|
Apology to gay losers
Jim wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:39:06 GMT, Reginald P. Smithers XXI penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:25:01 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:03:15 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. You've been had. (1) Harry didn't post that and then (2) the actual OP then chimed back into this thread with his stick to stir things up. When are you guys going to learn? Learn what? Well, basically, that you shouldn't be as stupid as a fish and bite on every troll or re-troll..... When the OP actually mungs the "from," you guys still don't get it and pile on. Geeze, guys, you are going after a straw man (uh, lure). Then the OP (with no real attempt at stealth) chums the water with more trolling.... and there is a feeding frenzy. There is no shortage of straw lures and no shortage of energy to attack same. Instead of being such idiots, you could have helped me and the wife compound and polish one side of the boat. We could have gotten done in time to float it and hit the best watering hole on the ICW.... a view of the water, hottie little waitresses, shrimp burgers, and the coldest Red Stripes on earth. With any luck we could have hooked up with D-unit and company. But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o you guys want to snipe at each other. Ok, I have an advantage. It was 70 degrees here today. You guys still have icicles hanging from your, uh..... well....... uh.... whatever they hang from up there.... and you are suffering from cabin fever. I sure hope it warms up for you guys, soon...... ..... hey, sweetheart...... another Red Stripe, please...... ok guys, gotta go, see ya...... -- 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 --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 080209-0, 02/09/2008 Tested on: 2/9/2008 4:31:41 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com How hard it must be to resist ragging Harry when the opportunity presents itself. Give us all a break. Lets move on. Enjoy your Red Stripe Mon. Ahhh...another boating-related missive from the current chair of the "obsessed with harry" club, and most likely another boatless loser, just like most of the rest of them. You forgot to capitalize yourself. Want some more love letters from your fan club, Harry? Google yourself on google groups. You have amassed quite a following. He reads every post here. His condition prevents him from ignoring *any* posts. |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 9, 5:54�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." �What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. |
Apology to gay losers
HK wrote:
Jim wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: You forgot to capitalize yourself. Want some more love letters from your fan club, Harry? Google yourself on google groups. You have amassed quite a following. Ahhh...another boating-related missive from the current chair of the "obsessed with harry" club, and most likely another boatless loser, just like most of the rest of them. I've never been low enough to try to be you, JimmyBobBoy. He He You're doing great Harry. Ahhh...another boating-related missive from the current chair of the "obsessed with harry" club, and likely another boatless loser, just like most of the rest of them. He learned to cut and paste, too. Amazing progress. |
Apology to gay losers
JimH wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: You forgot to capitalize yourself. Want some more love letters from your fan club, Harry? Google yourself on google groups. You have amassed quite a following. Ahhh...another boating-related missive from the current chair of the "obsessed with harry" club, and most likely another boatless loser, just like most of the rest of them. I've never been low enough to try to be you, JimmyBobBoy. He He You're doing great Harry. Are you Jim from Florida? Probably, though I don't keep track of the a**holes here. I believe daily sniffing of the a**hole's is a job shared by Herring and Reggie. |
Apology to gay losers
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:54�pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." �What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. Herring is getting more and more irrational as he ages. |
Apology to gay losers
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added) the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian? I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of your opinion! -- John H |
Apology to gay losers
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:41:55 -0500, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. Herring is getting more and more irrational as he ages. Well Harry, I see you've still not grown the balls to come out from behind the pretend Bozo's Bin. -- John H |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 9, 6:51�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added) the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian? I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of your opinion! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for (or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't really steal for (or in the name of) the poor. We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5 delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and 1 Clinton delegate. Somethin's happenin' here What it is ain't exactly clear But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?" Everybody look what's goin down....... I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle- dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults solve problems. |
Apology to gay losers
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:08:11 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: Some snippage - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added) the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian? I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of your opinion! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for (or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't really steal for (or in the name of) the poor. We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5 delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and 1 Clinton delegate. Somethin's happenin' here What it is ain't exactly clear But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?" Everybody look what's goin down....... I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle- dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults solve problems. No, I didn't address your assertion that my party 'steals for the wealthy'. It made little sense, and was therefore not addressed. Now that we've decided the Democrats 'steal *from* the poor' (but pretend otherwise), perhaps you'd explain your second assertion. In my view, the Democrats *and* the Republicans steal for the wealthy. You'd surely put Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Harry Ried, etc. amongst the wealthy, yes? -- John H |
Apology to gay losers
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:28:10 -0500, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:05:05 -0500, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: Instead of being such idiots, you could have helped me and the wife compound and polish one side of the boat. We could have gotten done in time to float it and hit the best watering hole on the ICW.... a view of the water, hottie little waitresses, shrimp burgers, and the coldest Red Stripes on earth. With any luck we could have hooked up with D-unit and company. But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o you guys want to snipe at each other. Well, you could have stopped off at Tri-State today, where, while going into the fishing flea market, you would have noticed two just delivered 30+' Gradys, each with a pair of 350s on the transom. Jeez. If I had that sort of expendable income...... I'd be all over it! I didn't even look closely. When I see that sort of array on the stern, I simply think..."Another way to support Big Oil..." And think of the truck and trailer you'd need to haul 'em! Gotta be 12,000-14,000 pounds in those rigs. I'm pretty sure they were 33's. Nice boats, though. No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. What? My 4Runner won't do? Ack! I better call and cancel the order! Seriously, though, I asked my salesman there how boat sales were going, and he said they were moving just a little less than the usual number of new larger boats, that middle range boats were "down some," and smaller boat sales had "fallen flat." Larger boats at that dealership are the big Gradys, of course, and I'd guess the "middle range" includes the 23-30 foot Parkers and Gradys, with the smaller boats the Parkers and Gradys the size of mine or smaller. He said the downturn was due mostly to declining economic conditions, rather than the price of fuel. |
Apology to gay losers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:28:08 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:38:58 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene, cut folks some slack! The only reason that *wasn't* posted by Harry was because someone else thought of it first. It is exactly the thing Harry would have posted had he thought of it. Now, there. Slack for what? Impersonations? No, for not checking whether or not the post had come from Harry. I know it must be comforting to all posters that, when you are away, other people will be here posting in your name with "your thoughts" so that nobody will be without "your" posts and/or "your" responses.... Think about it..... and think about the motivations of a poster impersonating another poster with something that they know is going to be inflammatory and then jumping back into the fray as themselves. Historically, Harry isn't the only victim of that kind of crap and it only serves to divide and inflame the newsgroup..... and *never* in the direction of *boats*. What was posted, in this case, could not possibly further divide the group. There's also the matter of self fulfilling prophecy. I think we have one poster that has absolutely gone off the deep end... mostly because he feels that he is expected to..... There is that bit of truth, and it ain't Jim. Now, go do some kind if rain dance..... you are *really* going to need some, if you expect to be boating down here, when you get moved.... We're now thinking of the New Bern area. Looks like water levels there may not be as much of a problem as Falls Lake. Do you know anything about the New Bern area? -- John H |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 9, 5:28*pm, HK wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:05:05 -0500, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: Instead of being such idiots, you could have helped me and the wife compound and polish one side of the boat. We could have gotten done in time to float it and hit the best watering hole on the ICW.... a view of the water, hottie little waitresses, shrimp burgers, and the coldest Red Stripes on earth. With any luck we could have hooked up with D-unit and company. But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o you guys want to snipe at each other. Well, you could have stopped off at Tri-State today, where, while going into the fishing flea market, you would have noticed two just delivered 30+' Gradys, each with a pair of 350s on the transom. Jeez. If I had that sort of expendable income...... I'd be all over it! I didn't even look closely. When I see that sort of array on the stern, I simply think..."Another way to support Big Oil..." And think of the truck and trailer you'd need to haul 'em! Gotta be 12,000-14,000 pounds in those rigs. I'm pretty sure they were 33's. Nice boats, though.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's the burn rate on that Zimmerman like lobster boat? |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 9, 9:36*pm, HK wrote:
JimH wrote: "Jim" wrote in message . .. "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: You forgot to capitalize yourself. Want some more love letters from your fan club, Harry? Google yourself on google groups. You have amassed quite a following. Ahhh...another boating-related missive from the current chair of the "obsessed with harry" club, and most likely another boatless loser, just like most of the rest of them. I've never been low enough to try to be you, JimmyBobBoy. He He You're doing great Harry. Are you Jim from Florida? Probably, though I don't keep track of the a**holes here. I believe daily sniffing of the a**hole's is a job shared by Herring and Reggie.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Name calling. What sophistication and culture it takes to do that...... |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 9, 8:54*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." *What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ding ding ding.... and we have a winner... If no child left behind works, the dems lose their voter base... |
Apology to gay losers
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. He can also do it online. When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. I could be wrong though. I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 9:22*am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 *miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. *The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. *All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. *He can also do it online. *When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. *I could be wrong though. *I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. *Always gives me the willies.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you drive fast enough, the boat can't catch you... |
Apology to gay losers
|
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 9:29*am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Feb 10, 9:22 am, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 *miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. *The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. *All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. *He can also do it online. *When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. *I could be wrong though. *I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. *Always gives me the willies.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you drive fast enough, the boat can't catch you... Gee, I never thought of *that*.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See, now can I drive your boat?? |
Apology to gay losers
|
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 9:43*am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Feb 10, 9:29 am, HK wrote: wrote: On Feb 10, 9:22 am, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 *miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. *The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. *All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. *He can also do it online. *When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. *I could be wrong though. *I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. *Always gives me the willies.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you drive fast enough, the boat can't catch you... Gee, I never thought of *that*.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See, now can I drive your boat?? Sure, while it is on the trailer. Seriously, if you get your ass down here, you're on. But I don't *do* winter fishing. I'd say - April - at the earliest.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am planning to take you up on that this summer Harry, count on it. But you don't want me driving, I really can not see at all, ask Tom... "What huge green tower in the water? OOOOPs. was that a lobsta' pot I just casted into?? I can't really catch fish all that well either, but I can sure tie a decent knot;) |
Apology to gay losers
|
Apology to gay losers
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:51�pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop and think, John. (vs react) Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor. Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich. Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do- only in the reasons you give for doing them. I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added) the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian? I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of your opinion! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for (or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't really steal for (or in the name of) the poor. "Stealing for (or in the name of) the rich" you have got to be kidding Chuck. Do you really believe that the Republican party has a plank in their platform that says this? Oppression of the masses is a trait of the Democrat party. We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5 delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and 1 Clinton delegate. Obama has captured hope and optimism, plain and simple. Clinton is whiny, grating and abusive. Somethin's happenin' here What it is ain't exactly clear But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?" Everybody look what's goin down....... I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle- dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults solve problems. Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose. The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose. |
Apology to gay losers
"HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 6:07�am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:54�pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." �What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ding ding ding.... and we have a winner... If no child left behind works, the dems lose their voter base...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh please. Straight off a Limbaugh script. Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left coast with the average education in customarily red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks. Educated and intelligent people arrive at differing conclusions. If they didn't all of that education would be wasted. The truly educated don't ultimately migrate to the "One True Fact", but learn to use their mental resources to think in a critical manner. Some people will posit: "Those who disagree with me do so because they aren't very bright." That's a laugh. What isn't very bright in an expectation that all quality thought will lead to the same, lock step, conclusion. Some of the educated who feel the urge to support a political party will support the R's. Others will support the D's. Others will pick and choose candidates from both parties and make personal, rather than party dictated, decisions regarding issues. |
Apology to gay losers
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. |
Apology to gay losers
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. Harry, I think you seem to focus on events that will NEVER happen. |
Apology to gay losers
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose. The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose. Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms? Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why should your kids & grandkids pay? |
Apology to gay losers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:
Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left coast with the average education in customarily red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks. It's worse than that: http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red. |
Apology to gay losers
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. Are you still living with your wife? |
Apology to gay losers
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote: Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left coast with the average education in customarily red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks. It's worse than that: http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red. I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money spent on it) automatically implies"smartness" in people. There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there are many "smart" people with limited education. Eisboch |
Apology to gay losers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:56:16 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:39:43 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: There's also the matter of self fulfilling prophecy. I think we have one poster that has absolutely gone off the deep end... mostly because he feels that he is expected to..... There is that bit of truth, and it ain't Jim. Very true. Now, go do some kind if rain dance..... you are *really* going to need some, if you expect to be boating down here, when you get moved.... We're now thinking of the New Bern area. Looks like water levels there may not be as much of a problem as Falls Lake. Do you know anything about the New Bern area? Yeah.... that is a totally different area. I like the area. From a boating perspective (actually every) it is a much better place to settle. There is no shortage of water in that area. There is a lot of area in the sound to fish and boat. One of the local best places is Oriental. http://www.visitoriental.com/ You might, also, extend your wanderings down Route 70 as far as Morehead City. There is much better access to the "outside" there and they are a gazillion miles closer to the Gulf Stream than we are. Thanks Gene. We will give that area a peak also. -- John H |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 9:15�am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote: Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left coast with the average education in customarily red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks. It's worse than that: http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red. I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money spent on it) �automatically implies"smartness" in people. There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there are many "smart" people with limited education. Eisboch I agree with you entirely. The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because if the amount of education were increased across the country the number of people supporting the D's would decrease. |
Apology to gay losers
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. He can also do it online. When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. I could be wrong though. I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. In California, you get an annual permit for the wide load boat. I think $90/annum. The rules tell you when and where you can not tow. Bascially, you can not tow in commute times on the highway. |
Apology to gay losers
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. Chance of either is infinitely small. Unless Scott is towing his trailer near you. |
Apology to gay losers
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:39:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and (even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or over, is almost a 12' beam. One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for tournaments over 75 miles from his home base in Bristol RI. That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11' wide. The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. All he needs to do is to call the DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. He can also do it online. When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done online, quick and easy. The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7" which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. I could be wrong though. I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer that's not wider than the boat it'self. The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10' - 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often. I got my trailer from the same folks Harry did and my boat hangs over about 8 inches on both sides... and technically, should have an oversize permit. (Apparently, it isn't really a safety issue, it is all about revenue.) Trailer width on state highways is limited to 96 inches and 102 inches on the Interstates. Your guy with the 33 footer likely would exceed the 60' overall length. This is an area not enforced by the DMV and there are several state legislators now forming legislation (if not already introduced) that would attempt to fix some of these outdated dimensions. Bear in mind this is just NC.... YMMV.... -- 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 --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 080209-0, 02/09/2008 Tested on: 2/10/2008 9:46:47 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Oversized for your size boat is not a revenue generator. Then ar more likely trying to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. So the permit requires you to know when and where you can not tow. |
Apology to gay losers
"Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose. The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose. Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms? Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why should your kids & grandkids pay? Get a clue. Most of the overspending has not gone for overseas adventures. About 25% of the last funding bill for overseas adventures was pork, sorry earmarks, for both Dems and Repubs. It has been a spending frenzy by both parties for the last 16 years. The only thing that make the Clinton years look half way decent, is the revenue from the dot.bomb bust came in faster than Congress could ramp up spending. Part of the debt in the last 7 years is a carry over from Congress overspending in the previous 8 years. And for a little enlightenment for the Canuck, the President / Executive Branch can only spend money allocated by Congress. |
Apology to gay losers
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose. The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose. Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms? Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why should your kids & grandkids pay? 1. Yes. 2. It's Reaganomics...spend like a drunken sailor and then...don't pay for it. |
Apology to gay losers
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. Chance of either is infinitely small. Unless Scott is towing his trailer near you. My wife sez if I can arrange a weekend at the NoTell Motel with Salma, Penelope and Marion, it's ok with her. But I can't get any of them to return my phone calls. Not even the motel! :- |
Apology to gay losers
On Feb 10, 1:35*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind me. *Always gives me the willies. pansy Eisboch Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat trailer. Chance of either is infinitely small. *Unless Scott is towing his trailer near you. Hey, how did you know I look like Penelope Cruz?? |
Apology to gay losers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 10, 6:07?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 8:54?pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas. Love you, Harry Krause Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself. Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the dems... Read you own post, Scottie. I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so hateful and intolerant!" Thanks for starting my day with a smile. Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer, piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets. Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently immoral? How do you define 'rich'? Your opposition ?[liberals] hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day", thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of millions of votes. Absolutely true. So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you do, but who your masters are. Luke 6: 41-42 One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are. "...steals for the poor." ?What horse****! DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial. Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail. You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above. Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. The poor may *learn* something! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ding ding ding.... and we have a winner... If no child left behind works, the dems lose their voter base...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh please. Straight off a Limbaugh script. Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left coast with the average education in customarily red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks. Educated and intelligent people arrive at differing conclusions. If they didn't all of that education would be wasted. The truly educated don't ultimately migrate to the "One True Fact", but learn to use their mental resources to think in a critical manner. Some people will posit: "Those who disagree with me do so because they aren't very bright." That's a laugh. What isn't very bright in an expectation that all quality thought will lead to the same, lock step, conclusion. Some of the educated who feel the urge to support a political party will support the R's. Others will support the D's. Others will pick and choose candidates from both parties and make personal, rather than party dictated, decisions regarding issues. The uneducated will support the party they think will do the most for them. The Democrats make their points by telling the uneducated what they'll be given - higher pay, better jobs, free health care, free college, free this and free that. What is your 'comparison' of left vs red states in terms of education supposed to mean. The 'NCLBA' applied to all states. Again, you're paying too much attention to Limbaugh. If, in fact, Limbaugh said that, then Limbaugh got it right (and correct). -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com