On Oct 10, 8:23 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

oups.com...







Eisboch wrote:
Back to the boat. You know, the thing I worked my ass off to get for
the
last 30 years. I own it ... it's paid for, but now that I can enjoy it,
some people think I should pay extra just for the privilege of having it.

And don't talk to me about fuel. I suspect I use far less per season
than
most people on this NG. (except maybe one person).

Can't win.

Oh yeah .... Harry ... there *used* to be a luxury tax applied to boats
up
here. It was found to be unconstutional and discarded years ago.

Eisboch

Not being the sharpest knife int he drawer on such matters I have to
ask:

If no "luxury tax, then what is the

some people think I should pay extra just for the privilege of
having it.

And I thought you spent a lot of time on the boat, so why do you have
to go back to it???

I was referring to some opinions presented here on wrecked.boats.
As to why I "have" to go back ....... it's because I can ..... and I want
to.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

I like 'em

and still wear em, when I can find them in my size.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:10:08 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

I like 'em

and still wear em, when I can find them in my size.

Size 9, A narrow?

~~ snerk ~~

I have a strong understanding 13-1/2 to 14 for me


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:10:08 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

I like 'em

and still wear em, when I can find them in my size.

Size 9, A narrow?

~~ snerk ~~

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

yes John, as if the Marines wore something different.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:01 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

yes John, as if the Marines wore something different.

I prefer the term combat or jump boots.

The Army does not have exclusive rights to the name. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:01 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:

OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots

Well, that explains a lot.

To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?

yes John, as if the Marines wore something different.

I prefer the term combat or jump boots.

The Army does not have exclusive rights to the name. :)

I liked my Boon Dockers!

D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:01 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:20 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:51 -0700, Tim wrote:
OK, sorry I'm so slow, but ... I still wear army boots
Well, that explains a lot.
To think of the hours I'd have saved, daily, if we'd had the 'no polish'
army boots of today.

Other than that, what could you possibly have against Army boots?
yes John, as if the Marines wore something different.
I prefer the term combat or jump boots.

The Army does not have exclusive rights to the name. :)

I liked my Boon Dockers!




I prefer my Teva sandals.