" of yours. Sadly, you still don't understand newsgroups, or how to keep from flapping off ignorantly and embarassing yourself. However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses! You (incorrectly) stated that it was inappropriate for me to participate in the thread in the way that I did. Thus, you are being boorish, rude, and immature by continuing to whine about your own error. And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made regarding the accidental death. That's right, you don't. But as a result of your vague and unexplained smear of these two accident victims, you have, as usual, humiliated yourself. I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out above! Who is suggesting that you can be forced into not looking like an idiot? Not me. I know that you are fully determined - as is your right - to look like as big of an idiot as possible. It is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well... really STOOpid. Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or intelligent enough to hear what is being said! Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished. But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!! Brilliant! Do you have an idea what you are trying to say? b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising, since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between you and KMAN. Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the center of every conversation, and then making no substantive contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose! c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake. Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious". You don't thinking trying to get to the bottom of comments about people who have died is serious? I guess that's your problem. You don't take human life seriously. And you don't hold personal accountability as a value. Now, I understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been a contributing factor. What is "intellectual" about refusing to explain your comments? It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential goodness of mankind, Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then, we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism What the christ are you talking about? but his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs! I still believe you have it in you to recognize that your unfounded and unexmplained smear of those two dead people was morally corrupt. I am, indeed, an optimist. that he persists in trying to get you to respond politely; to engage in civilized discourse. I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over. Balderdash. If he really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding I did that again and again. instead of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of. His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better! LOL. Childish? This from the guy who refuses to explain his own comments and asks over and over again for people to take a guess? That sort of behaviour is idiotic, and I said so. And it's still true. You are being an idiot. My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any such detail to build some story board. What kind of bull**** is that? Did you mean what you said or not? And if you did, what the hell were you saying beyond your vague statements - the meaning of which you urged others to take a guess at. It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other, or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no enuendo! Which do you prefer? I would "prefer" that you quite being pathetically evasive, and have the integrity to explain the meaning of your comments. To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG! Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and that if it had been going on, that could have been a major distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the subject of the discussion. Christ, we could speculate that someone is bashing your skull with a baseball bat every time you sit down to write your posts in this newsgroup, Tinkernhootowl. There's much stronger foundation available to pose that theory that there is for your vague smear of those two paddlers. I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without them? Idiots. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield So? Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. Are you in a time warp? The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than right or wrong. BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD? He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling. Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out, whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? If not, what the hell are you trying to say? I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. You've still said nothing. And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl! |
I just don't understand why...
This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts I
think I have ever read on rbp!! OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for many years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting place to hang out. His dealings with you have been patient and constructive, and your retort that 'the old party is over' and that he should consider moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is flabbergasting. Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real, or are you just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory. I think you owe OC1 an apology. Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me. Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks have also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what is happening. I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had not been so over the top. Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening. --riverman |
I just don't understand why...
On 13 Dec 2005 21:42:57 -0800, riverman wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:43:15 -0700, RkyMtnHootOwl wrote: On 12 Dec 2005 08:59:14 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: RkyMtnHootOwl wrote: On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:51:51 -0500, KMAN wrote: "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message oups.com... I'll get back to you when you improve yer reading comprehension skills to the point where yer response actually addresses my remarks. 'Til then, attempting to communicate with you is just a waste of my time, so I'm outta here. This is Tinkernhootowl we're talking about. You were expecting something logical and intelligent? LOL! snip And Kman cuddles up nice and close to Richard, Cute couple! I wonder if Richard saw this coming! Maybe they will go on the trip together? You mean, me with my "attributes" and KMAN with his "attributes"? Gee-Zeus, I can just imagine the innuendo you would post if you learned that I ever actually went boating with KMAN! I don't know, was there anything going on? As it turns out, your last trip was very short, so I doubt that much could have happened! Regarding previous trips, only you two really know! Actually, I have boated with a number of people whom I first met on r.b.p over the last 10 or 12 years. Of current r.b.p participants I have met John Fereirra in New York and C1man in Missoula, and I have boated with McCrae (from MD), ven den Bergh (from Holland), Cable (from KY), Kelly (from MO), Mothra (currently in CA), CintiBud (from OH), and probably others I'm forgetting, although most of the old-timers like the RivieraRatt (OH), Leland Davis (NC), Chris Hipgrave (NC), a smart and entertaining lesbian whose name I'll keep to myself (MA), and Chris Bell (NC) (all of whom I've met and/or boated with) were driven out of r.b.p by a couple of idiots who were even more pathological than you. A notable list, and sad that they left the RBP, but that is their choice. Most of them departed before I even showed up here, so I cannot claim any complicity in their departure. How the RBP has been conducted, and how it contributed to their departure in the past is debatable. If you chose to conduct it as a cocktail party as you described, then there will be some that will drive home drunk, and get lost on the way. If you want it more civil and monitored, then are you volunteering to be the monitor that makes sure we are all happy and safe. Hopefully your list of friends are still paddling and posting somewhere else that is satisfying there needs. Maybe they would come back if you yourself found a way to post substance here that we could all enjoy commenting on. I personally left during the summer, because I was having to much fun paddling to put up with the constant harangue here to spend much time posting. Though I did lurk during the summer, and I did not see any particular substance from you or any of your other friends going on in my absense. So though your old party is over, there is another cocktail party going on somewhere else down the street. If you are thirsty, go find it! Make new friends, find old ones! KMAN could conceivably become one of my boating companions IRL. Enjoy! I am planning a boating trip to CO, WY, and MT next summer (I haven't boated the Rockies since the summer of 2000) but I can guarantee you that YOU will not be one of the r.b.p correspondents whom I will ever attempt to meet or to boat with. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Meeting you here RBP is enjoyable enough to last a life time. Enjoy your trip to Co, Wy, and Mt next summer. There is lots of water and plenty of country for us all to have a good time. There should be good water since they are reporting record snowfall! Just don't drink and drive! I would not want you to get lost on the way home! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO "This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts I think I have ever read on rbp!! Oh how your virgin ears must burn! The insult of it all! Sound the Alarm, rally the troops! I can hear the horde rising in counter assault to defend the faith and honor of a great one! OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for many years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting place to hang out. Such cooperation, so much interest, before I came on board, all summer long in my absense, and now the multitude of threads he starts with his abundance of wisdom and experience of all his many years! Hoot Look back and see that the RBP has been sliding into obscurity long before I came along, and that, with Richard's and your able tutilage! Is it that the old dog and pony shows do not have the drawing power that you use to have? Or maybe even some grew weary of your primadonna performance! Maybe they just grew older, wiser, and have other interest! They moved on!!! Horror of Horrors!!! His dealings with you have been patient and constructive, and your retort that 'the old party is over' and that he should consider moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is flabbergasting. He is the one that bemoans that all the good old boys have moved on to more desirable locals, that the old party is apparently over is just my observation! Prove me wrong! Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real, I said friendlier, came here and posted, and got mugged by Kman, and then Richard made comments about Christianity, that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Speak of inflamatory, masturbatory, I hope Richard felt better afterwards. So yes friendlier, but not a lollipop! or are you just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory. And what do you do with your spare time!!! Hmmmm? I think you owe OC1 an apology. Me thinks not! Convince me, with something other than your temper tantrum, and threat to ignore me. If you ignore me, it just shows me the lack of true concern and commitment to the RBP by those who protest so much, and post so little! Go play with your flies! Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me. Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks have also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what is happening. Well golly whiz, you sure know your stuff, and all the threads to which I post. Not! Nor my friends who are glad to hear from me! So, Oh mighty one, I find I do not need to suck from your teat no more! If I find your post of interest, I will say hi, and if you choose to ignore civility, you prove who is uncivil! No condescention intended, you may stuff your ego where the sun don't shine! I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had not been so over the top. I appreciate your stated concern, ignore me, and continue posting to the RBP. and then I will believe your concern, when I see the previous glory. Otherwise it is tripe! Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening. Blindmans Bluff anyone?!! --riverman" Where have all the others gone? What has happened to the Kingdom, and the songs of old, and the story telling lore? The previous glory is gone, and the paint is dim, the ramparts in disarray, the walls fallen down! The enemy is at the gate, and is over the wall! Is there no steel left to strike steel? The battle flag lays trodden in the street! Woe is us! Who shall save us from this ignomy? Who shall sound the battle horn? Wait, is that Sir riverman, but why does he joust alone? One swipe of his faithful sword, and Sir riverman of the Knights of the RBP Round Table, dealt a mighty wound in defense of the cause of the Kingdom of Richard the Lion Hearted, His Kanubic Travesty! But even he cannot fight them all, by himself! The hordes, the hordes, the terrible hordes are a terrible thing to see! Now shall we sing his song? Shall we hear his tale of valor? No, for there is none left to sing his song, or speak of his valor, for the Kingdom is no more, all the others are gone! So riverman is left to sing the songs of valor himself, and to exalt his Travesty! and no one cares! Why such a deplorable demise of such a bright and shining kingdom? Oh such angst! We can stand on our previous ramparts! We can dream of glorious battleflags flown in waves most brillant! We can still hear the tint of steel! When the men were men, and life was good, but dreams are all we old men have to cheer out hearts, and lift our souls! No, that is not exactly true, pass another round, around, and let us remember the good old days! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! |
I just don't understand why...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM: On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: snip Dood: a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or association. Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time! In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following, a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept! Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is expected that one would always be the center of attention. As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion. And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being boorish, rude, and immature! snip However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses! snip And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made regarding the accidental death. snip I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out above! snip It is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well... really STOOpid. Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or intelligent enough to hear what is being said! Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished. But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!! snip b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising, since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between you and KMAN. Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the center of every conversation, and then making no substantive contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose! c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake. Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious". snip Now, I understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been a contributing factor. snip It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential goodness of mankind, Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then, we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism snip but his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs! snip that he persists in trying to get you to respond politely; to engage in civilized discourse. I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over. snip If he really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding snip instead of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of. His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better! snip My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any such detail to build some story board. snip It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other, or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no enuendo! Which do you prefer? snip To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG! Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and that if it had been going on, that could have been a major distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the subject of the discussion. snip I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without them? Idiots. Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy, but then the guidees are still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash them over the head to make them put their PFD's on. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield So? Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........! See below! Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. Are you in a time warp? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than right or wrong. Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract! BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling. I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and developed some story line beyond the facts as stated. The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out, whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? If not, what the hell are you trying to say? As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other, from any of the news articles! To draw any conclusionas you desire along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the fraternizing! I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. snip And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl! I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO |
I just don't understand why...
Myron, from the very first post, this guy has come barging in here like
a rhino in a porcelain factory. At first I gathered he was just a troll, but the more I saw of him, the more I have become convinced that he lacks social skills altogether. It doesn't matter what someone does or says, he takes everything out of context and comes up with insults and misinterpretations without there being any reason. He's sent out empty claims of wanting to befriend people before... to no avail. Ignoring the pest seems to be the only way to deal with him. Replying to anything he posts is just asking for more drivel. Unfortunately, some people continue to feed the sick puppy, so he sticks around, wallowing in the mud, enjoying the negative attention he gnerates. Neither you nor Richard need to prove yourself on RBP. Most of us know you two, some have met you in real life. That experience shows above all text ever posted on RBP what kind of people you a friendly, helpful, intelligent and reasonable. I'm grateful for having had the chance to hang out with you and Richard and to get to paddle together, and I will gladly do so again if the opportunity arises. I doubt that anyone would ever willingly be in the company of the pest, let alone deliberately go out for a paddling trip with him after they have seen how he misbehaves her on RBP. Friendship and camaraderie don't mix with behaviour like his. Wilko http://kayaker.nl riverman wrote: This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts I think I have ever read on rbp!! OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for many years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting place to hang out. His dealings with you have been patient and constructive, and your retort that 'the old party is over' and that he should consider moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is flabbergasting. Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real, or are you just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory. I think you owe OC1 an apology. Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me. Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks have also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what is happening. I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had not been so over the top. Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening. --riverman |
I just don't understand why...
Hey Wilko:
No worries, I thought the little guy could use a dose of the clue bat. Wasted bandwidth, I suspect (and I mean that in more ways than one.) ;-) So how's the healing coming along? I was walking home from work the other night and saw that my school hosts water polo one night a week...figured I might take a chance and get back in a kayak and see what happens. Don't get me wrong...this doesn't mean I'm considering the Dark Side; its just hard to find open boats here and I really want to be floating. I'm working on a plan to get one shipped out in the fall, but thats a while from now. Meanwhile, plans are afoot for a lengthy series of summer trips. I'll keep folks posted. --riverman |
I just don't understand why...
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM: On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: snip Dood: a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or association. Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time! In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following, a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept! Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is expected that one would always be the center of attention. As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion. And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being boorish, rude, and immature! snip However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses! snip And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made regarding the accidental death. snip I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out above! snip It is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well... really STOOpid. Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or intelligent enough to hear what is being said! Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished. But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!! snip b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising, since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between you and KMAN. Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the center of every conversation, and then making no substantive contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose! c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake. Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious". snip Now, I understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been a contributing factor. snip It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential goodness of mankind, Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then, we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism snip but his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs! snip that he persists in trying to get you to respond politely; to engage in civilized discourse. I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over. snip If he really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding snip instead of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of. His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better! snip My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any such detail to build some story board. snip It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other, or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no enuendo! Which do you prefer? snip To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG! Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and that if it had been going on, that could have been a major distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the subject of the discussion. snip I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without them? Idiots. Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy Maybe? MAYBE? You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? but then the guidees are still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash them over the head to make them put their PFD's on. I see. So if you were a guide, and two paddlers wanted to go out on the ocean with you but not wear PFD's, you wouldn't tell them "PFD's on, or forget it!" Man, you really are a first class idiot. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield So? Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........! See below! Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. Are you in a time warp? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your bizarre and archaic suggestion that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together. The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than right or wrong. Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract! Did he break the contract? What are you talking about? And what does it have to do with their deaths? BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your strange concern for military appearances. He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling. I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and developed some story line beyond the facts as stated. You have. The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts. The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or otherwise) about going paddling. Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out, whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? If not, what the hell are you trying to say? As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other, from any of the news articles! Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour. To draw any conclusionas you desire along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the fraternizing! Utter bull****. There are no facts whatsoever to support this. I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. snip And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl! I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO And yet, you are worse than ever. |
I just don't understand why...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM: snip I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without them? Idiots. Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy Maybe? MAYBE? You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person! Secondly, yeah I think it is a terrible policy to guide people on the ocean, without PFD's, not at you say, " not a bad policy". Which I will read between the lines of your blather, and understand that you think it is a bad policy, which I have no problem agreeing with you on. So! I would not choose to operate my guiding company under this policy, but apparently they did, but then it is not my business to tell them how to run their business. Being a Good liberal, I expect that you think that is what the government is for, To tell private business owners how to run their business! but then the guidees are still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash them over the head to make them put their PFD's on. I see. So if you were a guide, and two paddlers wanted to go out on the ocean with you but not wear PFD's, you wouldn't tell them "PFD's on, or forget it!" Man, you really are a first class idiot. I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout. That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the commander position immediately. Go figure, I was doing something to protect their children, and they wanted to make my life - Hell! I finally decided that I did not need the headache, so the boys had no camping experience, stayed home with the parents! The parents then complained because the scout program was not meeting the needs of the boys, and it was my fault because I had quit. Makes complete sense to me, NOT! But evidently the guide did not feel compeled to operate similarly. Is there complicity on the guides part for the death of the kayaker, possibly! Will the liability waiver stand up in court, I expect we will find out. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield So? Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........! See below! Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. Are you in a time warp? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your bizarre and archaic suggestion that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together. I did not say that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together, and at the same time maintain a wholly upright relationship. This couple may have been totally upright! But they also could have been totally distracted, which was the suggestion that this could have been a contributing factor in the bad decisions that led to a tradgedy. No I am not in a time warp. I also know that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise! The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than right or wrong. Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract! Did he break the contract? What are you talking about? And what does it have to do with their deaths? I don't know, you don't know, but I am certain that there will be an investigation, so it will be interesting to find out! BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your strange concern for military appearances. I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling. I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and developed some story line beyond the facts as stated. You have. I never went beyond the facts as stated! If there is any taint, it only points out the necessity to avoid the appearance of evil! The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts. If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts! The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or otherwise) about going paddling. No, but there is about fraternizing! And if they had not been in the military, and out paddling, there is never the less the possibility of the distraction of opposites attracting, which still could have been an issue. All I am suggesting is the possibility of contributing issues. If there had not been the possibility of these contributing issues, then you would have not responded to the enuendo. That you responded to the enuendo, proves that you understand that they may have been contributing issues! Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out, whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? If not, what the hell are you trying to say? As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other, from any of the news articles! Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour. Is that your professional diagnosis? To draw any conclusionas you desire along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the fraternizing! Utter bull****. There are no facts whatsoever to support this. as you say, "Bull ****!!" I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. snip And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl! I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO And yet, you are worse than ever. And now again I feel so much better!! Cleansed!!! Thank you for the opportunity to be clear headed, and unencumbered as I speak the truth! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
|
I just don't understand why...
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM: snip I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following link: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article that started this post. Two points primairly, 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be wearing life jackets, police said. So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without them? Idiots. Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy Maybe? MAYBE? You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person! Fine. You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? Secondly, yeah I think it is a terrible policy to guide people on the ocean, without PFD's, not at you say, " not a bad policy". Which I will read between the lines of your blather, and understand that you think it is a bad policy, which I have no problem agreeing with you on. So! You said it is "maybe a bad policy" and now you agree that it is a bad policy. This is good. It is the first sensible thing I have seen from you in some time. Maybe ever! I would not choose to operate my guiding company under this policy, but apparently they did, but then it is not my business to tell them how to run their business. So you were uncomortable commenting on this policy, but had no problem speculating about the lives of the people in the accident. Fascinating! Being a Good liberal Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!? I expect that you think that is what the government is for, To tell private business owners how to run their business! Um. Well. It is, I believe, a legitimate role of government to regulate business activities, and totally unregulated business activities would result in some rather nasty things happening. I am not aware that conservatives are in favour of removing all government regulation. So it is a matter of degree. I would be comfortable with a government regulation requiring all operators of ocean kayaking tours to have the wearing of PFDs as a mandatory activity. I don't think that makes me a "liberal" (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Do you? Why? but then the guidees are still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash them over the head to make them put their PFD's on. I see. So if you were a guide, and two paddlers wanted to go out on the ocean with you but not wear PFD's, you wouldn't tell them "PFD's on, or forget it!" Man, you really are a first class idiot. I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout. That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the commander position immediately. So? You obviously did the right thing in that situation. Why are you being such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one? Go figure, I was doing something to protect their children, and they wanted to make my life - Hell! I finally decided that I did not need the headache, so the boys had no camping experience, stayed home with the parents! The parents then complained because the scout program was not meeting the needs of the boys, and it was my fault because I had quit. Makes complete sense to me, NOT! It's nothing unusual, although unfortunate for all concerned. But evidently the guide did not feel compeled to operate similarly. Is there complicity on the guides part for the death of the kayaker, possibly! Will the liability waiver stand up in court, I expect we will find out. I hope it doesn't. 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield So? Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........! See below! Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf. Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter what the actual relationship was. Are you in a time warp? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your bizarre and archaic suggestion that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together. I did not say that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together, and at the same time maintain a wholly upright relationship. This couple may have been totally upright! But they also could have been totally distracted, which was the suggestion that this could have been a contributing factor in the bad decisions that led to a tradgedy. You have no evidence to support any of your speculations. You are smearing people just for the fun of it? No I am not in a time warp. I also know that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise! Sounds very cowardly. I am not afraid to go paddling with a female. The military is as much concerned with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on the military. The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than right or wrong. Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract! Did he break the contract? What are you talking about? And what does it have to do with their deaths? I don't know, you don't know, but I am certain that there will be an investigation, so it will be interesting to find out! The difference is, you are speculating about things when there is no evidence at all to support it. You are just smearing people for the fun of it, making light of a tragic situation for no reason other than your own amusement it would seem. BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has to do with your strange concern for military appearances. I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! Who gives a ****? He should have been concerned with how it appeared to the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions. Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling. I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and developed some story line beyond the facts as stated. You have. I never went beyond the facts as stated! If there is any taint, it only points out the necessity to avoid the appearance of evil! Uh. No. The fact that some asshole like yourself is willing to label any unmarried man and woman who go paddling together as some sort of sexual deviants is not the problem of the two people, it is the problem of the Tinkernhootowl! The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts. If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts! What are the relevant facts? The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or otherwise) about going paddling. No, but there is about fraternizing! And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing." And if they had not been in the military, and out paddling, there is never the less the possibility of the distraction of opposites attracting, which still could have been an issue. It could also have been a UFO. What is the point of this speculation, other than to smear these people and make light of a tragedy? All I am suggesting is the possibility of contributing issues. If there had not been the possibility of these contributing issues, then you would have not responded to the enuendo. That you responded to the enuendo, proves that you understand that they may have been contributing issues! Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole! Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf. What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out, whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? If not, what the hell are you trying to say? As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other, from any of the news articles! Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour. Is that your professional diagnosis? No, I'm just following the facts! In the way that you define "facts." To draw any conclusionas you desire along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the fraternizing! Utter bull****. There are no facts whatsoever to support this. as you say, "Bull ****!!" What are the facts to support it? I know better, I know I'll never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my slander, and leave. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me. snip And as you ably pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG. Life is about each moment of breath, Living, about each breathless moment! Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0 at 2 WW kayaks, '73 Folbot Super, pre '60 Klepper AEII 77 Hobie Cat 16 To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message! Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl! I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO And yet, you are worse than ever. And now again I feel so much better!! Cleansed!!! Thank you for the opportunity to be clear headed, and unencumbered as I speak the truth! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO And yet, you are worse than ever. |
I just don't understand why...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person! Fine. You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? Secondly, yeah I think it is a terrible policy to guide people on the ocean, without PFD's, not at you say, " not a bad policy". Which I will read between the lines of your blather, and understand that you think it is a bad policy, which I have no problem agreeing with you on. So! You said it is "maybe a bad policy" and now you agree that it is a bad policy. This is good. It is the first sensible thing I have seen from you in some time. Maybe ever! I would not choose to operate my guiding company under this policy, but apparently they did, but then it is not my business to tell them how to run their business. So you were uncomortable commenting on this policy, but had no problem speculating about the lives of the people in the accident. Fascinating! I was not uncomfortable commenting on the policy, it just was not my area of interest. I was primarily interested in knowing what may have affected the decision making ability of the two customers, who I believe are still ultimately responsible for their own welfare. Personally, I would never feel comfortable being in a situation where I had to depend on someone else for my welfare. That includes, but is not limited to airline transportation. When you get on a commercial airline, you are putting your life in their hands. The nature of air travel requires compliance on the part of passengers, so the airlines actually have authority to enforce their protocols. Anything short of the airlines though, may take some convincing for me to subject myself to the company policies. So to avoid a potential conflict, I find it easier to not subject my self to "guided" tours! Being a Good liberal Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!? I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to be a liberal! Beats me, someone with a gun pointed at your head! I give up! I expect that you think that is what the government is for, To tell private business owners how to run their business! Um. Well. It is, I believe, a legitimate role of government to regulate business activities, and totally unregulated business activities would result in some rather nasty things happening. I am not aware that conservatives are in favour of removing all government regulation. So it is a matter of degree. I would be comfortable with a government regulation requiring all operators of ocean kayaking tours to have the wearing of PFDs as a mandatory activity. I don't think that makes me a "liberal" (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Do you? Why? As far as I know, whether you are "liberal or conservative," we all drown the same. So it would probably be a good idea for everyone to wear a PFD. Now I prefer to limit the regulatory load on business, and believe that most people should be able to determine the wisdom of certain actions where their life is at stake. There is a fine line between desirable and undesirable regulations. I do not like the idea of having a reg for every aspect of our life inorder to protect us from every little thing that can happen. That has been tried in the past, and before long, you have to have a reg protecting you from hurting yourself while lugging the reg book around! Having a reg that requires highway engineers to paint a white stripe down the middle of the highway, and then require drivers to stay on one side of the road or the other depending on which way they are traveling is probably a good idea. However requiring a person to wear a PFD may be more difficult. The Coasties have required that a PFD be available for each person, but there are plenty of times that I could go out in my Klepper, and not feel the need to have it on. So then we get into the witches brew of figuring out when a kayak is a kayak, and the reg book starts growing thicker. snip I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout. That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the commander position immediately. So? You obviously did the right thing in that situation. Why are you being such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one? Maybe just to be a pain in yours! Go figure, I was doing something to protect their children, and they wanted to make my life - Hell! I finally decided that I did not need the headache, so the boys had no camping experience, stayed home with the parents! The parents then complained because the scout program was not meeting the needs of the boys, and it was my fault because I had quit. Makes complete sense to me, NOT! It's nothing unusual, although unfortunate for all concerned. Especially the boys who just wanted to have a good time! But evidently the guide did not feel compeled to operate similarly. Is there complicity on the guides part for the death of the kayaker, possibly! Will the liability waiver stand up in court, I expect we will find out. I hope it doesn't. snip You have no evidence to support any of your speculations. You are smearing people just for the fun of it? No, I was speculating as to what may have affected their judgement that resulted in such a tragic result. If they put themselves in a compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise as well personally, if we feel uncomfortable with the insinuation of a particular situation. However, this may or may not have been an issue in this circumstance! No I am not in a time warp. I also know that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise! Sounds very cowardly. I am not afraid to go paddling with a female. Neither am I, in fact some of my favorite times are with my wife out paddling (Paddling the Kayak, not my wife, nor me! :) However, neither am I in the military, though my wife was. She is the one who has informed me that this was a compromising situation that the Master Sergeant should have known to avoid. Apart from him dying, he could easily have lost rank, pay, etc. My wife is an upright moral person, but they were constantly warned and made aware of putting themselves in a compromising fraternizing position, if for no other reason, that it could affect their readiness status. It could also make them vulnerable to blackmail by hostile agents. I do not have any facts of the specifics of what training this group was involved in, but let us suppose he was dealing with arming nuclear weapons being put on a bomber at Travis Air Force base. Would you want him to have made himself vulnerable to dereliction of duty because he got involved in a compromising personal situation. Maybe he did programming, and was forced to enter a small back door in a program that allowed someone to access the program and steal millions of dollars worth of high priced government toilet seats. Who knows what is the limit of this type of activity. That is the problem with situations like this, it might seem to have been a disconnected accidental death, but then a lot of other issues come into play. It would just have been better to avoid the situation entirely. The Master Sergeant may have gone paddling by himself and drowned anyway, but at least the suggest scenario would be less likely! snip The difference is, you are speculating about things when there is no evidence at all to support it. You are just smearing people for the fun of it, making light of a tragic situation for no reason other than your own amusement it would seem. Well thanks to you it has not been fun, and very little amusement except what you have provided! snip I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! Who gives a ****? Well evidently the generals who have all those boys shining their buttons. The closest I came to military service was ROTC during the Vietnam war. Personally all the button polishing did not do anything for me, but some got excited about it. I chose not to pursue a military career, which I have a hunch I would have struggled with being a joiner and going along with all the hoop-la!!! snip Uh. No. The fact that some asshole like yourself is willing to label any unmarried man and woman who go paddling together as some sort of sexual deviants is not the problem of the two people, it is the problem of the Tinkernhootowl! No, sex is wonderful, and certainly not deviant. I would even go so far as to say that sex between non married participants is extremely wonderful. The problem is not the sex, but prior commitments! The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts. If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts! What are the relevant facts? They were both in the military, The man was married! The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or otherwise) about going paddling. No, but there is about fraternizing! And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing." Fratenizing goes beyond sexual contact! Fraternizing can occur when two individuals of the same sex, but different rank would become friends in such a way that the lower ranked person would use the friendship to gain an advantage over other equally ranked individualsm and compromise the chain of command. The primary problem occurs when Officers are involved with enlisted individual. This could even occur when a couple are both in the military, and when they meet on base, they have to maintain complete separation of their personal lives, from their military responsiblity. In other words, no kissy face when they are on duty, even though they are married! Which I agree is another reason I would not fit to well in the military scheme of things, I like to kiss my wife whenever! snip It could also have been a UFO. What is the point of this speculation, other than to smear these people and make light of a tragedy? As far as I know, I have not heard anything about a UFO, so if you have some info along that line, I am sure the investigators would be interested in hearing from you! All I am suggesting is the possibility of contributing issues. If there had not been the possibility of these contributing issues, then you would have not responded to the enuendo. That you responded to the enuendo, proves that you understand that they may have been contributing issues! Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole! Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an asshole, stupid, and I am sure a few other descriptive terms. So how do I respond to such non contributory, articulate pronouncements? Oh, I know, FLUSH !!!! snip Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour. Is that your professional diagnosis? No, I'm just following the facts! In the way that you define "facts." Good, at least I have you trying to deal with facts! That is one big step for mankind,....! snip What are the facts to support it? Ask, and answered many time here and before, do the research! snip And yet, you are worse than ever. And getting better all the time! Skippity do-dah!!! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO |
I just don't understand why...
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person! Fine. You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!? Secondly, yeah I think it is a terrible policy to guide people on the ocean, without PFD's, not at you say, " not a bad policy". Which I will read between the lines of your blather, and understand that you think it is a bad policy, which I have no problem agreeing with you on. So! You said it is "maybe a bad policy" and now you agree that it is a bad policy. This is good. It is the first sensible thing I have seen from you in some time. Maybe ever! I would not choose to operate my guiding company under this policy, but apparently they did, but then it is not my business to tell them how to run their business. So you were uncomortable commenting on this policy, but had no problem speculating about the lives of the people in the accident. Fascinating! I was not uncomfortable commenting on the policy, it just was not my area of interest. I was primarily interested in knowing what may have affected the decision making ability of the two customers, who I believe are still ultimately responsible for their own welfare. Personally, I would never feel comfortable being in a situation where I had to depend on someone else for my welfare. That includes, but is not limited to airline transportation. When you get on a commercial airline, you are putting your life in their hands. The nature of air travel requires compliance on the part of passengers, so the airlines actually have authority to enforce their protocols. Anything short of the airlines though, may take some convincing for me to subject myself to the company policies. So to avoid a potential conflict, I find it easier to not subject my self to "guided" tours! Being a Good liberal Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!? I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to be a liberal! Beats me, someone with a gun pointed at your head! I give up! How did you arrive at the conclusion that I am a fit for that label? And what does "liberal" mean according to Tinkernhootowl. I expect that you think that is what the government is for, To tell private business owners how to run their business! Um. Well. It is, I believe, a legitimate role of government to regulate business activities, and totally unregulated business activities would result in some rather nasty things happening. I am not aware that conservatives are in favour of removing all government regulation. So it is a matter of degree. I would be comfortable with a government regulation requiring all operators of ocean kayaking tours to have the wearing of PFDs as a mandatory activity. I don't think that makes me a "liberal" (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Do you? Why? As far as I know, whether you are "liberal or conservative," we all drown the same. So it would probably be a good idea for everyone to wear a PFD. Finally, a sensible statement. That's two for you this month! Now I prefer to limit the regulatory load on business, and believe that most people should be able to determine the wisdom of certain actions where their life is at stake. There is a fine line between desirable and undesirable regulations. I do not like the idea of having a reg for every aspect of our life inorder to protect us from every little thing that can happen. That has been tried in the past, and before long, you have to have a reg protecting you from hurting yourself while lugging the reg book around! Having a reg that requires highway engineers to paint a white stripe down the middle of the highway, and then require drivers to stay on one side of the road or the other depending on which way they are traveling is probably a good idea. However requiring a person to wear a PFD may be more difficult. The Coasties have required that a PFD be available for each person, but there are plenty of times that I could go out in my Klepper, and not feel the need to have it on. So then we get into the witches brew of figuring out when a kayak is a kayak, and the reg book starts growing thicker. A small price to pay. snip I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout. That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the commander position immediately. So? You obviously did the right thing in that situation. Why are you being such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one? Maybe just to be a pain in yours! I see. I thought you were looking for serious discussion? Go figure, I was doing something to protect their children, and they wanted to make my life - Hell! I finally decided that I did not need the headache, so the boys had no camping experience, stayed home with the parents! The parents then complained because the scout program was not meeting the needs of the boys, and it was my fault because I had quit. Makes complete sense to me, NOT! It's nothing unusual, although unfortunate for all concerned. Especially the boys who just wanted to have a good time! Yes. But evidently the guide did not feel compeled to operate similarly. Is there complicity on the guides part for the death of the kayaker, possibly! Will the liability waiver stand up in court, I expect we will find out. I hope it doesn't. snip You have no evidence to support any of your speculations. You are smearing people just for the fun of it? No, I was speculating as to what may have affected their judgement that resulted in such a tragic result. Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. If they put themselves in a compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise as well personally, if we feel uncomfortable with the insinuation of a particular situation. However, this may or may not have been an issue in this circumstance! Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. No I am not in a time warp. I also know that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise! Sounds very cowardly. I am not afraid to go paddling with a female. Neither am I, in fact some of my favorite times are with my wife out paddling (Paddling the Kayak, not my wife, nor me! :) Great. How would you feel about someone smearing you if your female companion died? However, neither am I in the military, though my wife was. She is the one who has informed me that this was a compromising situation that the Master Sergeant should have known to avoid. Apart from him dying, he could easily have lost rank, pay, etc. My wife is an upright moral person, but they were constantly warned and made aware of putting themselves in a compromising fraternizing position, if for no other reason, that it could affect their readiness status. What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? It could also make them vulnerable to blackmail by hostile agents. I do not have any facts of the specifics of what training this group was involved in, but let us suppose he was dealing with arming nuclear weapons being put on a bomber at Travis Air Force base. Would you want him to have made himself vulnerable to dereliction of duty because he got involved in a compromising personal situation. What evidence is that that he was in a compromising personal situation? Maybe he did programming, and was forced to enter a small back door in a program that allowed someone to access the program and steal millions of dollars worth of high priced government toilet seats. Who knows what is the limit of this type of activity. That is the problem with situations like this, it might seem to have been a disconnected accidental death, but then a lot of other issues come into play. It would just have been better to avoid the situation entirely. The Master Sergeant may have gone paddling by himself and drowned anyway, but at least the suggest scenario would be less likely! You are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. snip The difference is, you are speculating about things when there is no evidence at all to support it. You are just smearing people for the fun of it, making light of a tragic situation for no reason other than your own amusement it would seem. Well thanks to you it has not been fun, and very little amusement except what you have provided! If you had not been such an assclown - and simply explained your comments - your humiliation would have been over long ago. I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! Who gives a ****? Well evidently the generals who have all those boys shining their buttons. The closest I came to military service was ROTC during the Vietnam war. Personally all the button polishing did not do anything for me, but some got excited about it. I chose not to pursue a military career, which I have a hunch I would have struggled with being a joiner and going along with all the hoop-la!!! Who gives a ****? snip Uh. No. The fact that some asshole like yourself is willing to label any unmarried man and woman who go paddling together as some sort of sexual deviants is not the problem of the two people, it is the problem of the Tinkernhootowl! No, sex is wonderful, and certainly not deviant. I would even go so far as to say that sex between non married participants is extremely wonderful. The problem is not the sex, but prior commitments! Do you have evidence that the two individuals had sex? The facts as stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts. If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts! What are the relevant facts? They were both in the military, The man was married! Which proves what?!?!?!? The appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature. What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or otherwise) about going paddling. No, but there is about fraternizing! And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing." Fratenizing goes beyond sexual contact! Fraternizing can occur when two individuals of the same sex, but different rank would become friends in such a way that the lower ranked person would use the friendship to gain an advantage over other equally ranked individualsm and compromise the chain of command. The primary problem occurs when Officers are involved with enlisted individual. This could even occur when a couple are both in the military, and when they meet on base, they have to maintain complete separation of their personal lives, from their military responsiblity. In other words, no kissy face when they are on duty, even though they are married! Which I agree is another reason I would not fit to well in the military scheme of things, I like to kiss my wife whenever! Good grief. snip It could also have been a UFO. What is the point of this speculation, other than to smear these people and make light of a tragedy? As far as I know, I have not heard anything about a UFO, so if you have some info along that line, I am sure the investigators would be interested in hearing from you! You've just heard about it from me. There is as much evidence that there was a UFO involved as there was to support your smears. All I am suggesting is the possibility of contributing issues. If there had not been the possibility of these contributing issues, then you would have not responded to the enuendo. That you responded to the enuendo, proves that you understand that they may have been contributing issues! Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole! Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an asshole, stupid, and I am sure a few other descriptive terms. So how do I respond to such non contributory, articulate pronouncements? Oh, I know, FLUSH !!!! But according to you, since you responded to those comments, they are true! snip Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour. Is that your professional diagnosis? No, I'm just following the facts! In the way that you define "facts." Good, at least I have you trying to deal with facts! That is one big step for mankind,....! You don't have any facts to support your smear campaign. snip What are the facts to support it? Ask, and answered many time here and before, do the research! I've done the research, and you haven't provided any facts to support your smears. snip And yet, you are worse than ever. And getting better all the time! Skippity do-dah!!! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO And yet, you are worse than ever. |
I just don't understand why...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:50:24 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . snip Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!? I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to be a liberal! Beats me, someone with a gun pointed at your head! I give up! How did you arrive at the conclusion that I am a fit for that label? And what does "liberal" mean according to Tinkernhootowl. Go look in the mirror, what you see staring back, - Liberal - ! snip and the reg book starts growing thicker. A small price to pay. Thanks, I will have them send you the invoice! snip Why are you being such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one? Maybe just to be a pain in yours! I see. I thought you were looking for serious discussion? But then again I said "maybe" ! I know, evasive, sorry about that! Not! snip Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. You are confusing motive and instrumentation! My motive was to understand if possible, what their motivation was to make certain bad decisions. My instrument of choice was to speculate. Speculation by nature, does not require a full set of facts, only a couple facts, from which certain projections can be drawn. Short of knowing all the facts, you can only project by speculation, which was what the original question of this thread was about. Someone ask "why?", and we set about in the discussion trying to acertain an answer. Some speculated more than others, but all was within the bounds of the discussion. If they put themselves in a compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise as well personally, if we feel uncomfortable with the insinuation of a particular situation. However, this may or may not have been an issue in this circumstance! Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. see above snip How would you feel about someone smearing you if your female companion died? Well now if she was my wife, it would be different than if she was any other female companion, that's for sure! But then if it happened now, it would be my wife, or my wife would be very close at hand. That way I would not have to worry about any potential conflict of interest or resulting smear campaign! How about you? However, neither am I in the military, though my wife was. She is the one who has informed me that this was a compromising situation that the Master Sergeant should have known to avoid. Apart from him dying, he could easily have lost rank, pay, etc. My wife is an upright moral person, but they were constantly warned and made aware of putting themselves in a compromising fraternizing position, if for no other reason, that it could affect their readiness status. What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? No, we have no facts to indicate they were involve in any illicit behavior of a sexual nature, if I understand your question. They may have been long term friends, of whom the wife was very aware, and the young woman was like a daughter. However, it could still be considered fraternizing because of the appearance of possible impropriety. My wife was a cute young thing at 22 in the Army, serving under a Chief Master Sergeant, who had served with my wife's dad 30 years earlier. They were good friends, before my wife went into the service. However, the Chief was very diligent to do nothing to compromise my wifes reputation, if anything, he was harder on her than anyone else. And they never went out to dinner, or any other such activity either. It is all a matter of appearances, which the military takes very seriously! It could also make them vulnerable to blackmail by hostile agents. I do not have any facts of the specifics of what training this group was involved in, but let us suppose he was dealing with arming nuclear weapons being put on a bomber at Travis Air Force base. Would you want him to have made himself vulnerable to dereliction of duty because he got involved in a compromising personal situation. What evidence is that that he was in a compromising personal situation? He was in a compromising situation as soon as he was alone with her, and though there may not have had anything going on between them, it put them in jeopardy! Maybe he did programming, and was forced to enter a small back door in a program that allowed someone to access the program and steal millions of dollars worth of high priced government toilet seats. Who knows what is the limit of this type of activity. That is the problem with situations like this, it might seem to have been a disconnected accidental death, but then a lot of other issues come into play. It would just have been better to avoid the situation entirely. The Master Sergeant may have gone paddling by himself and drowned anyway, but at least the suggest scenario would be less likely! You are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. Definitely, but that is the nature of speculation. You get up in the morning, and not knowing exactly what is going to happen to you, you go out to face the day. That is speculation that you will make it through the day, and back to the safety of your bed! Of course that is speculation that your bed is a safe place as well. Take the people who went through the earthquake in Afganistan. They might not be so inclined to think their bed is a safe place. They have had the walls fall down on their head. Their data base of facts, leads them to speculate that the earth is not as safe a place to lay their head, as they thought prior to the earthquake. Obviously we don't have all the facts regarding this current situation, so we speculate as to what may have affected their decision making ability. If more facts come to light, we can change our speculation, no problem. snip Well thanks to you it has not been fun, and very little amusement except what you have provided! If you had not been such an assclown - and simply explained your comments - your humiliation would have been over long ago. Clowns know no humilation, we just paint on a bigger silly ass grin! I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! Who gives a ****? Well evidently the generals who have all those boys shining their buttons. The closest I came to military service was ROTC during the Vietnam war. Personally all the button polishing did not do anything for me, but some got excited about it. I chose not to pursue a military career, which I have a hunch I would have struggled with being a joiner and going along with all the hoop-la!!! Who gives a ****? Typical liberal, hates the military! hates what is important to the military, you know like spit and polish, and blowing up things! Not only hates, but beyond their comprehension! snip The problem is not the sex, but prior commitments! Do you have evidence that the two individuals had sex? None about sex, yes about prior commitments! snip What are the relevant facts? They were both in the military, The man was married! Which proves what?!?!?!? The bit about prior commitments. snip I like to kiss my wife whenever! Good grief. No that would be if I had to kiss your wife!!! snip As far as I know, I have not heard anything about a UFO, so if you have some info along that line, I am sure the investigators would be interested in hearing from you! You've just heard about it from me. There is as much evidence that there was a UFO involved as there was to support your smears. Be sure and call your Congressman! Wait, you're a Canadian, you don't have a Congressman to call, sorry about that! I guess you could call your PM, whoever that is this week! snip Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole! Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an asshole, stupid, and I am sure a few other descriptive terms. So how do I respond to such non contributory, articulate pronouncements? Oh, I know, FLUSH !!!! But according to you, since you responded to those comments, they are true! No, there was no enuendo about you calling me an asshole, the conclusion I may deduce is that you are limited in your verbal skills! So I FLUSH!!!! that is my only response! If there had been enuendo, then I would have had to speculate as to what you mean, but there was little or no doubt! Don't forget to FLUSH!! snip snip And yet, you are worse than ever. and yet I have a paintless silly ass grin painted all over my face, so I must not be doing to badly, OvO |
I just don't understand why...
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:50:24 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message .. . snip Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!? I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to be a liberal! Beats me, someone with a gun pointed at your head! I give up! How did you arrive at the conclusion that I am a fit for that label? And what does "liberal" mean according to Tinkernhootowl. Go look in the mirror, what you see staring back, - Liberal - ! Am I a Liberal or a liberal? Whichever it is, how is it defined, and how did you determine that I am a fit? Or is this just another of your baseless smears? snip and the reg book starts growing thicker. A small price to pay. Thanks, I will have them send you the invoice! snip Why are you being such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one? Maybe just to be a pain in yours! I see. I thought you were looking for serious discussion? But then again I said "maybe" ! I know, evasive, sorry about that! Not! What's clear is that your whining about lack of serious discussion demonstrates the highest levels of hypocrisy. Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. You are confusing motive and instrumentation! No, there's no such confusion here. Your motive is to display your asshole persona, and your instrument is a speculative smear campaign. My motive was to understand if possible, what their motivation was to make certain bad decisions. To say that speculative smears are a means of developing understanding is dishonest and/or idiotic. My instrument of choice was to speculate. Speculation by nature, does not require a full set of facts, only a couple facts, from which certain projections can be drawn. Short of knowing all the facts, you can only project by speculation, which was what the original question of this thread was about. Someone ask "why?", and we set about in the discussion trying to acertain an answer. Some speculated more than others, but all was within the bounds of the discussion. And we are back to my point about my theory that you are being bashed in the skull every time you post here. If they put themselves in a compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to avoid the appearance of compromise as well personally, if we feel uncomfortable with the insinuation of a particular situation. However, this may or may not have been an issue in this circumstance! Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. see above Seen it. My statement stands. snip How would you feel about someone smearing you if your female companion died? Well now if she was my wife, it would be different than if she was any other female companion, that's for sure! How would you feel about someone smearing you if your non-wife female companion died? But then if it happened now, it would be my wife, or my wife would be very close at hand. That way I would not have to worry about any potential conflict of interest or resulting smear campaign! How about you? There's is nothing that can be done about idiots like yourself who would smear someone just to get their jollies. I would not refuse to go paddling with a non-wife female just because scum like you might choose to engage in a smear campaign. However, neither am I in the military, though my wife was. She is the one who has informed me that this was a compromising situation that the Master Sergeant should have known to avoid. Apart from him dying, he could easily have lost rank, pay, etc. My wife is an upright moral person, but they were constantly warned and made aware of putting themselves in a compromising fraternizing position, if for no other reason, that it could affect their readiness status. What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? No You need to put a period right there, and then move on. But being an idiot, you can't do that. we have no facts to indicate they were involve in any illicit behavior of a sexual nature, if I understand your question. They may have been long term friends, of whom the wife was very aware, and the young woman was like a daughter. However, it could still be considered fraternizing because of the appearance of possible impropriety. Let's try again. Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? Anything includes anything. The "appearance of possible impropriety" does not count as "dong something wrong." My wife was a cute young thing at 22 in the Army, serving under a Chief Master Sergeant, who had served with my wife's dad 30 years earlier. They were good friends, before my wife went into the service. However, the Chief was very diligent to do nothing to compromise my wifes reputation, if anything, he was harder on her than anyone else. And they never went out to dinner, or any other such activity either. It is all a matter of appearances, which the military takes very seriously! The fact that the military takes certain things seriously (generally unimportant things, whereas big things - like invading other countries and blowing people up - are taken lightly) really has nothing to do with your smear campaign. The military isn't smearing these people - you are! It could also make them vulnerable to blackmail by hostile agents. I do not have any facts of the specifics of what training this group was involved in, but let us suppose he was dealing with arming nuclear weapons being put on a bomber at Travis Air Force base. Would you want him to have made himself vulnerable to dereliction of duty because he got involved in a compromising personal situation. What evidence is that that he was in a compromising personal situation? He was in a compromising situation as soon as he was alone with her They were with a guide, as I recall. And are you saying that no male who is in the military can be alone with a female who is in the military? If you are saying that, please point us to the relevant policy document. and though there may not have had anything going on between them, it put them in jeopardy! Only in the sense that a scum like yourself might choose to smear them. Maybe he did programming, and was forced to enter a small back door in a program that allowed someone to access the program and steal millions of dollars worth of high priced government toilet seats. Who knows what is the limit of this type of activity. That is the problem with situations like this, it might seem to have been a disconnected accidental death, but then a lot of other issues come into play. It would just have been better to avoid the situation entirely. The Master Sergeant may have gone paddling by himself and drowned anyway, but at least the suggest scenario would be less likely! You are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement. Definitely, but that is the nature of speculation. Especially with smear campaigns. You get up in the morning, and not knowing exactly what is going to happen to you, you go out to face the day. That is speculation that you will make it through the day, and back to the safety of your bed! Of course that is speculation that your bed is a safe place as well. Um. What you mean is it is not possible to predict the future. We are talking about a kayaking incident and a news report about it. There are no facts of any kind in the report to indicate that the two people were doing anything wrong, other than not wearing PFDs. Take the people who went through the earthquake in Afganistan. They might not be so inclined to think their bed is a safe place. They have had the walls fall down on their head. Their data base of facts, leads them to speculate that the earth is not as safe a place to lay their head, as they thought prior to the earthquake. At this time, I must ask: is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat? Obviously we don't have all the facts regarding this current situation, so we speculate as to what may have affected their decision making ability. If more facts come to light, we can change our speculation, no problem. To choose to speculate that they were doing something wrong (other than not wearing PFDs) is a rather scummy thing to do. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so, or to think it appropriate or even relevant. I believe you mentioned that you yourself sometimes go out on the water without a PFD. Does that mean you must be having sex with young boys or something!?!? Well thanks to you it has not been fun, and very little amusement except what you have provided! If you had not been such an assclown - and simply explained your comments - your humiliation would have been over long ago. Clowns know no humilation, we just paint on a bigger silly ass grin! OK, so your whining about wanting serious conversation was just more of your assclown act then? This is fine. You are just here to clown around, and have no interest in serious discussion. It all makes sense no. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so idiotic as a matter of everyday practice. I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass! Who gives a ****? Well evidently the generals who have all those boys shining their buttons. The closest I came to military service was ROTC during the Vietnam war. Personally all the button polishing did not do anything for me, but some got excited about it. I chose not to pursue a military career, which I have a hunch I would have struggled with being a joiner and going along with all the hoop-la!!! Who gives a ****? Typical liberal, hates the military! hates what is important to the military, you know like spit and polish, and blowing up things! Not only hates, but beyond their comprehension! Um. Where is the hatred of the military? My comment is there to indicate that I see no relevance in that windbag paragraph to what is being discussed. snip The problem is not the sex, but prior commitments! Do you have evidence that the two individuals had sex? None about sex, yes about prior commitments! What prior commitments? snip What are the relevant facts? They were both in the military, The man was married! Which proves what?!?!?!? The bit about prior commitments. What prior commitments? snip I like to kiss my wife whenever! Good grief. No that would be if I had to kiss your wife!!! She would, I am quite certain, bash your skull. She suffers assclown fools like you much less gladly than I. As far as I know, I have not heard anything about a UFO, so if you have some info along that line, I am sure the investigators would be interested in hearing from you! You've just heard about it from me. There is as much evidence that there was a UFO involved as there was to support your smears. Be sure and call your Congressman! Wait, you're a Canadian, you don't have a Congressman to call, sorry about that! I guess you could call your PM, whoever that is this week! I see you are as uninformed about politics as you are about everything else. Prime Minister is to President as Member of Paliament is to Congressman. Welcome to international politics! snip Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole! Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an asshole, stupid, and I am sure a few other descriptive terms. So how do I respond to such non contributory, articulate pronouncements? Oh, I know, FLUSH !!!! But according to you, since you responded to those comments, they are true! No, there was no enuendo about you calling me an asshole, the conclusion I may deduce is that you are limited in your verbal skills! So I FLUSH!!!! that is my only response! If there had been enuendo, then I would have had to speculate as to what you mean, but there was little or no doubt! Don't forget to FLUSH!! How interesting that an asshole like yourself has a toilet obsession. snip snip And yet, you are worse than ever. and yet I have a paintless silly ass grin painted all over my face, so I must not be doing to badly, OvO Crack addicts dying on the streets of Amercia often have a smile on their face. You seem addicted to being an asshole, maybe there's a similar affect. |
I just don't understand why...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:32:28 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:50:24 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip Am I a Liberal or a liberal? You tell me. Whichever it is, how is it defined, and how did you determine that I am a fit? Or is this just another of your baseless smears? So now you believe that sex is deviant, and being called a liberal, is a smear ??? Hmmm, this is getting good! snip What's clear is that your whining about lack of serious discussion demonstrates the highest levels of hypocrisy. And your constant blather about the "a" word, constitutes serious intellectual conversation??? Hoot! Make up your mind, do you want serious conversation, or blather? snip How would you feel about someone smearing you if your non-wife female companion died? see the continuation of my statement immediately following! my wife would be very close at hand. That way I would not have to worry about any potential conflict of interest or resulting smear campaign! How about you? There's is nothing that can be done about idiots like yourself who would smear someone just to get their jollies. I would not refuse to go paddling with a non-wife female just because scum like you might choose to engage in a smear campaign. Your choice! I did not say anywhere that I got any jollies from this tradgedy, if anything, I have tried to be discrete, whereas you wanted to go into all the graphic detail that we could dig up, just so you could say you had all the facts. I maintain that all the facts are not necessary for us to understand that some bad decisions were being made, and we can speculate as to why that is the case. snip Let's try again. No thank you! Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? Anything includes anything. The "appearance of possible impropriety" does not count as "doing something wrong." Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! snip The fact that the military takes certain things seriously (generally unimportant things, whereas big things - like invading other countries and blowing people up - are taken lightly) really has nothing to do with your smear campaign. The military isn't smearing these people - you are! Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! snip He was in a compromising situation as soon as he was alone with her They were with a guide, as I recall. People run naked in a sports areana, with 80,000 fans and TV audience watching. Doesn't stop them from doing stupid things. I doubt that one guide really mattered to them if they were distracted with other interest! And are you saying that no male who is in the military can be alone with a female who is in the military? Not if one is an officer and other enlisted, and/or one or both are married, but not to each other. Then these are grounds to be very careful about any appearance of impropriety! If you are saying that, please point us to the relevant policy document. Uniform Rules of Military Conduct, I believe is what it is called. and though there may not have had anything going on between them, it put them in jeopardy! Only in the sense that a scum like yourself might choose to smear them. There is lots of scum in the world, that is why it is important not to give them any cause to make any slanderous comments based on nothing more than the appearance of impropriety. snip Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! Moving On!!! snip To choose to speculate that they were doing something wrong (other than not wearing PFDs) is a rather scummy thing to do. Granted, it is a scummy thing to do, but it happens all the time in the world in which we live, hence the importance of not putting yourself in a compromising situation. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so, or to think it appropriate or even relevant. I believe you mentioned that you yourself sometimes go out on the water without a PFD. Does that mean you must be having sex with young boys or something!?!? In this day and age, I do not believe it is very smart for a man to be with children by himself. With the rash of older women, young boy assaults occurring, it is becoming equally advisable that women be very careful as well. False accusations can be easily lodged, so the easiest thing is to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Having been an employer as well, I use an open door policy: My door is open for any employee to come visit me, however the door will stay open during that visit. The only time I close the door is when I am by myself. If you are a business person, and do anything else, you are making yourself subject to any number of false charges, and putting your business in jeapordy. Even then I have had female employees flash me, and I made it known that was the end of their employment, immediately. I had worked too hard to lose everything for something so transitory, but people do it all the time! snip Clowns know no humilation, we just paint on a bigger silly ass grin! OK, so your whining about wanting serious conversation was just more of your assclown act then? This is fine. You are just here to clown around, and have no interest in serious discussion. It all makes sense now. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so idiotic as a matter of everyday practice. If you must whine, keep it to yourself! snip Typical liberal, hates the military! hates what is important to the military, you know like spit and polish, and blowing up things! Not only hates, but beyond their comprehension! Um. Where is the hatred of the military? My comment is there to indicate that I see no relevance in that windbag paragraph to what is being discussed. Like I said, beyond their comprehension! snip I like to kiss my wife whenever! Good grief. No that would be if I had to kiss your wife!!! She would, I am quite certain, bash your skull. She suffers assclown fools like you much less gladly than I. Like I said, that would be good grief! snip Be sure and call your Congressman! Wait, you're a Canadian, you don't have a Congressman to call, sorry about that! I guess you could call your PM, whoever that is this week! I see you are as uninformed about politics as you are about everything else. Prime Minister is to President as Member of Paliament is to Congressman. Welcome to international politics! Right, or is it Left! I guess you could have your PM call one of our Congressmen! By the way, who is your PM this week? snip How interesting that an asshole like yourself has a toilet obsession. and, How interesting that you have an obsession with assholes! snip Crack addicts dying on the streets of Amercia often have a smile on their face. You seem addicted to being an asshole, maybe there's a similar affect. And Liberals freezing to death on the streets of Canaada, often have a smile on their face, as long as they have their "Popcorn and Beer"! |
I just don't understand why...
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:32:28 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:50:24 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip Am I a Liberal or a liberal? You tell me. I have no idea. It is your label. Whichever it is, how is it defined, and how did you determine that I am a fit? Or is this just another of your baseless smears? So now you believe that sex is deviant What are you talking about? and being called a liberal, is a smear ??? Hmmm, this is getting good! Labelling someone is a form of smear. Whether I mind the label or not. The fact that you refuse - yet again - to explain yourself, is just part of the reason it is fair to label you as a scumbag. snip What's clear is that your whining about lack of serious discussion demonstrates the highest levels of hypocrisy. And your constant blather about the "a" word, constitutes serious intellectual conversation??? Hoot! Make up your mind, do you want serious conversation, or blather? You were the one who was whining about it. You have to power to control yourself, so if being serious is important to you, then you can be serious. snip How would you feel about someone smearing you if your non-wife female companion died? see the continuation of my statement immediately following! So you would not feel comfortable paddling with a non-wife female unless your wife were on hand? Wow, how pathetic! Your relationship must be very weak??? my wife would be very close at hand. That way I would not have to worry about any potential conflict of interest or resulting smear campaign! How about you? There's is nothing that can be done about idiots like yourself who would smear someone just to get their jollies. I would not refuse to go paddling with a non-wife female just because scum like you might choose to engage in a smear campaign. Your choice! I did not say anywhere that I got any jollies from this tradgedy, if anything, I have tried to be discrete, whereas you wanted to go into all the graphic detail that we could dig up There's no "we" and since no one else was making any suggestions about these people's off-water activities whatsoever, you are the only scumbag to blame. just so you could say you had all the facts. I maintain that all the facts are not necessary for us to understand that some bad decisions were being made, and we can speculate as to why that is the case. I am speculating right now that you are smacking yourself in the head, because your statement is so stupid. snip Let's try again. No thank you! Are you saying it is a fact that the two individuals actually did anything wrong? Anything includes anything. The "appearance of possible impropriety" does not count as "doing something wrong." Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! So...trying again. You are saying that it is wrong to do something that someone else might speculate is improper? In that case, you are doing something wrong, Tinkernhootowl, because I am speculating that your smear of these two people is improper! snip The fact that the military takes certain things seriously (generally unimportant things, whereas big things - like invading other countries and blowing people up - are taken lightly) really has nothing to do with your smear campaign. The military isn't smearing these people - you are! Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! If I am wrong, please be specific. I said the military is not smearing these people. If they are, please point me to the evidence. snip He was in a compromising situation as soon as he was alone with her They were with a guide, as I recall. People run naked in a sports areana, with 80,000 fans and TV audience watching. Doesn't stop them from doing stupid things. I doubt that one guide really mattered to them if they were distracted with other interest! You have no evidence to indicate that other interest (whatever that means) was a factor. And are you saying that no male who is in the military can be alone with a female who is in the military? Not if one is an officer and other enlisted, and/or one or both are married, but not to each other. Then these are grounds to be very careful about any appearance of impropriety! Please point me to the relevant regulations where this is stated. If you are saying that, please point us to the relevant policy document. Uniform Rules of Military Conduct, I believe is what it is called. Please quote the relevant section. and though there may not have had anything going on between them, it put them in jeopardy! Only in the sense that a scum like yourself might choose to smear them. There is lots of scum in the world, that is why it is important not to give them any cause to make any slanderous comments based on nothing more than the appearance of impropriety. Those who want to smear will always be able to do so, since the possibility of the appearance of impropriety is entirely subjective, since it is not necessary to prove anything to make the smear. snip Wrong, but this is obviously where our opinions differ! Moving On!!! snip To choose to speculate that they were doing something wrong (other than not wearing PFDs) is a rather scummy thing to do. Granted, it is a scummy thing to do, but it happens all the time in the world in which we live Only when scum like you do it. hence the importance of not putting yourself in a compromising situation. Why would you live your life in fear of scum? I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so, or to think it appropriate or even relevant. I believe you mentioned that you yourself sometimes go out on the water without a PFD. Does that mean you must be having sex with young boys or something!?!? In this day and age, I do not believe it is very smart for a man to be with children by himself. With the rash of older women, young boy assaults occurring, it is becoming equally advisable that women be very careful as well. False accusations can be easily lodged, so the easiest thing is to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Getting back to what I said, please try again: I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so, or to think it appropriate or even relevant. I believe you mentioned that you yourself sometimes go out on the water without a PFD. Does that mean you must be having sex with young boys or something!?!? snip Clowns know no humilation, we just paint on a bigger silly ass grin! OK, so your whining about wanting serious conversation was just more of your assclown act then? This is fine. You are just here to clown around, and have no interest in serious discussion. It all makes sense now. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so idiotic as a matter of everyday practice. If you must whine, keep it to yourself! Good self-talk, Tinkernhootowl! snip Typical liberal, hates the military! hates what is important to the military, you know like spit and polish, and blowing up things! Not only hates, but beyond their comprehension! Um. Where is the hatred of the military? My comment is there to indicate that I see no relevance in that windbag paragraph to what is being discussed. Like I said, beyond their comprehension! Beyond YOUR comprehension. snip I like to kiss my wife whenever! Good grief. No that would be if I had to kiss your wife!!! She would, I am quite certain, bash your skull. She suffers assclown fools like you much less gladly than I. Like I said, that would be good grief! snip Be sure and call your Congressman! Wait, you're a Canadian, you don't have a Congressman to call, sorry about that! I guess you could call your PM, whoever that is this week! I see you are as uninformed about politics as you are about everything else. Prime Minister is to President as Member of Paliament is to Congressman. Welcome to international politics! Right, or is it Left! I guess you could have your PM call one of our Congressmen! By the way, who is your PM this week? Same one as last week. snip How interesting that an asshole like yourself has a toilet obsession. and, How interesting that you have an obsession with assholes! Well, I'm talking to one, that is true. snip Crack addicts dying on the streets of Amercia often have a smile on their face. You seem addicted to being an asshole, maybe there's a similar affect. And Liberals freezing to death on the streets of Canaada Liberals (you do not that Liberal and liberal are different thigs, right) seldom freeze, they tend to have well-lined pockets. often have smile on their face, as long as they have their "Popcorn and Beer"! Uhoh, Tinkernhootowl is getting involved in yet another issue where he doesn't have a clue. |
I just don't understand why...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:54:14 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:32:28 -0500, KMAN wrote: "RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:50:24 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! often have smile on their face, as long as they have their "Popcorn and Beer"! Uhoh, Tinkernhootowl is getting involved in yet another issue where he doesn't have a clue. I like popcorn and beer! I thought we finally found something we could agree on! Explain the big mystery! OvO |
I just don't understand why...
|
I just don't understand why...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:52:07 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/15/05 7:53 PM: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:54:14 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! Translation: Tinkernhootowl is a scumbag who doesn't want to be held accountable. So he does the assclown as best he can, and when that doesn't work out, he capitulates by childishly pasting and re-pasting his exit message. I tried to make it very easy for you by having only one subject, "Popcorn and Beer" to fuss about, though I suppose that is actually two subjects, and you could not stay on subject even then! What's a clown to do? Pass the paint please! (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) Whoops, I ran into the RBP fun house of mirrors, where there was some guy, dressed up like a kkknnnnklown, who kept bashing me over the head. He must have thought he was a preacher, cause as he kept hitting me, he kept saying repent, repent, REPENT!!!! I did not know I had done anything to repent for, but it was so funny, I was laughing so hard, that I now have this silly ass grin stuck on my face, and I can't even scrape it off !!! (*V*) He even thought he could translate, clown talk! Hoot!Hoot! I'm still snorting popcorn and beer out my nose!! Hoot! What's a clown to do? Would someone please pass the paint! Hoot!Hoot! (*V*) (*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) (*V*)(*V*)(*V*)(*V*) My keyboard seems to have been stuck, sorry about that! Could habe beeen stucck, or meybee too much popklorn! Hooooot PvP |
I just don't understand why...
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at
wrote on 12/16/05 1:04 AM: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:52:07 -0500, KMAN wrote: in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/15/05 7:53 PM: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:54:14 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip snip, Moving on, having arrived at a basic diffence of opinion! Translation: Tinkernhootowl is a scumbag who doesn't want to be held accountable. So he does the assclown as best he can, and when that doesn't work out, he capitulates by childishly pasting and re-pasting his exit message. I tried to make it very easy for you by having only one subject, "Popcorn and Beer" to fuss about, though I suppose that is actually two subjects, and you could not stay on subject even then! I'm right on topic. You smeared two victims of a paddling tragedy and you don't want to be held accountable for it. What a scumbag! |
I just don't understand why...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:47:57 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl at wrote on 12/16/05 1:04 AM: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:52:07 -0500, KMAN wrote: snip I tried to make it very easy for you by having only one subject, "Popcorn and Beer" to fuss about, though I suppose that is actually two subjects, and you could not stay on subject even then! I'm right on topic. You smeared two victims of a paddling tragedy and you don't want to be held accountable for it. What a scumbag! And who made you the scumbag police! May I see your badge Osscifer KKKnnnklown!! OvO Hoot! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com