Bass,
I was not saying that Gould's theory was bull****, nor do I believe that
Gould necessarily supported the theory. I read Gould's post as a way to
promote an off the cuff discussion (which in my neighborhood was called a
shooting the bull, or bull****).

The only info I have is the same as most of the readers in the NG, the power
experts believe that the problem was not the result of terrorist, but was a
combination of natural factors that overwhelmed the system.

Now, if I said that the power failure was the result of Flying Saucers
stealing our power, do you have any proof that my statement is bull****?


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
.net...
Noah,
This is a perfect example of the kind of info you can expect to read in
any
NG, Gould, one of the more knowledgeable boaters in the NG, throws out a
theory that maybe the NE Blackout is the result of a terrorist attack.
Is
this accurate, as of now it does not appear to be, but it is a great way
to
start a bull**** discussion that will soon evolve into a political
discussion.

It was just a THEORY that Gould threw out there, along with facts that
could possibly point in that direction. Do you have any information to
the contrary, to back up YOUR statement that it is "bull****"?

"Bill Cole" wrote in message .net...
Bass,
I was not saying that Gould's theory was bull****, nor do I believe that
Gould necessarily supported the theory. I read Gould's post as a way to
promote an off the cuff discussion (which in my neighborhood was called a
shooting the bull, or bull****).

The only info I have is the same as most of the readers in the NG, the power
experts believe that the problem was not the result of terrorist, but was a
combination of natural factors that overwhelmed the system.

Now, if I said that the power failure was the result of Flying Saucers
stealing our power, do you have any proof that my statement is bull****?

I wouldn't totally discount it, until all of the facts were in,
especially when there were some circumstances that did seem out of
place. As it were, they weren't connected, but at the time Gould put
that theory out, it wasn't out of the realm of possiblility.

OK,
so you do agree that Gould's theory was a way of promoting a discussion on
the power outage just to chat about it, not necessarily that there was any
facts for anyone to base any theory on. So he was just trying to shoot the
bull or have a bull**** discussion concerning the power outage.

I can go along with that.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
.net...
Bass,
I was not saying that Gould's theory was bull****, nor do I believe that
Gould necessarily supported the theory. I read Gould's post as a way to
promote an off the cuff discussion (which in my neighborhood was called
a
shooting the bull, or bull****).

The only info I have is the same as most of the readers in the NG, the
power
experts believe that the problem was not the result of terrorist, but
was a
combination of natural factors that overwhelmed the system.

Now, if I said that the power failure was the result of Flying Saucers
stealing our power, do you have any proof that my statement is bull****?

I wouldn't totally discount it, until all of the facts were in,
especially when there were some circumstances that did seem out of
place. As it were, they weren't connected, but at the time Gould put
that theory out, it wasn't out of the realm of possiblility.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
.net...
Bass,
I was not saying that Gould's theory was bull****, nor do I believe that
Gould necessarily supported the theory. I read Gould's post as a way to
promote an off the cuff discussion (which in my neighborhood was called a
shooting the bull, or bull****).

The only info I have is the same as most of the readers in the NG, the power
experts believe that the problem was not the result of terrorist, but was a
combination of natural factors that overwhelmed the system.

Now, if I said that the power failure was the result of Flying Saucers
stealing our power, do you have any proof that my statement is bull****?

I wouldn't totally discount it, until all of the facts were in,
especially when there were some circumstances that did seem out of
place. As it were, they weren't connected, but at the time Gould put
that theory out, it wasn't out of the realm of possiblility.

Agreed, and it was therefore ridiculous for Chuck to throw out a theory without knowing
the facts.

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.

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.


"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 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.

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.

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.

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. :-)