bassie and kevin sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g

first comes love,

then comes marriage,

then comes little kevin sitting in a baby carriage.

(Probably high on second-hand pot smoke)




"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling
you
@
pffftt.com
wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in
message
groups.com...

JR North wrote:
They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the
page
with
about a
2 foot following sea.
JR


If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could
be
some
flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might
expect.
(
There
is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the
companionway
door).
The
sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom,
and
the
passages to port and starboard are partially protected
with
what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors.
If
the
following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride
up
and
over
the
top like any other and the increased pressure and effect
on
steering
would all be taking place below the waterline.

Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be
somewhat
sheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop
around
in
30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop.


A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water
because
the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem
to
find
where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)


Do you never tire of it?


John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG
has
sunk
to
Kevin's level.

Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry
baby!!!!
Care
to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up.

If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in
which
Jim
refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin?

Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people
really
that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then
you
are
replying TO THAT PERSON.
Friends, not really. I do know him.


In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you
reply
to
Jim's message that referred to Kevin?

It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head.

He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead?

So how does that pertain to you?




Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin.
You
gotta love it.

See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the
implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care
to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on,
act like a man for ONCE...


He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post.

Do you have a gay crush on Kevin?

Again, you stupid homophobe, I said at the start that I'd bet you
aren't bright enough to get an implication. You've proved yourself just
that, thanks!