Columbus Day
 

Happy *actual* Columbus Day.

Cristobol Colon (more commonly known as "Christopher Columbus") should
be acknowledged as a very adventurous navigator, but his greatest
personal
attribute was his hutzpa and salesmanship and the most significant
contribution he made to history was probably *not* "discovering
America."
(Columbus didn't discover anything in the strictest sense of the
term).

Europeans had been sailing to the eastern shores of North America for
several hundred years prior to 1492, and contrary to what folks of my
generation were taught in grade school it had long been established
that the world was spherical, rather than a flat plane with "edges"
some place. (Columbus shouldn't be credited with proving that the
world was round).

The primary challenge with developing or exploring the well documented
lands across the Atlantic to the west rested with the official
position of the Catholic church- which was the overriding European
social power during the 14 and 1500's. According to the church, even
speaking about undiscovered lands to the west was heresy- as nothing
of the sort was mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Columbus knew that his fastest avenue to wealth and power lay in
having a voyage sanctioned by a government. Such an arrangement would
create a market for any valuable metals or raw materials he could
gather, would provide protection for his trading fleets, and would
assist him in defending any terriroty occupied in the new lands. To
avoid running afoul of the church, Columbus announced that he was
voyaging west to find a new route to "India", a ruse that his sponsors
supported and that Columbus maintained for the rest of his life. (The
Catholic "Inquisition" also began in 1492- it would have been almost
suicidal for Colubus to ever confess that he knew darn well
where he was going as soon as he set sail).

One of the conditions that Columbus negotiated before his voyage of
1492 was that he would be named "Admiral of the Western Seas." This
might seem insignificant to modern people less than entirely familiar
with the traditional naval "prize" system, but as Admiral Coumbus was
automatically entitled to a certain percentage of the value of any
ships captured, territories conquered, or resources approproated by
his fleet or any colonies he established. No dummy was Columbus.

Columbus is exalted as a national hero in the United States, but he
never set foot on any portion of what would later become US territory.
(possible exception of Puerto Rico- would need to check that detail).
Rather than "discovering America", Columbus' greatest historical
contributions may have involved transferring microbes between western
Europe and the "new world". Syphillis was unkown in Europe prior to
1492 and is thought to be a "gift" to Columbus' crew from indigenous
tribes who carried the disease but were more or less immune to it. The
enormous increase in European contacts that followed the four voyages
of Columbus infected the American natives with smallpox and other
illnesses that wiped out the vast majority of what had been enormous
and thriving populations- to the point where European settlers in the
1600's marveled at how sparsely populated was this new teritory with
such an abundance of resources.

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 8:40 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
Happy *actual* Columbus Day.

Cristobol Colon (more commonly known as "Christopher Columbus") should
be acknowledged as a very adventurous navigator, but his greatest
personal
attribute was his hutzpa and salesmanship and the most significant
contribution he made to history was probably *not* "discovering
America."
(Columbus didn't discover anything in the strictest sense of the
term).

Europeans had been sailing to the eastern shores of North America for
several hundred years prior to 1492, and contrary to what folks of my
generation were taught in grade school it had long been established
that the world was spherical, rather than a flat plane with "edges"
some place. (Columbus shouldn't be credited with proving that the
world was round).

The primary challenge with developing or exploring the well documented
lands across the Atlantic to the west rested with the official
position of the Catholic church- which was the overriding European
social power during the 14 and 1500's. According to the church, even
speaking about undiscovered lands to the west was heresy- as nothing
of the sort was mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Columbus knew that his fastest avenue to wealth and power lay in
having a voyage sanctioned by a government. Such an arrangement would
create a market for any valuable metals or raw materials he could
gather, would provide protection for his trading fleets, and would
assist him in defending any terriroty occupied in the new lands. To
avoid running afoul of the church, Columbus announced that he was
voyaging west to find a new route to "India", a ruse that his sponsors
supported and that Columbus maintained for the rest of his life. (The
Catholic "Inquisition" also began in 1492- it would have been almost
suicidal for Colubus to ever confess that he knew darn well
where he was going as soon as he set sail).

One of the conditions that Columbus negotiated before his voyage of
1492 was that he would be named "Admiral of the Western Seas." This
might seem insignificant to modern people less than entirely familiar
with the traditional naval "prize" system, but as Admiral Coumbus was
automatically entitled to a certain percentage of the value of any
ships captured, territories conquered, or resources approproated by
his fleet or any colonies he established. No dummy was Columbus.

Columbus is exalted as a national hero in the United States, but he
never set foot on any portion of what would later become US territory.
(possible exception of Puerto Rico- would need to check that detail).
Rather than "discovering America", Columbus' greatest historical
contributions may have involved transferring microbes between western
Europe and the "new world". Syphillis was unkown in Europe prior to
1492 and is thought to be a "gift" to Columbus' crew from indigenous
tribes who carried the disease but were more or less immune to it. The
enormous increase in European contacts that followed the four voyages
of Columbus infected the American natives with smallpox and other
illnesses that wiped out the vast majority of what had been enormous
and thriving populations- to the point where European settlers in the
1600's marveled at how sparsely populated was this new teritory with
such an abundance of resources.

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 5:43?am, wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:40 am, Chuck Gould wrote:





Happy *actual* Columbus Day.

Cristobol Colon (more commonly known as "Christopher Columbus") should
be acknowledged as a very adventurous navigator, but his greatest
personal
attribute was his hutzpa and salesmanship and the most significant
contribution he made to history was probably *not* "discovering
America."
(Columbus didn't discover anything in the strictest sense of the
term).

Europeans had been sailing to the eastern shores of North America for
several hundred years prior to 1492, and contrary to what folks of my
generation were taught in grade school it had long been established
that the world was spherical, rather than a flat plane with "edges"
some place. (Columbus shouldn't be credited with proving that the
world was round).

The primary challenge with developing or exploring the well documented
lands across the Atlantic to the west rested with the official
position of the Catholic church- which was the overriding European
social power during the 14 and 1500's. According to the church, even
speaking about undiscovered lands to the west was heresy- as nothing
of the sort was mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Columbus knew that his fastest avenue to wealth and power lay in
having a voyage sanctioned by a government. Such an arrangement would
create a market for any valuable metals or raw materials he could
gather, would provide protection for his trading fleets, and would
assist him in defending any terriroty occupied in the new lands. To
avoid running afoul of the church, Columbus announced that he was
voyaging west to find a new route to "India", a ruse that his sponsors
supported and that Columbus maintained for the rest of his life. (The
Catholic "Inquisition" also began in 1492- it would have been almost
suicidal for Colubus to ever confess that he knew darn well
where he was going as soon as he set sail).

One of the conditions that Columbus negotiated before his voyage of
1492 was that he would be named "Admiral of the Western Seas." This
might seem insignificant to modern people less than entirely familiar
with the traditional naval "prize" system, but as Admiral Coumbus was
automatically entitled to a certain percentage of the value of any
ships captured, territories conquered, or resources approproated by
his fleet or any colonies he established. No dummy was Columbus.

Columbus is exalted as a national hero in the United States, but he
never set foot on any portion of what would later become US territory.
(possible exception of Puerto Rico- would need to check that detail).
Rather than "discovering America", Columbus' greatest historical
contributions may have involved transferring microbes between western
Europe and the "new world". Syphillis was unkown in Europe prior to
1492 and is thought to be a "gift" to Columbus' crew from indigenous
tribes who carried the disease but were more or less immune to it. The
enormous increase in European contacts that followed the four voyages
of Columbus infected the American natives with smallpox and other
illnesses that wiped out the vast majority of what had been enormous
and thriving populations- to the point where European settlers in the
1600's marveled at how sparsely populated was this new teritory with
such an abundance of resources.

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The "but" of the joke is on you, Scotty.

Consider actually reading a post before reacting to a single word in a
single paragraph- as you just admitted doing.
(IOW don't be a "reactionary").

I admire Cristobol Colon immensely, and it is possible to do so even
when he is viewed through the lens of history rather than some bogus
mythology. Few people more cleverly manipulated the politics and
economics of their time for anticipated personal gain than did
Columbus. The man had a pair the size of "Offical NBA". :-)

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 8:53 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:43?am, wrote:





On Oct 12, 8:40 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

Happy *actual* Columbus Day.

Cristobol Colon (more commonly known as "Christopher Columbus") should
be acknowledged as a very adventurous navigator, but his greatest
personal
attribute was his hutzpa and salesmanship and the most significant
contribution he made to history was probably *not* "discovering
America."
(Columbus didn't discover anything in the strictest sense of the
term).

Europeans had been sailing to the eastern shores of North America for
several hundred years prior to 1492, and contrary to what folks of my
generation were taught in grade school it had long been established
that the world was spherical, rather than a flat plane with "edges"
some place. (Columbus shouldn't be credited with proving that the
world was round).

The primary challenge with developing or exploring the well documented
lands across the Atlantic to the west rested with the official
position of the Catholic church- which was the overriding European
social power during the 14 and 1500's. According to the church, even
speaking about undiscovered lands to the west was heresy- as nothing
of the sort was mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Columbus knew that his fastest avenue to wealth and power lay in
having a voyage sanctioned by a government. Such an arrangement would
create a market for any valuable metals or raw materials he could
gather, would provide protection for his trading fleets, and would
assist him in defending any terriroty occupied in the new lands. To
avoid running afoul of the church, Columbus announced that he was
voyaging west to find a new route to "India", a ruse that his sponsors
supported and that Columbus maintained for the rest of his life. (The
Catholic "Inquisition" also began in 1492- it would have been almost
suicidal for Colubus to ever confess that he knew darn well
where he was going as soon as he set sail).

One of the conditions that Columbus negotiated before his voyage of
1492 was that he would be named "Admiral of the Western Seas." This
might seem insignificant to modern people less than entirely familiar
with the traditional naval "prize" system, but as Admiral Coumbus was
automatically entitled to a certain percentage of the value of any
ships captured, territories conquered, or resources approproated by
his fleet or any colonies he established. No dummy was Columbus.

Columbus is exalted as a national hero in the United States, but he
never set foot on any portion of what would later become US territory.
(possible exception of Puerto Rico- would need to check that detail).
Rather than "discovering America", Columbus' greatest historical
contributions may have involved transferring microbes between western
Europe and the "new world". Syphillis was unkown in Europe prior to
1492 and is thought to be a "gift" to Columbus' crew from indigenous
tribes who carried the disease but were more or less immune to it. The
enormous increase in European contacts that followed the four voyages
of Columbus infected the American natives with smallpox and other
illnesses that wiped out the vast majority of what had been enormous
and thriving populations- to the point where European settlers in the
1600's marveled at how sparsely populated was this new teritory with
such an abundance of resources.

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The "but" of the joke is on you, Scotty.

Consider actually reading a post before reacting to a single word in a
single paragraph- as you just admitted doing.
(IOW don't be a "reactionary").

I admire Cristobol Colon immensely, and it is possible to do so even
when he is viewed through the lens of history rather than some bogus
mythology. Few people more cleverly manipulated the politics and
economics of their time for anticipated personal gain than did
Columbus. The man had a pair the size of "Offical NBA". :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, I'll give it to you this time, just coming off the rediculous post
by harry about Global Goring... or wallet goring as it were...

Columbus Day
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...


So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place? It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place? It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!? That is why no one here really takes you seriously,
no one... it is your constant intellcetual dishonesty. You complain
about my opinions, but at least they are my own and I cross the isle
on many issues, not ones that are "allowed" here of course. You take a
politically based stand on every issue, reguardless of any evidence.
You are a liar Doug, that's why no one really listens to you here.

Columbus Day
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place? It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my
bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!?

Gee....ya think? :-)

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place? It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my
bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!?

Gee....ya think? :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, it really had nohing to do with "figuring" anything out, you admit
you lie for ideological reasons. But we already knew that...

Columbus Day
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place?
It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my
bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!?

Gee....ya think? :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, it really had nohing to do with "figuring" anything out, you admit
you lie for ideological reasons. But we already knew that...


The gradual realization that the holiday is a dud and that it means little
to employees - that had nothing at all to do with it. Sure.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 7:12?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing place?
It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even my
bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!?

Gee....ya think? :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, it really had nohing to do with "figuring" anything out, you admit
you lie for ideological reasons. But we already knew that...

The gradual realization that the holiday is a dud and that it means little
to employees - that had nothing at all to do with it. Sure.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised that your bank wasn't closed last Monday, Ocotober 8.
My wife is in the banking industry, and she got the day off. There are
some restrictions about when banks can be closed, and most of them
date back to the 1930's when banks would remain closed for days at a
time to avoid having to settle with depositors. (For example, banks
are always open the day after Thanksgiving, or on Xmas eve is it falls
on a Monday...you can't close a bank for more than three consecutive
days). I suppose there aren't similar restrictions about when banks
can be *open*, but out this way most if not all were closed on the 8th.

Columbus Day
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 12, 7:12?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 12, 9:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and
courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

Oh Geeze.... I knew if I went directly to the bottom of the post
I
would find the "but"... I was not dissappointed...

So what if Chuck admires CC's gumption instead of his landing
place?
It
doesn't change the fact that he didn't discover this country. Even
my
bank
has figured this out, and is now open on Columbus Day.

Yeah, that's why they decided to stay open snerk... Had nothing to
do with money!?

Gee....ya think? :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, it really had nohing to do with "figuring" anything out, you admit
you lie for ideological reasons. But we already knew that...

The gradual realization that the holiday is a dud and that it means
little
to employees - that had nothing at all to do with it. Sure.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised that your bank wasn't closed last Monday, Ocotober 8.
My wife is in the banking industry, and she got the day off. There are
some restrictions about when banks can be closed, and most of them
date back to the 1930's when banks would remain closed for days at a
time to avoid having to settle with depositors. (For example, banks
are always open the day after Thanksgiving, or on Xmas eve is it falls
on a Monday...you can't close a bank for more than three consecutive
days). I suppose there aren't similar restrictions about when banks
can be *open*, but out this way most if not all were closed on the 8th.


I was surprised to find them open, too. Oh well.

Columbus Day
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

So what?

The Vikings were here first anyway. Along with Hawaii, Japan and
Antartica.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.


I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.

Columbus Day
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.


I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.


To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:





On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?

Columbus Day
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:





On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved
in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice
rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?

"Do you warm up before you stretch?" That's good one, I've filed that one
away.

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 9:51?am, wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's with you today?

JohnH asked how I tie my dinghy. I told him. Why be so nasty? Nobody
is chasing you around with crappy personal comments, so consider
returning the favor.

By the way, "stick"? You're obviously unfamiliar with our drift piles
in the NW. We're talking a continuous run of logs that weigh multiple
tons apiece.

Columbus Day
 

"John H." wrote in message
...

The dingy used by the pilgrims was undoubtedly bigger and heavier than
yours. They used really thick fiberglass in those days!


Contrary to popular belief, the Pilgrims did not initially land at Plymouth.
(Anyone who is familiar with Plymouth Harbor and the entrance can understand
why).

The official story is that the Mayflower first arrived and anchored off of
Provincetown on the tip of the Cape. A crew was then sent off on the
ship's jonboat with orders to find a safe harbor. The crew rowed across
Cape Cod Bay to Plymouth, (a distance of over 20 miles), found Plymouth,
briefly stepped upon "the Rock", then rowed back to report their findings.

Me? I just use my GPS.

Eisboch

Columbus Day
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:33:50 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.

The dingy used by the pilgrims was undoubtedly bigger and heavier than
yours. They used really thick fiberglass in those days!

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 6:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:51?am, wrote:





On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's with you today?

JohnH asked how I tie my dinghy. I told him. Why be so nasty? Nobody
is chasing you around with crappy personal comments, so consider
returning the favor.

By the way, "stick"? You're obviously unfamiliar with our drift piles
in the NW. We're talking a continuous run of logs that weigh multiple
tons apiece.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guess I'm still miffed at the Rush thing. I don't beleive you are
stupid enough (or stupid at all for that matter) to beleive the made
up stories by a group that Hillary has admitted having connections to.
So if you don't beleive it, and still say it, say it ain't so Chuck,
say it ain't so...

Columbus Day
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:47:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .

The dingy used by the pilgrims was undoubtedly bigger and heavier than
yours. They used really thick fiberglass in those days!


Contrary to popular belief, the Pilgrims did not initially land at Plymouth.
(Anyone who is familiar with Plymouth Harbor and the entrance can understand
why).

The official story is that the Mayflower first arrived and anchored off of
Provincetown on the tip of the Cape. A crew was then sent off on the
ship's jonboat with orders to find a safe harbor. The crew rowed across
Cape Cod Bay to Plymouth, (a distance of over 20 miles), found Plymouth,
briefly stepped upon "the Rock", then rowed back to report their findings.

Me? I just use my GPS.

Eisboch



The batteries ran down in their handhelds.

Columbus Day
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

To get their picture taken?

:-)

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 12, 4:26?pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Oct 12, 9:51?am, wrote:

On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's with you today?

JohnH asked how I tie my dinghy. I told him. Why be so nasty? Nobody
is chasing you around with crappy personal comments, so consider
returning the favor.

By the way, "stick"? You're obviously unfamiliar with our drift piles
in the NW. We're talking a continuous run of logs that weigh multiple
tons apiece.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guess I'm still miffed at the Rush thing. I don't beleive you are
stupid enough (or stupid at all for that matter) to beleive the made
up stories by a group that Hillary has admitted having connections to.
So if you don't beleive it, and still say it, say it ain't so Chuck,
say it ain't so...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Miffed at the Rush thing?"

Oh my.

Being miffed at me because I have a negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh
would make no more sense than me being miffed at you because you have
a negative opinion of folks you deem "too liberal".
Being miffed from either side makes no sense. This is supposed to be a
boating NG. Besides, spite or anger is an emotional reaction and if
you are reacting emotionally many people will naturally conclude it is
because your basic premise can't be supported with logic. The same
litmus test applies in all other discussions just about the same way
it does in the NG- the side resorting to personal remarks, name
calling, stereotyping, etc is the side most afraid that its points
will not withstand calm and reasoned scrutiny. Sometimes its one side,
sometimes its the other, but its always easy to tell who's full of
schidt at any given moment by the nature and tone of their argument.

You will notice that I make a serious effort not come after you on a
personal basis when you're discussing boating. I endeavor to avoid
blasting you with some snarky or bitchy attitude based on a real or
perceived difference of opinion in some field unrelated to the nominal
topic of this group. Should I fail to live up to that standard and
begin harrassing you, please call my attention to the fact. My
political opinions don't belong in a boating NG, and when in a weak
moment one sneaks into the fray I'd like to believe that it wouldn't
require punctuation with name calling or crappy personal remarks to
resonate.

So thanks in advance for helping me strive to adhere to an
intellectual rather than emotional tone in discussions- please let me
know whenever I'm guilty of interjecting a smart ass remark into one
of your boating discussions, etc.

(The heaviest thing any man can carry is a grudge).

Columbus Day
 

On Oct 13, 1:44 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:26?pm, wrote:





On Oct 12, 6:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:51?am, wrote:

On Oct 12, 12:33 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:37?am, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.

I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.

To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depending how long we will be ashore, we begin by carrying the dinghy
up beyond the high tide line. That can be a ways, with our 13-15 foot
typical tidal cycle hereabouts.

Up at the top of the high tide line we nearly always have a pile of
driftwood. Logs and such that have been tossed up onto the beach by
the previous winter's storms. They aren't going anywhere for a while-
probably not until the next major storm, so they make a good place to
tie the painter.

Tieing to many rocks could be less practical. The mooring line might
work its way up and over any rock that was tapered toward the top, or
slip down and pull out below a lot of rocks tapered toward the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your stick could break, and your knot could come out, or a meteor
could sever the rope... Do you warm up before you stretch?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's with you today?

JohnH asked how I tie my dinghy. I told him. Why be so nasty? Nobody
is chasing you around with crappy personal comments, so consider
returning the favor.

By the way, "stick"? You're obviously unfamiliar with our drift piles
in the NW. We're talking a continuous run of logs that weigh multiple
tons apiece.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guess I'm still miffed at the Rush thing. I don't beleive you are
stupid enough (or stupid at all for that matter) to beleive the made
up stories by a group that Hillary has admitted having connections to.
So if you don't beleive it, and still say it, say it ain't so Chuck,
say it ain't so...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Miffed at the Rush thing?"

Oh my.

Being miffed at me because I have a negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh
would make no more sense than me being miffed at you because you have
a negative opinion of folks you deem "too liberal".
Being miffed from either side makes no sense. This is supposed to be a
boating NG. Besides, spite or anger is an emotional reaction and if
you are reacting emotionally many people will naturally conclude it is
because your basic premise can't be supported with logic. The same
litmus test applies in all other discussions just about the same way
it does in the NG- the side resorting to personal remarks, name
calling, stereotyping, etc is the side most afraid that its points
will not withstand calm and reasoned scrutiny. Sometimes its one side,
sometimes its the other, but its always easy to tell who's full of
schidt at any given moment by the nature and tone of their argument.

You will notice that I make a serious effort not come after you on a
personal basis when you're discussing boating. I endeavor to avoid
blasting you with some snarky or bitchy attitude based on a real or
perceived difference of opinion in some field unrelated to the nominal
topic of this group. Should I fail to live up to that standard and
begin harrassing you, please call my attention to the fact. My
political opinions don't belong in a boating NG, and when in a weak
moment one sneaks into the fray I'd like to believe that it wouldn't
require punctuation with name calling or crappy personal remarks to
resonate.

So thanks in advance for helping me strive to adhere to an
intellectual rather than emotional tone in discussions- please let me
know whenever I'm guilty of interjecting a smart ass remark into one
of your boating discussions, etc.

(The heaviest thing any man can carry is a grudge).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the whole premise of your rant here is disingenuous.... You
asked me a question, I answered.. But you did not read or understand
my answer. I was not miffed because you "have a negative opinons of
Rush Limbaugh". I am miffed because I think that because you have a
bad opinion of him, you were dishonest and ran with obvious lies about
him.. The rest is just your whining over my answer..... Later Chuck
Should I add a few more paragraphs, no, I think I have been pretty
clear already...