On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:19:42 GMT, "Bill Cole"
wrote:

Chuck,
The discussion of theory is part of the scientific process, but do you
believe that any theory has ever been discussed in rec.boats where a general
consensus has been reached? Especially one that involved a terrorist
conspiracy and/or government cover-up. If so, that is a major milestone.

Wasn't your post really designed to provide a venue for shooting the bull,
while we waited for the newspapers and TV's to tell us what was the cause of
the power outage. That is the real purpose for rec.boats, sort of like a
bunch of neighbor getting together to discuss things they have no knowledge
of, and solve the world's problems.

If we ever decide wither or not Bayliner is the best boat in the world or
the worst piece of ****, ever to be thrust on the public, maybe we can move
onto solving the middle east crisis.

Bill, if this is a continuation of our conversation in other threads,
let me say that I agree with you. rec.boats, as a place to "shoot the
breeze", is accepted by most of the regular posters. If a new FAQ
were drawn up today, to be voted on by the paticipants, I have no
doubt that off-topic conversation would be permitted, or we would lose
many of our favorite people.

My main objection to the off-topic (and some On-topic) discussions is
that some posters start slinging abusive personal insults at the drop
of a hat. Profanity proves nothing, except that the speaker has run
out of facts, wit, or intellect.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this. I enjoy a good argument from
time to time, especially a clever one.

Regards,
noah


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Agreed, and it was therefore ridiculous for Chuck to throw out a theory
without knowing
the facts.

No "theory" was thrown out.
Go back and look at the first post in the thread. There's a comment that
two
guys had been arrested in Seattle, bound for NY, the day before the
blackout.
Followed by a comment that it was probably a coincidence.

By the way, the discussion of theory is one avenue by which to determine
and
evaluate facts. Scientists do it all the time.
To state that it is silly to advance a theory without knowing all the
facts is
to state that it is always silly to advance a theory.

On 18 Aug 2003 15:28:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Go back and look at the first post in the thread. There's a comment that two
guys had been arrested in Seattle, bound for NY, the day before the blackout.

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

And herein lies the proof that these guys weren't smart enough to be
good terrorists. No one in their right mind would head for NYC the
day before a power outage. :-)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:19:42 GMT, "Bill Cole"
wrote:

maybe we can move
onto solving the middle east crisis.

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

I'm sure the world eagerly awaits our analysis.

I have no problem with rec.boats being used to shot the ****, but don't try
to fool ourselves that we are having trying to find resolution or prove or
disprove a theory, it is nothing more that idle chitchat. Just take a look
at any of basskisser's post to see us at our best.

"noah" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:19:42 GMT, "Bill Cole"
wrote:

Chuck,
The discussion of theory is part of the scientific process, but do you
believe that any theory has ever been discussed in rec.boats where a
general
consensus has been reached? Especially one that involved a terrorist
conspiracy and/or government cover-up. If so, that is a major milestone.

Wasn't your post really designed to provide a venue for shooting the
bull,
while we waited for the newspapers and TV's to tell us what was the cause
of
the power outage. That is the real purpose for rec.boats, sort of like a
bunch of neighbor getting together to discuss things they have no
knowledge
of, and solve the world's problems.

If we ever decide wither or not Bayliner is the best boat in the world or
the worst piece of ****, ever to be thrust on the public, maybe we can
move
onto solving the middle east crisis.

Bill, if this is a continuation of our conversation in other threads,
let me say that I agree with you. rec.boats, as a place to "shoot the
breeze", is accepted by most of the regular posters. If a new FAQ
were drawn up today, to be voted on by the paticipants, I have no
doubt that off-topic conversation would be permitted, or we would lose
many of our favorite people.

My main objection to the off-topic (and some On-topic) discussions is
that some posters start slinging abusive personal insults at the drop
of a hat. Profanity proves nothing, except that the speaker has run
out of facts, wit, or intellect.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this. I enjoy a good argument from
time to time, especially a clever one.

Regards,
noah


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Agreed, and it was therefore ridiculous for Chuck to throw out a
theory
without knowing
the facts.

No "theory" was thrown out.
Go back and look at the first post in the thread. There's a comment
that
two
guys had been arrested in Seattle, bound for NY, the day before the
blackout.
Followed by a comment that it was probably a coincidence.

By the way, the discussion of theory is one avenue by which to
determine
and
evaluate facts. Scientists do it all the time.
To state that it is silly to advance a theory without knowing all the
facts is
to state that it is always silly to advance a theory.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message news:rWg0b.193487$uu5.35713@sccrnsc04...
I have no problem with rec.boats being used to shot the ****, but don't try
to fool ourselves that we are having trying to find resolution or prove or
disprove a theory, it is nothing more that idle chitchat. Just take a look
at any of basskisser's post to see us at our best.

Those would be replies to your idiotic diatribes.

Hate to disagree, but it's silly
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Agreed, and it was therefore ridiculous for Chuck to throw out a theory
without knowing
the facts.

No "theory" was thrown out.
Go back and look at the first post in the thread. There's a comment that
two
guys had been arrested in Seattle, bound for NY, the day before the
blackout.
Followed by a comment that it was probably a coincidence.

By the way, the discussion of theory is one avenue by which to determine
and
evaluate facts. Scientists do it all the time.
To state that it is silly to advance a theory without knowing all the
facts is
to state that it is always silly to advance a theory.

Hate to disagree, but it's silly

Advancing a theory, once all the facts are
*known*, wouldn't be silly. It would be absurd.

A theory is a model for testing evidence.
Once the evidence is conclusively tested, the theory becomes a fact or is
discarded.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Hate to disagree, but it's silly

Advancing a theory, once all the facts are
*known*, wouldn't be silly. It would be absurd.

A theory is a model for testing evidence.
Once the evidence is conclusively tested, the theory becomes a fact or is
discarded.

Come off it already Chuckie. Just admit you shot from the hip on this one in an
attempt to try and embarrass the current administration.

After all, that is your normal MO, isn't it?

Come off it already Chuckie. Just admit you shot from the hip on this one in
an
attempt to try and embarrass the current administration.

After all, that is your normal MO, isn't it?


JIm, if I wanted to embarrass the current administration, I'd point out that
GWB quickly assured us all the problem was caused by a lightning strike at
Niagara Falls. That turns out to be untrue. Notice that I didn't do that. Those
who are keeping score of the president's errors, misstatements, and misuses of
the truth won't even notice another one- and those who think he's St. George
will deny he said it three seconds after the broadcast.

My comment abut the Homeland Security Forces arresting the guys from Pakistan
could just as easily demonstrate that the Bush adminsitration is doing what it
perceives its job to be. There was no mention of Bush in my original post.

You are aware, I hope, that Al Qaida is now claiming credit for the blackout?
They are gloating that they were able to bribe somebody a mere $7000 to cause
what they claim is at least a $10 billion loss to the US treasury. I say they
proably didn't do it, and are just trying to ride the wave of publicity.

As I said in the original post. The guys from Pakistan tryinig to fly a day
before the blackout was probably just a coincidence. You, of course, need to
overlook that because 90% of what you post here is a personal attack on other
posters or a political attack on liberals or democrats.
If you can't find an issue to fight about, you'll invent one. Your previous
incarnations, Fox Trot, Charles Daniels,
Dennis Compton, and whatever else you've changed your name to over the months
were no better.

What shames a guy so badly that he has to not only hide his name, but keep
changing the alias?

"jps" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
but the National Weather Service said
the closest lightning strike in the area was hundreds of miles away,
in Maryland.

But....the president repeated that rumor. It must be true. The lightning
was
purchased secretly on the international arms market. From Africa.


In the unlikely event that it *was* a terrorist attack, we'd be smart to
blame
it on lightning. Take away the credit for the disaster, and the air is let
out
of the terrorist balloon double quick.

You want to P off the terrorists? Make sure they stay out of the news.

That would be smart but it certainly wouldn't be the course this
administration would take. You can be certain if there was a whiff of
possibility this could've been attributable to human hands, the White House
would've used the opportunity to bolster poll numbers.

Then kudos to the White House. They have either made the "smart" move
and denied terrorists any publicity, or they have refrained from using
the incident for political gain.

(Unlike politicians such as Mrs. Clinton, who, before the lights even
came back on, was crying out about how this was the Bush
administration's fault.)