TR

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...

...Ken, Wolfgang, and Mikey go scott free....

Not true. kennie and mikie pay dearly.

Wolfgang

On Nov 26, 1:26 am, wrote:
This kind of goes against my new resolve in terms of insrerting myself into
somre of these ridiculous name calling discussions
But this one ****ed me off!

IMHO, you'd be better sticking to your resolve. Inasmuch as I
consider most of the participants here my friends; I'm perfectly
willing, if not a bit dismayed, to have them work it out on their
own. Clearly some of this stems from contrary social & political
attitudes, some from miscommunication, and a lot of it from the
limitations of the written word compared to face-to-face discussion.

You, on the other hand, see fit to interject yourself into this
squabble as an authority on a man's personality without having so much
as met, fished with, or shared a meal with him. You seem to feel
competent to judge the totality of a man's life, achievements, and
character based solely on these few electrons here.

Further, you arrogantly establish yourself as an unquestioned
authority on what is or is not honorable, as though there were no room
for gentlemanly discussion. "Draft dodger" means different things to
different people. To some, it implies a constitutional and honorable
protest against a failed foreign policy disaster. To others, it
implies an abandonment of one's duty to his country. These two
attitudes are not mutually exclusive; and adherence to one or the
other does not justify narrow-minded name calling.

As far as this present microcosm of cantakerousness goes, I've shared
streams, meals, and bottles with both Daves; and they're both good
guys. Personally, I liked it better when they were friends with each
other as well; but that's out of my control and none of my business.
It's also none of yours.

Joe F.

rb608 typed:
On Nov 26, 1:26 am, wrote:
This kind of goes against my new resolve in terms of insrerting
myself into somre of these ridiculous name calling discussions
But this one ****ed me off!

IMHO, you'd be better sticking to your resolve. Inasmuch as I
consider most of the participants here my friends; I'm perfectly
willing, if not a bit dismayed, to have them work it out on their
own. Clearly some of this stems from contrary social & political
attitudes, some from miscommunication, and a lot of it from the
limitations of the written word compared to face-to-face discussion.

You, on the other hand, see fit to interject yourself into this
squabble as an authority on a man's personality without having so much
as met, fished with, or shared a meal with him. You seem to feel
competent to judge the totality of a man's life, achievements, and
character based solely on these few electrons here.

Further, you arrogantly establish yourself as an unquestioned
authority on what is or is not honorable, as though there were no room
for gentlemanly discussion. "Draft dodger" means different things to
different people. To some, it implies a constitutional and honorable
protest against a failed foreign policy disaster. To others, it
implies an abandonment of one's duty to his country. These two
attitudes are not mutually exclusive; and adherence to one or the
other does not justify narrow-minded name calling.

As far as this present microcosm of cantakerousness goes, I've shared
streams, meals, and bottles with both Daves; and they're both good
guys. Personally, I liked it better when they were friends with each
other as well; but that's out of my control and none of my business.
It's also none of yours.

.. . . and here I was just going to say "SHADDUP!!" ;-) You're much more
patient at cleaning up drool puddles than I, Joe.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

rb608 wrote:

As far as this present microcosm of cantakerousness goes, I've shared
streams, meals, and bottles with both Daves; and they're both good
guys. Personally, I liked it better when they were friends with each
other as well; but that's out of my control and none of my business.
It's also none of yours.

When LaCourse posts his bull**** here it becomes everyone's business.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

Thus demonstrating that not enough people choke to death on someone
else's vomit.


brilliant... i plan to use that at some point in the future.

Feel free.

i might even give proper attribution. g

Why?......I didn't.

Wolfgang

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang has been running his mouth off and insulting people on roff for
years...

True.

You ever wonder why?

You should.

In fact, you should ask.

Wolfgang
go ahead......i dare ya.

On Nov 26, 10:05 am, rw wrote:
When LaCourse posts his bull**** here it becomes everyone's business.

This sort of imprecision is a good generic example of statements that
lead to these flame wars. In that one sentence are so many
opportunities for misinterpretation (not the least of which are myriad
differing meanings and implications of "bull****"), it's no wonder
things spiral away so quickly when one poster comments on one
interpretation when the other poster meant something else entirely.
IME, ROFF does not lend itself to subtleties. Other people pile on to
one black or white interpretation or the other; and before you know
it, everyone is shouting; but nobody's listening or even looking for
the gray.

Of course, I think I probably know what you meant by your statement,
but I've been here a while. Most here do not share the proper context
and are too eager to impart their personal inferences. As for
anything being everyone's business, I disagree. Yes, an open forum
makes everything and anything available for public comment; but that
does not mean everyone should.

On 26-Nov-2007, rb608 wrote:

IMHO, you'd be better sticking to your resolve...

...I liked it better when they were friends with each
other as well; but that's out of my control and none of my business.
It's also none of yours.

Joe F.


Correctamundo !
However when they post some bull**** on an open discusstion board it IS or
becomes my biz
It is my biz when I see Mike Ken and Dave attack ea other on post after post
- just wasting space and my time if I read them.
Killfiling them does make it easier but you are surely correct -

Back to fishing..
..
We are going back to Kodiak to fish for Kings this summer in Karluk

Fred

rb608 wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:05 am, rw wrote:

When LaCourse posts his bull**** here it becomes everyone's business.


This sort of imprecision is a good generic example of statements that
lead to these flame wars. In that one sentence are so many
opportunities for misinterpretation (not the least of which are myriad
differing meanings and implications of "bull****"), it's no wonder
things spiral away so quickly when one poster comments on one
interpretation when the other poster meant something else entirely.
IME, ROFF does not lend itself to subtleties. Other people pile on to
one black or white interpretation or the other; and before you know
it, everyone is shouting; but nobody's listening or even looking for
the gray.

Of course, I think I probably know what you meant by your statement,
but I've been here a while. Most here do not share the proper context
and are too eager to impart their personal inferences. As for
anything being everyone's business, I disagree. Yes, an open forum
makes everything and anything available for public comment; but that
does not mean everyone should.

Nothing seems to be stopping you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:03:35 -0800, rw
wrote:

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

Who bought what gas?

Daytripper.

What octane was it?

86

Why was this the right thing to do?

Buying gas when you're hitching a ride is customary.

Failing that, why was it the wrong thing to do?

No harm, no foul.

And if so, why was it Mike's fault?

Ask LaCourse.

fwiw....I was curious about the repeated use of the phrase "86 octane" instead
of simply "regular", as I haven't seen anything below 87 octane in decades.

So I took a look around, and found that the Clean Air Act of 1970 required all
refineries to provide a minimum octane requirement of 87 by 1974.

Figuring out why one would claim a lower octane than what was actually
available is an exercise left to the reader...

/daytripper