"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon
buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a
problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)



Not political. Discussion of ports is definitely *on* topic! You've not
seen one of my comments refer to the administration, Democrats,
Republicans, or any other political entity, nor have any of Doug's.

You don't netcop very well. Now go back to your room.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Wow, the very second post to this thread:

"Here's what this administration is thinking: "Golly these kneepads
make diplomacy so much easier, prince!"

Not political? How absolutely funny!

I was not netcopping John, just bringing out some "netcop" inconsistencies
on your part.

Carry on Sheriff.