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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:53:49 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|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?

After having assessed both sides of this childish, stupid, inane,
decade long discussion of the substance of a Zimmerman like lobster
boat, If you feel it collectively describes adherence to some sort of
code of moral values....... I guess your definition of "integrity" and
mine differ greatly.

That is, unless your are the netcops judge, jury, and executioner.
Then we'd probably need to define authority..... HOWEVER, I'm no more
inclined to join in that ridiculous repartee than I am the one about
some boat, of which I have absolutely NO personal knowledge (and
neither do you). What a wonderfully solid basis for a system of
"integrity."

I suggest you address all of those concerns at
rec.authority.on.integrity.via.the.unkown and leave those interested
boating to fend for themselves, here......

We share the same opinion Gene and I've said it more than once.

Well said my friend.

Most excellent.