wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item.

Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again?

According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for
Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians
opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem
to be informed about the bill's specifics.

If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but
probably unavoidable.


No need for the personal attack (#2 for you today along with one direct
insult). I simply stated an opinion.

End of discussion for me Chuck. I made my point.

For what it is worth, the bill was a bipartisan bill, sponsored by
Republicans and Democrats.




wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item.

Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again?

According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for
Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians
opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem
to be informed about the bill's specifics.

If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but
probably unavoidable.

But I guess the Republicans were *uninformed*.

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...
For what it is worth, the bill was a bipartisan bill, sponsored by
Republicans and Democrats.




wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item.

Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again?

According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for
Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians
opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem
to be informed about the bill's specifics.

If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but
probably unavoidable.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item.

Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again?
snip.....
If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but
probably unavoidable.



Old JimH must be really feeling his oats these days. He's just itching to
get even with you.
My two cents worth........take no prisoners & show no mercy. It just
empowers Jimbo.

On 17 Mar 2005 07:32:06 -0800, wrote:

JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill. The author's name is at the bottom
of the page, Dave Kutz. If you have an issue with his choice his
verbiage, please take it up with him. Thanks.

For what it's worth, if the people who were in opposition to the bill
were Republicans and if they were not able to argue on the specifics of
the proposal, they would indeed be Republicans and (on this issue, at
least) uninformed.

I would think an unbiased independent would post both sides of the issue even if
he was cut'n'pastin'.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Also Sprach JimH :

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?

He didn't call them "uninformed Republicans," the author of the article,
David Kutz, did. Learn to read.

Dan



--
For NASA, space is still a high priority.

-- Dan Quayle

On 17 Mar 2005 07:51:32 -0800, wrote:

JimH wrote:

Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they
just
against the bill for some valid reason?

***************

This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one.

It was interesting to watch the education bill in CT - the bill was
actually sponsored by a Republican State Senator and there were a
bunch of Democrats who opposed it.

Later,

Tom

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...
JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not removed
by the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?




He also had to throw in an insult (start at the top, read slowly).

4 posts by Chuck, one insult, one personal attack.

Way to go Chuck.


In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found
the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details
yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to.

Harry,
What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother
to post disrupting posts such as this one?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...

JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
glegroups.com...

JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?



He also had to throw in an insult (start at the top, read slowly).

4 posts by Chuck, one insult, one personal attack.

Way to go Chuck.



In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've
found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the
details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to.


Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond
disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in
various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting.
That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith"
wrote:

Harry,
What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother
to post disrupting posts such as this one?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...

JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oglegroups.com...

JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?



He also had to throw in an insult (start at the top, read slowly).

4 posts by Chuck, one insult, one personal attack.

Way to go Chuck.



In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've
found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the
details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to.


Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond
disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in
various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting.
That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin.


I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they make.
Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you just
keep showing up with these comments.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."