On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:32:39 -0400, "Reginal P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:57:33 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Maybe... but he seems to be trying . We'll see how well he does over
the long haul. A bit of effective unbiased law enforcement would go a
long ways.

I'm a bit confused, Don. While you didn't agree to the cease-fire,
you seemed like you would be agreeable to it, as long as I was.

Now you're taking shots across my bow, and without me making a single
post.

I'll continue to hold my fire, as I realize that changing your stripes
may take a while. As I've repeatedly said, just say that you agree,
and it's over. Do you agree?

I thought I clearly stated my pledge.
Do you consider my statement above to be 'firing a shot across your
bow'? You may be too sensitive for this rough & tumble newsgroup.

Ahh.. I see. You pledge to not insult my family or my boat, but I'm
still on the table. Your intentions are clear. See ya.

I have to say, this a very cute thread. Sort of the Geneva Convention
of Newsgroup Insults, what is an acceptable targets of personal insults,
what is not an acceptable insults, "Ya Mama" jokes are off limits, "Jack
Off" jokes are on limits. What is even funnier is no is since no one's
mother who is being insulted probably ever reads reads rec.boats there
is a "no harm; no foul" clause that could be enforced into this Geneva
Convention. Once all parties agree what is acceptable insults we need
to have all parties have the agreement signed and notarized and
submitted to ........... ooooo wait who do we submit the Geneva
Convention agreement to?

Wouldn't it just be easier to agree not to insult each other than to
agree what is acceptable and what is not acceptable targets of insults?


Sounds fair to me!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John