On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Aug 21, 8:50*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:45:00 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:





On Aug 21, 9:32 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Neither do I.

That makes two of us.

I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour
pickle spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.

Complimentary sweet tea.

Can't beat it.

Get it - eggs - beat it- good sandwich?

Ok, sorry - that was obtuse.

By the reasoning of HK (we gotta give him some slack, you know how
hard it is for those out of practice), Obama has no relevant
qualifications for pres.

I'm out of the political discussions other than to say this.

I'm voting for McCain.

And that's saying something becuase after all, McCain

WAS A FREAKIN' SQUID!!!

I can't believe I'm voting for a squid. *:)

~~ mutter - navy ~~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When you were in, you were under the dept of the Navy.

so you're a dry land squid? Frog? Duck? Coot?

Marine.

(I'll quit while I'm thinking I'm ahead now)

Good idea. :)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:23:30 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Neither do I.

That makes two of us.

I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour
pickle spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.

Complimentary sweet tea.

Can't beat it.

Get it - eggs - beat it- good sandwich?

Ok, sorry - that was obtuse.

You eat like that and no wonder you get your shorts in a bunch sometimes.
8)

Radish sammich is good and good for you.

Yum yum.

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to
the job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts
to avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing
war.
So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.
Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.
There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.

I also specialize in moderating a section of a discussion board that has
thousands of daily contributors. You?

Let's see. Thousands of messages, that's at least 2000. Assume it takes an
average of 15 seconds to "moderate" each message.

15 seconds X 2000 msgs = 30K seconds.
30K sec / 60 = 500 minutes
500 min / 60 = 8.3 hours

How do you find time to fish?



The discussion board has several thousand new posts a day. It is a very
active board. There are subsections. There's a moderator for each
subsection. Therefore, there are a number of moderators. My subsection
averages 25 or so new or add-on posts a day, one of the slowest. But
that's because I am a relatively "new" mod, and "promotion" is based on
seniority. :)

Anyway, it doesn't take long to read through them, and there ain't much
to moderate since posters like The Seven Little Schitts are banned for
life after their second snotty post. I do read through some other
subsections, though, out of my interest in their subject matter, and if
I find a snotty post, I kill it and send a copy to that subsection's
"mod." Lots of heated discussions, too, on many subject matters, but no
personal insults. Reggie, Herring, DK, BAR, Just Wait, Loggy, Mike, et
cetera, probably wouldn't last long enough to post twice.

I read another, much newer message board, but unfortunately the
moderators there don't do a very good job, and it was taken over by the
attack dogs. Last time I checked, it was averaging less than one post a
day on the entire message board.

Such is life.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:20:10 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to
the job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts
to avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing
war.
So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.
Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.
There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.
I also specialize in moderating a section of a discussion board that has
thousands of daily contributors. You?
Let's see. Thousands of messages, that's at least 2000. Assume it takes an
average of 15 seconds to "moderate" each message.

15 seconds X 2000 msgs = 30K seconds.
30K sec / 60 = 500 minutes
500 min / 60 = 8.3 hours

How do you find time to fish?

Harry doesn't moderte anything.

Anywhere.


Actually, Tom, that would be "more true" of you, since you apparently
have "moderated" a message board into oblivion.

In the words of George W. Bush...sort of...

"Good job, Tommy!"

:)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:13:03 -0400, hk wrote:

BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
...do you own?

3?
4?
5?
6?
7?


John McCain, who said some months ago he didn't know much about the
economy, yesterday said he didn't know how many houses he owned, and
how many houses his wife owned.

(The answer for McCain and spouse is at least seven houses.)

I'm sure the millions of Americans who recently lost their houses, or
are about to, or are hoping they won't in the future, can identify
with the ultra-rich McCains and McCain's possible running mate, the
ultra-rich Mitt Romney.

John McCain, the man for the middle class. snerk
As it turns out John McCain doesn't own any houses and has built a wall
between his and his wife's finances. So, not knowing how many houses his
wife has is a good ethically speaking. But, you wouldn't understand that.
snerk
Just another example of how little McCain really knows about the world
around him.

Well, have fun the rest of the election cycle Harry.

Clearly you are out of your ****ing mind.

Talk to you after November 2nd.


snerk Gotta love it, and so very Republican. Whatever your guy does
is fine, and there is always an excuse for it.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:17:22 -0400, hk wrote:


Wow. Carly Fiorina. Gee.

I think that's a Whoosh, Harry. I'm guessing Vic was being sarcastic.

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:17:22 -0400, hk wrote:


Wow. Carly Fiorina. Gee.

I think that's a Whoosh, Harry. I'm guessing Vic was being sarcastic.


Who has a better handle on what ails non-millionaire Americans than
Carly Fiorina and Phil Graham, McCain's "economic" advisers.
Oh...wait...Mitt Romney!

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:32:09 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour pickle
spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.


That's a Connecticut lunch. ;-) I really hate to say this, but it does
sound like it could be tasty.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:04:47 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:32:09 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour pickle
spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.

That's a Connecticut lunch. ;-) I really hate to say this, but it does
sound like it could be tasty.

It is. My other favorite is tomato, half sour pickle, romaine lettuce
with horse radish spread on twelve grain whole grain bread.

Good and good for you. :)

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk
wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant
to the job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face
of non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts
to avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an
ongoing war.
So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant
becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at
that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.
Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record
was real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service
was relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.
There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.

I also specialize in moderating a section of a discussion board that has
thousands of daily contributors. You?

Let's see. Thousands of messages, that's at least 2000. Assume it takes
an average of 15 seconds to "moderate" each message.

15 seconds X 2000 msgs = 30K seconds.
30K sec / 60 = 500 minutes
500 min / 60 = 8.3 hours

How do you find time to fish?



The discussion board has several thousand new posts a day. It is a very
active board. There are subsections. There's a moderator for each
subsection. Therefore, there are a number of moderators. My subsection
averages 25 or so new or add-on posts a day, one of the slowest. But
that's because I am a relatively "new" mod, and "promotion" is based on
seniority. :)

Anyway, it doesn't take long to read through them, and there ain't much to
moderate since posters like The Seven Little Schitts are banned for life
after their second snotty post. I do read through some other subsections,
though, out of my interest in their subject matter, and if I find a snotty
post, I kill it and send a copy to that subsection's "mod." Lots of heated
discussions, too, on many subject matters, but no personal insults.
Reggie, Herring, DK, BAR, Just Wait, Loggy, Mike, et cetera, probably
wouldn't last long enough to post twice.

I read another, much newer message board, but unfortunately the moderators
there don't do a very good job, and it was taken over by the attack dogs.
Last time I checked, it was averaging less than one post a day on the
entire message board.

Such is life.


Thanks for the detailed explanation.