On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35*pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?

I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..

Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

On Sep 9, 6:32*am, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35*pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?

I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. *So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..

Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

S'ok, It wasn't the recipeint of your post, it was the content... but
you are forgiven Sounds like things are straightening out here
already...

wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:32 am, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35 pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:
Are you in?
I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..
Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

S'ok, It wasn't the recipeint of your post, it was the content... but
you are forgiven Sounds like things are straightening out here
already...



Subject header modified; content mostly or entirely off-topic for rec.boats.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35 pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?

I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..

Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't let it happen again.
We expect you to show a good example to the enlisted men.
Officers...pfffffff!

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35 pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?

I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..

Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't let it happen again.
We expect you to show a good example to the enlisted men.
Officers...pfffffff!

On second thought...this situation is troubling.
Up here, if the privates take over and start issuing orders to the Lt.
Colonels (and other officers), we call it mutiny
John, you have to get control of this situation before the disease spreads.
No one will be safe!

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:32:05 -0400, John H wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35 pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?
I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..
Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

Another post mentioning the unmentionables! You guys are HOPELESSLY
OBSESSED. You can't simply shut your pie holes. You HAVE to keep
mentioning the unmentionable over and over, in posts vowing not to
mention them.


PSA
Subject header modified to indicate post has little or no on-topic
boating content.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:32:05 -0400, John H wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:35 pm, camacdonaldiii wrote:

Are you in?

I'm in, with the exception that when my plaintiff action is served
upon WAFA, I'll post a link here with no editorial comment.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea is not to address them, mention, them, answer them, period..
in or out.. So if you think you are really in, glad to add you to the
list, posts such as the one you just made are not really in, but
hopefully you took you final shot.... I think JohnH fell out already
with a post to Donnie, earlier.. too bad..

Hey, come on now. Your idea said "Harry and Salty". I should have
automatically included the other two, but I didn't. From now on I will.

May apologies to all.

Another post mentioning the unmentionables! You guys are HOPELESSLY
OBSESSED. You can't simply shut your pie holes. You HAVE to keep
mentioning the unmentionable over and over, in posts vowing not to
mention them.


I'm thinking of dumping half my cable tv channels.
This place is more entertaining than any situation comedy on the boob tube.