Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

You wrote:
Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...


Sean Corbett wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...06/04/09/do090
7.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

ERROR 404 FILE NOT FOUND

OTOH it's pretty easy to find the same type of
partisan-inspired screeching about increased snowfall &
growing glaciers by a simple Google search. For example:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

"Think about that. Snow is accumulating over an area bigger
than the continental
United States. How in the world are sea levels supposed to
rise, if so much moisture
is getting locked up on land as ice? (They're not.)"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4693409.stm


Problem: the referenced article is about a new Antarctic
science station design and doesn't say a thing about
increasing snow accumulation.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...06/04/09/do090
7.xml&Sheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html


Gene Kearns wrote:
Leave it to old Sean to de-politicize the matter by posting editorial
content from a rag whose combination of personal links between the
paper's editorial team and the leadership of the Conservative Party,
in concert with the paper's influence over Conservative activists,
results in the paper often being jokingly referred to as the
Torygraph.

Yep. That's scientific!

The funny thing is that while a large body of scientific
evidence does point to global warming, it's causes and
effects are less clear.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single person or entity who says
either:
1- it's not happening
2- it might be happening, but if it is, man's activities
have nothing to do with it

that says so from scientific observation & reasoning, but
always (so far) from political conviction. There may be one
or two out there, but so far we haven't heard from them.
What would a logical person conclude from this fact?

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

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

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

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

So why post there? Won't be read.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

ERROR 404 FILE NOT FOUND


Sean Corbett wrote:
Your inability to navigate the internet is not my problem.


Yeah, we all know you're a nice guy.

Try these. They're two edits of the same source material, but one has to
wonder how countless media reports simply take the number this expert
reports each year and adds in their own editorial commentary which TOTALLY
CONTRADICTS the actual data Gray has dedicated his entire career to.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/14744238.htm

So, the dad-gum libby-rull fag-lovin' traitors in the U.S.
gummint have cut off this scientists funding, and you say
he's an unbiased source?

Wait a minute, the Forces of Good(tm) have been in control
of the U.S. government for at least the past 5 years... who
exactly is this guy mad at? In any event, you're just
helping to prove my earlier point: that the ones who say
global warming ain't so are motivated by politics, not
science (at least, all the ones presented so far).

Sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud when you're trying to
be serious.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud when you're trying to
be serious.


Sean Corbett wrote:
The track record of your posts indicates you've never attempted to be
serious. Or that you're too mentally challenged TO be serious. Either
way, thanks for admitting publicly that which has been known for some time.


I'm serious about BOATS.
Meanwhile, why should I take you seriously when you cannot
prove the simplest and most basic of your statements?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see your credentials which equal or exceed Dr.
Gray's. Fill in this URL: http://_________________________

Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?

Can you read your own references?

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?


Sean Corbett wrote:
He says nothing of the sort, imbecile.

Why are you calling me names when you're the one that can't
read?

Impressive way of carrying on a debate, yessiree. Almost as
impressive as when you demand that other people answer your
oversimplified & irrelevant rhetorical questions, then
refuse to answer any questions yourself. Good going, comrade!

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:42:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

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

So why post there? Won't be read.


Gosh...and I bet it wouldn't be followed by a lot of name-calling either!

What a concept!
--
John H

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

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?

Sean Corbett wrote:

He says nothing of the sort, imbecile.

Why are you calling me names when you're the one that can't
read?

Impressive way of carrying on a debate, yessiree. Almost as
impressive as when you demand that other people answer your
oversimplified & irrelevant rhetorical questions, then
refuse to answer any questions yourself. Good going, comrade!


http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/14744238.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Now what exactly is the quote where "he says right up front that his
motivation is political"?

"It's about politics. . ." Of course he was pointing out that those on
the OTHER SIDE were motivated by politics. Not Dr. Gray!

Let's look at some mo
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I
don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very
slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is
not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from
now, . . ."

Main article: Truthiness
defined as the quality by which one purports to know something
emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or intellectual
examination.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Now what exactly is the quote where "he says right up front that his
motivation is political"?


Jim wrote:
"It's about politics. . ." Of course he was pointing out that those on
the OTHER SIDE were motivated by politics. Not Dr. Gray!


Sure. It's ALWAYS the libby-rulls who are motivated by
snotty partisanship. Noble and honest conservaties have only
the good of the country at heart!

Especially when they are carrying a grudge over lost grants
& denied research funding.


Let's look at some mo
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I
don't question that," he explains.

Too funny!

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:52:33 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:


You wrote:


Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?

Sean Corbett wrote:

He says nothing of the sort, imbecile.

Why are you calling me names when you're the one that can't
read?

Impressive way of carrying on a debate, yessiree. Almost as
impressive as when you demand that other people answer your
oversimplified & irrelevant rhetorical questions, then
refuse to answer any questions yourself. Good going, comrade!

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/14744238.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Now what exactly is the quote where "he says right up front that his
motivation is political"?


One learns not to argue with our great and good friend Doug King.

He is pure of heart and is way smarter than anyone else here.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
One learns not to argue with our great and good friend Doug King.

He is pure of heart and is way smarter than anyone else here.

Aww shucks folks (kicking toe modestly)...

But one thing that is true: I don't BS on and on with no
clue, for example, about sailboat rigging, or economics, or
mechanical systems. And I am don't confuse political dogma
with science.

OTOH there are a lot of people here who will gratefully take
serious advice, and then bite the hand that feeds it to
them... making poisonous statements about that persons
character, for example.

Regards
Doug King

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Calif Bill wrote:


So why post there? Won't be read.

Why not spray paint the political crap on a freeway overpass? It will
be *read* by tens of thousands of people, and wouldn't be any more
inappropriate than f*ing up a boating newsgroup.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:


So why post there? Won't be read.

Why not spray paint the political crap on a freeway overpass? It will
be *read* by tens of thousands of people, and wouldn't be any more
inappropriate than f*ing up a boating newsgroup.


Tom has a bad arm, can not spray paint overhead.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
.... DaVinci, Michaelangelo and FDR rolled into one -
reincarnated in one human being

I appreciate the compliment, but all those guys were raving
liberals... Leonardo painted pictures of naked men, fer gosh
sake... although FDR wasn't so bad, at least he managed to
start a war...

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

DSK wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

.... DaVinci, Michaelangelo and FDR rolled into one -
reincarnated in one human being


I appreciate the compliment, but all those guys were raving liberals...
Leonardo painted pictures of naked men, fer gosh sake... although FDR
wasn't so bad, at least he managed to start a war...

DSK



More like finish it. Most of the world was two years into WW2 while the
US lounged around.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

although FDR wasn't so bad, at least he managed to start a war...


Don White wrote:
More like finish it. Most of the world was two years into WW2 while the
US lounged around.

But it was a *world* war until we joined in! Besides, FDR
pushed Japan into joining the Axis... a two-fer.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:50:04 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


Dear, Dear, Sean..... I have been published in enough faculty
handbooks and websites to know that there is always at least one
loonie on every faculty. I fear your "Prof Bob Carter" is just such a
creature. Feel free to browse http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ and you will
notice that James Cook University and the regular faculty don't agree
with your boy's "findings." (Note that your "Prof. Carter" is an
adjunct and, therefore, not even a part of the regular faculty.)



Yeah, Prof. Bob stepped out of line, not marching to the beat of climate
change drummer. A move that is not going to endear you to your collegues.

I remember, I had a bit of a problem back in university because both my
thesis advisors believed in cold-fusion and I was sceptical. I also
disagreed with most of the faculty over the formation of the Sudbury
Basin (half of whom believed it was totally endogenic and half believed
it was exogenic, and everyone said I was just sitting on a fence, but
really, the only explaination for all the evidence is that a meteor
(exo) hit a volcano (endo)).

In the first case I was proved right. In the second case, only God can
ever know what really happened here 1.8 billion years ago.

I've seen science up close, it isn't always pretty. How to get that
grant proposal accepted? In my case, it was make the work appear
economically relevant - sure I'm studying carbonate inclusions in
precambrian fault rocks - but hey, don't you know, that's how to find
the gold. (although we knew there was no mineable gold at this location
despite its superficial resemblance to the second largest deposit in the
world - Timmons, ON)


Here's a quote from the first paragraph of the article. Are you claiming
this statement is false? If so, cite proof that it's false.



Ok, how about the opinion of TWO Professors at James Cook University:
http://www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au...TFLclimate.pdf


Most relevant part of the article:

"Research needs

Future research must provide the
critical information and tools to
develop management plans
aimed at conserving forest
ecosystem processes and
biodiversity in the face of rapid,
unprecedented climate change."


IOW, Prof. Bob should shut TF up because he's upsetting the climate
change grant gravy-train.


D'OH! I promised myself I wasn't going to take Shortwave's bait on this
one .. but .... must ... hit ... send ...

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Most of the world was two years into WW2 while the
US lounged around.


Sean Corbett wrote:
The United States has this inconvenient thing called the Constitution which
required us to "lounge around".

Better look up the facts, Sean.

I'll give you two guesses which party was throwing
roadblocks in front of FDR helping other countries fight the
Nazis.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

I'll give you two guesses which party was throwing
roadblocks in front of FDR helping other countries fight the
Nazis.


Sean Corbett wrote:
Parties aren't in the Constitution. The "common Defence" clause is.

Considering that the Axis directly attacked a U.S. ship
(look it up), how is using the Constitution to block help
to the Allies considered providing for "common defense?"

Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.


Sean Corbett wrote:
You mean foes like Lyndon "I'll give you your damn war" Johnson? Or
Franklin "I know we're going to get attacked and I'm going to let it happen
because war is the only way to disguise the fact that 7 years into the New
Deal unemployment is still 15%" Roosevelt?

My goodness Sean, if you don't like that corner, why did you
paint yourself into it?

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

DSK wrote:
Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.


Sean Corbett wrote:
You mean foes like Lyndon "I'll give you your damn war" Johnson? Or
Franklin "I know we're going to get attacked and I'm going to let it happen
because war is the only way to disguise the fact that 7 years into the New
Deal unemployment is still 15%" Roosevelt?

My goodness Sean, if you don't like that corner, why did you
paint yourself into it?

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.

DSK

It doesn't matter. Sean must goose-step to the party. Rush is telling
him to.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a fact
that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact." In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure" (common
catchphrase among fascist pinheads) by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

If so, that is bogus. Unemployment went down rather
dramatically in the 1930s. It was still a very high number
compared to what we're comfortable with today... that's why
it was the Great Depression (duh).

That it went down even more dramatically in 1941 just shows
that FDR was on the right track (at least, from the
standpoint of the economic good of the country as well as
providing for common defense) to support the Allies, since
the Republican efforts to profit from doing business with
the Axis didn't reduce unemployment hardly at all.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:27:33 -0400, Black Dog
wrote:



I remember, I had a bit of a problem back in university because both my
thesis advisors believed in cold-fusion and I was sceptical.


Then you support my thesis about a screwball or two on every faculty!

Of course there is.(but many more in arts depts than sciences :-)

You're implying my profs were it. No darlin' - I was the screwball, the
sceptic, the "different" thinking one (my differences usually explained
away by my gender or background in the arts). They were the guys who
taught me how to tow a party line.(although I'd never pass an exam in
that, obviously)

I looked at the list of scientists who sent the "reconsider kyoto"
message to Steven Harper a couple of weeks back. One prof from my old
uni is there (not one my "wacky" advisors either), and I assure you the
man is no screwball, nor does he work for Exxon, nor would he support a
view for the grant money. He is seriously brilliant but dour in a dutch
sort of way. He is highly regarded by the other faculty, publishes
regularly and has honours coming out the yinyang. Most students don't
like him because he's "too hard" (people who take paleo because they
"like dinosaurs" don't make it through the first class)
OTOH the prof at the uni who is coining it hand over fist leading the
Centre for Climate Change "Research" is a local media personality and
political player who AKAIK hasn't done actual serious research since he
was a student himself.
And that is just one tiny example at one tiny university.

And that is all the goddammed bait I'm swallowing today.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:41:05 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:


You wrote:


Most of the world was two years into WW2 while the
US lounged around.

The United States has this inconvenient thing called the Constitution which
required us to "lounge around".


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
King lands a quick right, but Corbett returns with a stiff jab,
followed by a left upper cut.

So, you genuinely think that "providing for the common
defense" means to have money-grubbing contracts with the
Nazis, while they are sinking our ships, and blocking FDR
from actually making plans to defend the U.S. from the Axis?

BTW my earlier post contained a typo... should have read "it
was NOT a *world* war until we joined in."

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:27:39 -0400, DSK wrote:

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a
fact
that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact." In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

King rallies for a huge right.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure" (common
catchphrase among fascist pinheads) by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

Followed swiftly by a uppercut.

If so, that is bogus. Unemployment went down rather
dramatically in the 1930s. It was still a very high number
compared to what we're comfortable with today... that's why
it was the Great Depression (duh).

A right and a left.

That it went down even more dramatically in 1941 just shows
that FDR was on the right track (at least, from the
standpoint of the economic good of the country as well as
providing for common defense) to support the Allies, since
the Republican efforts to profit from doing business with
the Axis didn't reduce unemployment hardly at all.

Oh - a low blow!!! Corbett is staggering, but still on his feet!!

DING DING DING - and that's the end of Round Two!!

You could have been Howard Cosell's replacement!

Good job!

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

Sean Corbett wrote:
That's ALL you've EVER posted.


In other words, reality is knocking, but you won't let it in?



Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure"


No implication necessary.


Meaning what? Why not say it right out loud?



by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?


Sean Corbett wrote:
You claimed it wasn't.

Wrong.

...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.

Quote me & prove it.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:37:15 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:

You wrote:

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a
fact that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact."

Yes it does, which is why that's what I deal in, unlike you.

In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

That's ALL you've EVER posted.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure"

No implication necessary.

by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

You claimed it wasn't. Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.

Sean, are you a Bush-Cheney supporter? If so, please take your political
crap elsewhere.

If not, please take it elsewhere anyway!

a.politics would be good. Maybe you could get a bunch of name-callers to
follow you.
--
John H

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

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:01:36 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:58:29 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


Sean Corbett wrote:


...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.



Seanboy has all the polished debating skills of a third-grade dropout
who inherited a .22 rifle, a toothless wife, and a trailer next to a
national forest where he can hunt squirrels.

Then it's a pretty fair match up with Doug.


T'would be nice if the whole crew of y'all would take it to a.politics or
one of the other political flame-fests which abound elsewhere.
--
John H

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

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:37:15 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:

You wrote:

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a
fact that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact."

Yes it does, which is why that's what I deal in, unlike you.

In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

That's ALL you've EVER posted.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure"

No implication necessary.

by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

You claimed it wasn't. Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.

Sean, are you a Bush-Cheney supporter? If so, please take your political
crap elsewhere.

If not, please take it elsewhere anyway!

a.politics would be good. Maybe you could get a bunch of name-callers to
follow you.
--
John H

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

So are you going with Sean?

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

JohnH wrote:


T'would be nice if the whole crew of y'all would take it to a.politics or
one of the other political flame-fests which abound elsewhere.
--
John H


Might be time to round up a posse and toss the whole gang into the
lockup. Coolin' their heels for a spell should teach 'em!

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:01:36 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:58:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Sean Corbett wrote:
...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied. Again.


Seanboy has all the polished debating skills of a third-grade dropout
who inherited a .22 rifle, a toothless wife, and a trailer next to a
national forest where he can hunt squirrels.
Then it's a pretty fair match up with Doug.


T'would be nice if the whole crew of y'all would take it to a.politics or
one of the other political flame-fests which abound elsewhere.
--
John H


We're all enthralled by your many boating posts here.

Which have been zero...nada.........it seems he is more interested in
posting Martha Stewart recipes here. ;-)

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:01:36 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:58:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Sean Corbett wrote:
...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied. Again.

Seanboy has all the polished debating skills of a third-grade dropout
who inherited a .22 rifle, a toothless wife, and a trailer next to a
national forest where he can hunt squirrels.
Then it's a pretty fair match up with Doug.

T'would be nice if the whole crew of y'all would take it to a.politics
or
one of the other political flame-fests which abound elsewhere.
--
John H

We're all enthralled by your many boating posts here.

Which have been zero...nada.........it seems he is more interested in
posting Martha Stewart recipes here. ;-)

Martha Stewart doesn't burn meat on the grill. :-)

I wonder if she still has that Hinckley Picnic boat. She christened it
prior to initial splash with all the formalities one would expect from old
Martha. It did look like a sweet looking boat. ;-)

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:58:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sean Corbett wrote:


...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.



Seanboy has all the polished debating skills of a third-grade dropout
who inherited a .22 rifle, a toothless wife, and a trailer next to a
national forest where he can hunt squirrels.

Then it's a pretty fair match up with Doug.


But still light years ahead of harry

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

JohnH wrote:
Sean, are you a Bush-Cheney supporter? If so, please take your political
crap elsewhere.

If not, please take it elsewhere anyway!


Well, there it is.

I'll stop now, I was just waiting for one of OT-police to
holler at one of their own.

DSK