On Jul 7, 10:45*am, "Don White" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...





On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:15:07 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 7, 7:57 am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 7, 7:55 am, wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:12 pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:59 pm, "Jim" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, "Jim" wrote:
12:35 Harry gets out of jail
12:56 Another of Harry's fans gets the boot
Who got booted, how long?
I think It was Hidden. Go look to make sure. *I think Chuck gave him
an
indeterminate sentence.
He-he. *My prediction came true.
You guys keep falling like flies. * Learn to behave and you won't get
banned.
You, then Scott, then John, now Loogy............my guess is that BAR
is next.
This is just too funny.
Jim, for your information I've never posted nor am I a member of
Chuck's group. I would like to ask you, what harms was the post asking
about fuel burn on Harry's lobster boat?
Whatever you say 'hidden'. * ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you think I'm Hidden, you must be dumber than a post. He IS someone
from here, though.
Now, can you answer the question? After all, it was YOU that said if
you "follow the rules" you won't get banned. What rule was broken by
hidden?

It really is easy to understand why Hidden was put in time out.
Everyone knows Harry does not own a Lobster Boat, so when Hidden
mentioned the topic, it was making fun of Harry's obsession with
fabricating a fictional persona for UseNet.

Chuck wanted to nip it in the bud, so he put Hidden in time out. *I
would assume if Harry mentioned his "Lobster Boat", Harry would be put
in time out also.

If what you say is true, then Chuck must believe that Harry's Lobsta boat
is a fabrication. That's hard to believe!

I believe that Chuck is smarter than you give him credit for...not that it
would be hard to see through the Dwarf Armys' awkward attempts at
instigating, agitating ,and facilitating. *Mmmm *facilitating..isn't that
what you're doing right now?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don, honest question for you, seeing how the others who laud Chuck's
place won't answer. Why would someone be binned for asking someone a
question about fuel burn rates on a boat that that person has stated
several hundred times over the years that he owns?

wrote:


Don, honest question for you, seeing how the others who laud Chuck's
place won't answer. Why would someone be binned for asking someone a
question about fuel burn rates on a boat that that person has stated
several hundred times over the years that he owns?

You are posting to the dumbest of the three stooges. He relies on the
other two for his "material". He will be non-responsive or reply with a
one-liner. Ignore him, too and life will go on.

"DK" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Don, honest question for you, seeing how the others who laud Chuck's
place won't answer. Why would someone be binned for asking someone a
question about fuel burn rates on a boat that that person has stated
several hundred times over the years that he owns?

You are posting to the dumbest of the three stooges. He relies on the
other two for his "material". He will be non-responsive or reply with a
one-liner. Ignore him, too and life will go on.


Practice what you preach, dumbass.

Gene Kearns wrote:
Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.

Does said boat in questions exist? Has said boat in questions ever
existed. Do you believe said boat in questions ever was in possession of
Harry Krause?

Aren't you the least bit curious as to the disposition of said boat? Was
it sunk for to submit a false insurance claim?

Wouldn't you like to know how much fuel said boat consumes on an average
day out cruising the bay?

How far do you suppose somebody will push the "I'm not touching you"
routine before they finally conclude there isn't any payoff (at
Chucks)?

Regardless of the location where the question is asked why is the
questions off limits? With Harry's insistence that everyone post
personal information about themselves and their possessions why is it
off limits to ask Harry about his possessions?

Please step away from the sandbox.....

Seems to me that the sandbox has rules but, those rules don't apply
evenly too all who play in the sandbox.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:48:39 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene Kearns wrote:
| Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
| helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
| and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
| of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.
|
|Does said boat in questions exist?

I don't know, nor do I care.

I understand, integrity means nothing to you?

BAR wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:48:39 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene Kearns wrote:
| Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
| helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
| and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
| of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.
|
|Does said boat in questions exist?

I don't know, nor do I care.

I understand, integrity means nothing to you?

Bertie Robbins, known far and wide as POT-KETTLE-BLACK, and a little
less widely as a member of the Sissyhood of the Seven Dwarfs.

On Jul 7, 2:53*pm, BAR wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:48:39 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene Kearns wrote:
| Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
| helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
| and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
| of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.
|
|Does said boat in questions exist?

I don't know, nor do I care.

I understand, integrity means nothing to you?

I agree with Gene on this one.. We all care, we just know that WAFA
doesn't so it's useless going over and over it.. Not to mention, that
is Chucks place, it is moderated and has rules and if you are
intellectually honest yourself about what you percieve Loogies post to
mean, you will admit he broke the rules, period....

wrote:
On Jul 7, 2:53 pm, BAR wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:48:39 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|Gene Kearns wrote:
| Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
| helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
| and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
| of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.
|
|Does said boat in questions exist?
I don't know, nor do I care.
I understand, integrity means nothing to you?

I agree with Gene on this one.. We all care, we just know that WAFA
doesn't so it's useless going over and over it.. Not to mention, that
is Chucks place, it is moderated and has rules and if you are
intellectually honest yourself about what you percieve Loogies post to
mean, you will admit he broke the rules, period....



You Dwarf Boys ought to get together and get a group rate for help with
your obsession.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:56:22 -0400, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote:
| On Jul 7, 2:53 pm, BAR wrote:
| Gene Kearns wrote:
| On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:48:39 -0400, BAR penned the following well
| considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
| |Gene Kearns wrote:
| | Because someone knew, before they asked, that there would be no
| | helpful answer. There never HAS been a helpful answer to that question
| | and one would reasonably conclude then, as did Chuck, that the asking
| | of the question was clearly inflammatory in nature.
| |
| |Does said boat in questions exist?
| I don't know, nor do I care.
| I understand, integrity means nothing to you?
|
| I agree with Gene on this one.. We all care, we just know that WAFA
| doesn't so it's useless going over and over it.. Not to mention, that
| is Chucks place, it is moderated and has rules and if you are
| intellectually honest yourself about what you percieve Loogies post to
| mean, you will admit he broke the rules, period....
|
|
|
|You Dwarf Boys ought to get together and get a group rate for help with
|your obsession.

You know..... that isn't a very good way to get this stopped....
assuming you want to.....



Gene, I know you have the best of intentions, but I really truly believe
rec.boats is so overpopulated with snarly little assholes like the Seven
Dwarfs there is no hope for its salvation. The future for those who want
to discuss boating in a reasonable fashion and still have fun is in
moderated newsgroups or in discussion groups.

Here's the final scene for an upcoming HBO movie:


....from "REC.BOATS...THE NEWSGROUP OF THE DWARFS..."



You Seven Dwarfs finally really did it.



You maniacs!



You blew it up!



God damn you!



God damn you all to hell!





:)

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:31:33 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

This should go into the dictionary as a caption to the illustration of
a "Self Fulfilling Prophecy."

Amen.