On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is “time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Oct 31, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

You don't need one, Gene. The USCG is already being asked to do a

In other words, you don't have any idea what the final WRITTEN
proposal will "specifically and emphatically" recommend or reject and
you're just mumbling through your hat?

On Oct 31, 3:54?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:40 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:





On Oct 31, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|

Cite?

You don't need one, Gene. The USCG is already being asked to do a

In other words, you don't have any idea what the final WRITTEN
proposal will "specifically and emphatically" recommend or reject and
you're just mumbling through your hat?

You keep harping about some imaginary FINAL proposal. I'm telling you what is on
the table right now, and where the USCG stands. No new "Boater ID" is at all
likely to happen. You and Dubya apparently have the same source for "bad
intelligence"

Are you a ditto head?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My "bad intelligence" is courtesy of some guy in rec boats who wrote:

"The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
drivers license or other similar ID."

He seems to have the same handle that you use. That's pretty
unfortunate, it makes it hard to tell the guy who claims there is a
WRITTEN proposal apart from the guy who belittles others for asking
where to see a copy of the written proposal.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:23:28 -0400, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
||
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
||well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
||
||On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
||
||USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
||of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
||boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
||explosives and used to
||blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
||presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
||*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
||(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
||in several areas).
||
||
||
||I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
||proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
||ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
||as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
||would be all that is needed.
||
||
||Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
||awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
||vessels" and that it is “time to look at this other gap."
||
||Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
||issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
||"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
||apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
||certainty who are operating boats out there."
||
||
||The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
||idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
||drivers license or other similar ID.
||
|
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

.....if you make a statement in this newsgroup that doesn't hold
water..... prepare to be asked for a citation. I posted the public
statements of the head of that organization and a citation to prove
that I didn't pull that bit of info from the inner recesses. You've
struck a pose, saying just the opposite of the words of the
commandant.... thus, if you know something to the contrary of what
has been published and cited, you need your own refuting citation.


|The USCG is already being asked to do a lot more with
|less funding. They can't even get obsolete worn out equipment replaced that was
|budgeted years ago. That includes many boats. Why on earth would they want to
|add the huge job of issuing and administering boater ID's? They don't have the
|money or manpower to keep up with what is already on their plate. Sheesh.

I agree with that 110%, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with
your unsupported statement.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find
this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way.

Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD

FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document.

EOD

Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized
certain statements in the proposal as emphatic.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on
the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling
and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows
he has lost.

Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as
10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license.
The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG
is providing "conflicting information".

If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up
your position, please post it.

Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-)

On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find
this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way.

Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD

FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document.

EOD

Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized
certain statements in the proposal as emphatic.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on
the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling
and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows
he has lost.

Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as
10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license.
The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG
is providing "conflicting information".

If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up
your position, please post it.

Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-)

Here ya go, asswipe.

http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm

Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this
information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some
great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for
posting
profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide
variety of reasons, don't they?

Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the
final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final
WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line.

On Nov 1, 9:21?am, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:00:24 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find
this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way.

Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD

FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document.

EOD

Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized
certain statements in the proposal as emphatic.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on
the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling
and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows
he has lost.

Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as
10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license.
The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG
is providing "conflicting information".

If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up
your position, please post it.

Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-)

Here ya go, asswipe.

http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm

Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this
information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some
great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for
posting
profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide
variety of reasons, don't they?

Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the
final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final
WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line.

You keep adding the word final. I'm not responsible for your mental
weaknesses. I NEVER said final. You ranted on and on about something
from 10 months ago, and refused to believe that things might have
changed in all of that time. I guess that makes you something of a
retard. You truly are a mindless slave to PR releases.

And you were dead WRONG. Too small a man to admit it, aren't you?

I believe I also told you to shut the **** up. Please do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Repeating the same lie over and over again won't make it true.

On October 31 you posted, in this thread, exactly:

****
The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
drivers license or other similar ID.

****

It appeared on my service just before noon.
All of the comments about never claiming there was a WRITTEN proposal
are just so much BS, aren't they?

Keep expanding your vocabulary. You'll be amazed at how many
intersting words you will find to use that have more than four
letters. :-)

On Nov 1, 2:52?pm, wrote:
On 1 Nov 2007 12:43:23 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Nov 1, 9:21?am, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:00:24 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns

wrote:
|Cite?
|
|You don't need one, Gene.

No, you need one....

No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find
this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way.

Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD

FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document.

EOD

Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized
certain statements in the proposal as emphatic.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on
the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling
and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows
he has lost.

Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as
10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license.
The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG
is providing "conflicting information".

If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up
your position, please post it.

Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-)

Here ya go, asswipe.

http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm

Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this
information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some
great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for
posting
profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide
variety of reasons, don't they?

Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the
final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final
WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line.

You keep adding the word final. I'm not responsible for your mental
weaknesses. I NEVER said final. You ranted on and on about something
from 10 months ago, and refused to believe that things might have
changed in all of that time. I guess that makes you something of a
retard. You truly are a mindless slave to PR releases.

And you were dead WRONG. Too small a man to admit it, aren't you?

I believe I also told you to shut the **** up. Please do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Repeating the same lie over and over again won't make it true.

On October 31 you posted, in this thread, exactly:

****
The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
drivers license or other similar ID.

****

It appeared on my service just before noon.
All of the comments about never claiming there was a WRITTEN proposal
are just so much BS, aren't they?

Keep expanding your vocabulary. You'll be amazed at how many
intersting words you will find to use that have more than four
letters. :-)

???

You are truly demented, Gouldy locks.

Everything you have posted is the result of reading written proposals and
comments. You just decided to capriciously attach the word FINAL to what I
wrote. I read written proposals, which is how I knew you were full of your usual
unmitigated ****.

So, you now know you were clearly full of ****, but you still can't take
responsibility for that. You are a wimp who lacks any sort of personal
integrity. Keep trying to deflect. You aren't fooling anyone. If you are fooling
yourself, then you are even less intelligent than I have speculated.

You were toatlly worng on this issue, and I proved it. When do you grow a spine
and admit it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nothing you posted or linked to referred to a written proposal by the
USCG. You linked to some comments from BOATUS stating that they had
been assured by the USCG that there would be no ID requirement.
That's hardly the WRITTEN proposal by the USCG, is it?