http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html ) .

For those looking for some good charities.


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Netsock" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:36:54 -0600, "William Bruce"
wrote:

Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor, and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

Pu-lease.

The man is a proven liar.

Everything he posts here is fabrication...house (I've seen his real
house), boat, wife, education...everything.

But tell you what Krause...I too will donate $10,000.00 to your
favorite charity, if you can post proof that my father owns a
sea-going full scale boat...as you have claimed many many times.

Heck, Ill even let you have Gene sleuth for you.

So how about it?
__

Wow. It appears that at least three people here on rec.boats are willing
to make generous donations to good causes. May I suggest that each of you
just send your checks to your own favorite charity and stop worrying about
lobsta' boats?

I am truly impressed though. Very charitable newsgroup, rec.boats.

Eisboch

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor, and (3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?
Will they stop long enough for the religious ceremony where well-to-do
people give other well-to-do people consumerist baubles and/or
expensive luxuries to emulate "God's gift of His son for our redemption
and to a lesser extent the chests of gold, frankincense and myhr
brought to the baby Jesus by the Persian astrologers"?

It is easily predicted that a chorus of wailing voices will respond,
"Gould, you hypocrite, why don't you chastise Krause for starting a lot
of this?" Harry does start a lot of it. It wouldn't be unreasonable to
say that he deserves much of what he gets in return.
Difference is, he isn't griping about the incursion of the secular
world into his Christian life, or the corruption of his sacred
religious holiday by people who would dare to say "Happy Holidays" or
"Seasons Greetings" rather than "Merry Christmas". Difference is also,
the
folks who are offended by non-Christian comments or observations of the
solstice holiday
usually claim to subscribe to a philosophy where one "turns the other
cheek" when attacked- rather than a philosophy where the one attacked
recruits a gang of people hiding behind phony names to launch a barrage
of insults for purposes of retaliation and escalation.

I guess maybe my general question is: When does this Christmas season
start? If it has started, are the pig piles and attack threads
consistent with the type of behavior one should engage in to observe
it? If it hasn't started, will the pig piles and attack threads
diminish when it does? If it hasn't started, why would anybody be upset
with references to "holiday" rather than Christmas on any given day?
Are certain non-Christian actions or statements more acceptable than
others? Does it make some sort of difference if the person engaged in
non-Christian behavior is all the while professing an overwhelming
concern for Christian behavior and expecting or demanding it from
others? It's pretty confusing. Would somebody please explain the rules?

Chuck,
I have always tried to be very civil towards Harry. I don't think I ever
call him names or use profanity. Even though he has been attacking me, I
have offered to forgive him for these personal attacks. Heck, I even offer
to give him a hug.

Since when does asking Harry "What would you like to know" suddenly become
"pig piling"?


wrote in message
oups.com...

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor, and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?
Will they stop long enough for the religious ceremony where well-to-do
people give other well-to-do people consumerist baubles and/or
expensive luxuries to emulate "God's gift of His son for our redemption
and to a lesser extent the chests of gold, frankincense and myhr
brought to the baby Jesus by the Persian astrologers"?

It is easily predicted that a chorus of wailing voices will respond,
"Gould, you hypocrite, why don't you chastise Krause for starting a lot
of this?" Harry does start a lot of it. It wouldn't be unreasonable to
say that he deserves much of what he gets in return.
Difference is, he isn't griping about the incursion of the secular
world into his Christian life, or the corruption of his sacred
religious holiday by people who would dare to say "Happy Holidays" or
"Seasons Greetings" rather than "Merry Christmas". Difference is also,
the
folks who are offended by non-Christian comments or observations of the
solstice holiday
usually claim to subscribe to a philosophy where one "turns the other
cheek" when attacked- rather than a philosophy where the one attacked
recruits a gang of people hiding behind phony names to launch a barrage
of insults for purposes of retaliation and escalation.

I guess maybe my general question is: When does this Christmas season
start? If it has started, are the pig piles and attack threads
consistent with the type of behavior one should engage in to observe
it? If it hasn't started, will the pig piles and attack threads
diminish when it does? If it hasn't started, why would anybody be upset
with references to "holiday" rather than Christmas on any given day?
Are certain non-Christian actions or statements more acceptable than
others? Does it make some sort of difference if the person engaged in
non-Christian behavior is all the while professing an overwhelming
concern for Christian behavior and expecting or demanding it from
others? It's pretty confusing. Would somebody please explain the rules?

Wm Shakespeare Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
I have always tried to be very civil towards Harry. I don't think I ever
call him names or use profanity. Even though he has been attacking me, I
have offered to forgive him for these personal attacks. Heck, I even offer
to give him a hug.

Since when does asking Harry "What would you like to know" suddenly become
"pig piling"?


When the pigs pile on? That would be when, precisely.

Chuck,

I think I understand completely. It is whenever Harry makes himself look
foolish.

If you read this "pig piling" I think most of the comments / replies are
extremely civil when compared to Harry's. The difference is Harry looks
foolish, but it is not the result of other people's comments, it is the
result of HARRY'S COMMENTS.


wrote in message
oups.com...

Wm Shakespeare Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
I have always tried to be very civil towards Harry. I don't think I ever
call him names or use profanity. Even though he has been attacking me, I
have offered to forgive him for these personal attacks. Heck, I even
offer
to give him a hug.

Since when does asking Harry "What would you like to know" suddenly
become
"pig piling"?


When the pigs pile on? That would be when, precisely.

Wm Shakespeare Smithers wrote:
Chuck,

I think I understand completely. It is whenever Harry makes himself look
foolish.

If you read this "pig piling" I think most of the comments / replies are
extremely civil when compared to Harry's. The difference is Harry looks
foolish, but it is not the result of other people's comments, it is the
result of HARRY'S COMMENTS.


wrote in message
oups.com...

Wm Shakespeare Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
I have always tried to be very civil towards Harry. I don't think I ever
call him names or use profanity. Even though he has been attacking me, I
have offered to forgive him for these personal attacks. Heck, I even
offer
to give him a hug.

Since when does asking Harry "What would you like to know" suddenly
become
"pig piling"?


When the pigs pile on? That would be when, precisely.



We agree that Harry's own behavior precipitates much of the reaction.
He trolls, his targeted species bites.

We disagree that people responding to negative comments or personal
remarks
can condemn the original poster for making them if they engage in
equally heinous
behavior, or worse, as they respond.

wrote in message
oups.com...

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor, and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?


Kevin gets what he deserves Chuck. His posts contain vulgar language and
one or more of the following: idiot, nitwit, dolt, ignorant, dumb...and so
on.

Here is a list over the past days:

=========================

12-14-05
Just to show what an ignorant twit you are..


....you lying piece of ****.



But, seeing how you are just dumb, and can't comprehend, let's recap.





12-13-05

(Kevin behaved himself today)





12-12-05

Grow up, you ****ing baby.



.... idiot.



Too poor of a ****bag to live up to your word?



... dip****.



idiot.







12-9-05

Idiot.



You must be dumber than a post.



None of your ****ing business, how's that?



You idiot,



Uh, perhaps because *I* didn't make the statement, dumb ass.



If you are dumb enough to ask a question like that, an answer would
escape your grasp.



IT's a REPUBLICAN law, in the STATE OF FLORIDA, you dip****!!!!



You actually have the audacity to criticize others here, when you in fact,
are the
lowest piece of **** here.



I've known some nasty little assholes in my day, but you take the cake.



Okay, you notice I specifically asked Bill, but alas, everyone here
knows about your inability to comprehend anything.





12-8-05

Are you SO ****ing dumb that you can't figure out one simple, little
thing?



I'm not Kevin, you low life liar.



I'm not Kevin, you dolt.



Crap, I knew you wouldn't be bright enough to figure it out!



Unless, of course you are just posting in ignorance, as usual.



You aren't very bright are you?



What an ignorant low life piece fo crap you are. You've been proven as
such right here in this thread.



I'm not Kevin, but you are dumb as a post:



Grow up, you brainless little **** stain.



BUT, you are so stupid, you don't understand that by REPLYING TO ME, you
are, indeed, doing those things TO ME.





12-7-05

By the way, when are YOU going to stop the personal insults?



Are you REALLY that stupid??



I'm not Kevin, idiot.



Then grow up, and quit trying to follow in JimH's and John and Fritz's
footsteps as "I can do it, but if you do, you're evil" bull****.



I'm not Kevin, you dip****.



Why is it that you chastise some people for insults, when YOU insult?



All of them, but I think you have to come to terms with your liquor
demons first.



Dislexics of the world, untie! (I just had to throw this one in.)



I'm not Kevin, you dolt.



According to one of your circle jerk buddies, Smithers, you must obtain
direct
permission from the author. Or is that just another of the examples of
you and your circle jerk club don't have to, but the ones you don't
agree with must?? Pretty childish, wouldn't you say?



No, you idiot, those assumptions were made by ME



You're easily amused. Smithers lies, then you eat it like a kid eating
a bugger.



Get off your high horse. You're starting to act like a pesky
little gnat. Nothing to worry about, but just a bother.



Don't cry, John....your whining is pathetic. Go have another drink.



12-6-05

You must be one lousy chess player to make an ignorant statement like
that!



I know that your comrehension and over all understanding of a thread is
hard what with your excessive alcohol abuse and all, but please, try to
stay with the topic.



You are acting like a silly little kid.



It is, this group's reasons, however ARE stupid, ignorant, hate filled
and prejudice.



Now again, I posed a question just EXACTLY like you
and Fritz, and you went off the freakin' meter!!! But, you seem to
think it's acceptable for you and Fritz to do EXACTLY the same thing.
How is this?



Are you going to explain why when you demean and denigrate others, it's
okay, but when someone not in your circle jerk club do it, it's bad?



I'm not Kevin you idiot.

================



Why do you defend Kevin? Do you condone that sort of behavior here Chuck?

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor, and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?


Kevin gets what he deserves Chuck. His posts contain vulgar language and
one or more of the following: idiot, nitwit, dolt, ignorant, dumb...and so
on.

Here is a list over the past days:


There is no defense for some of the behaviors and statements you
outline.
That's not the point.

My question has to do with the consistency of people who so prioritize
their Christian values that they take offense when one person wishes
another "Happy Holidays," but then engage in making sure that bad or
hateful behavior is responded to with equally bad or worse hateful
behavior to assure that the original offender gets what he or she
"deserves."
Is that what the founder of the Christian faith would have done? If
not, is it inconsistent for a professed Christian to engage in such
activity during the "most sacred Christian holiday" season of the year?

Heck, nobody's perfect. But if it's offensive to some folks to see any
non-Christian symbols or celebrations during the month of December,
wouldn't many of those same people make more of an effort to model
Christian behavior? Hey, maybe they are actually doing so- I don't
know. Would never claim to be an expert. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard
that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor,
and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to
the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?


Kevin gets what he deserves Chuck. His posts contain vulgar language and
one or more of the following: idiot, nitwit, dolt, ignorant, dumb...and
so
on.

Here is a list over the past days:


There is no defense for some of the behaviors and statements you
outline.


Actually there is no excuse for any of the behaviors and statements I
outlined.


That's not the point.


It was my point however. And until Kevin cleans up his act he will
continue to be a target.

Take your sermon over to the other side of the fence Chuck. There is plenty
more cleaning up that is needed there than on the right and sunny side of
the fence. ;-)

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

William Bruce wrote:
Hey Krause, my offer stands: Prove to the "reasonable man" standard
that
(1) you have a degree from Yale, (2) your wife is a medical doctor,
and
(3)
that you own a lobster boat and I'll overnight a $10,000.00 check to
the
charity of your choice in your name.

How 'bout it?

William


(The first step in creating a contract is identifying the parties
involved. Since nobody knows who you are, you might as well promise
$10,000,000.00. It would be equally meaningless. Making conditional
promises about things you will do "if" is ridiculous when
you cannot be held accountable)

An observation from a guy who has no interest in "defending Harry,"
(Harry can take care of himself, and does, very adequately.):

Aren't at least a few of the folks in the current pig piles on Harry
and Basskisser supposed to be getting spiritually prepared for what a
recently touted book declares the "most sacred Christian holiday" of
the year?

Will these personal attack threads continue until midnight of the 24th?


Kevin gets what he deserves Chuck. His posts contain vulgar language and
one or more of the following: idiot, nitwit, dolt, ignorant, dumb...and
so
on.

Here is a list over the past days:


There is no defense for some of the behaviors and statements you
outline.


Actually there is no excuse for any of the behaviors and statements I
outlined.


That's not the point.


It was my point however. And until Kevin cleans up his act he will
continue to be a target.

Take your sermon over to the other side of the fence Chuck. There is plenty
more cleaning up that is needed there than on the right and sunny side of
the fence. ;-)


Funny, I didn't think my remarks were aimed toward only a single side
of the fence.
I still maintain that anybody, conservative, liberal, moderate, or what
-not, who would presume to demand that other people behave in a certain
manner during a certain season in order to demonstrate "respect" for
his/her religious belief would be more convincing in those demands if
he or she also behaved in a manner that demonstrated a respect for the
same belief. I'm not sure why you felt that wouldn't apply to
everybody, but it does. (Those who feel that my comments couldn't
possibly apply to them will take no offense).