Self bailing or not

justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 22, 3:05 pm, hk <payer33... DeleteThis @mypacks.net> wrote:
>> justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 2:11 pm, "Eisboch" <r... DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> <justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2f32e2b8-443a-432e-8479-76a649c389d3@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> At the expence of the rest who really can't participate in those
>>>> threads without having to go on the defensive and correct the twisted
>>>> bullshit... For someone here to suggest "all you have to do is be nice
>>>> to harry" is either niave or malicious. Simply having an opposing
>>>> opinion than wafa means you get attacked, especially if you prove his
>>>> points to be lies, out of context, or just plain made up.. There are a
>>>> very few here who can participate in any of those conversations, so
>>>> little but one side and the other sides' lies get put up for
>>>> consideration.. not much of a debate;) But if you are debating with
>>>> only harry, at least you can pat yourself on the back for pobably
>>>> being right...
>>>> Yes, this is a direct knock at Dick and my friend Tom... I won't hide
>>>> that here, it would be useless. Hey, if Tom, Dick, and Harry (I
>>>> have been waiting for the chance...) can have disagreements, hopefully
>>>> Tom and Dick will appreciante my point of view here... Or at least
>>>> appreciate that I am being honest and don't kiss anyones......
>>>> later, time to go to work...
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>> You've made your point. Now, let me make one.
>>>> Newsgroups always been a place of debate, a forum to express opposing
>>>> viewpoints and for spirited conversation, within a general category of
>>>> common interest. It dates back to the very early days of Usenet and, in
>>>> fact, predates it. Anyone who thinks rec.boats should *only* be about boats
>>>> is woefully unaware of the background of unmoderated newsgroups.
>>>> But, discussion and debate can be done in a civil manner without resorting
>>>> to name calling and vulgarity. That is nothing but childishness.
>>>> Believe me, I am not in the habit of kissing anyone's ass, nor do I expect
>>>> anyone to kiss mine. However, I can engage is a lively debate without
>>>> having to resort to personal name calling. .... most of the time .. I
>>>> admit, there is at least one person who posts here that I find so personally
>>>> disagreeable that I find it very difficult to stick to my own rules.
>>>> I debate with Harry for three reasons. One. Although I disagree with him
>>>> regularly, he does make compelling points once in a while that cause me to
>>>> think. That never hurt anyone. Two. I am well aware of your (and
>>>> several other people's) objections to me "engaging" with Harry. I do so
>>>> however to demonstrate that halfway civil conversation may be had, even if
>>>> the parties are in total disagreement. Three. I've had newsgroup
>>>> discussions and debates with Harry for about 13 years now. Eventually, I
>>>> want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a Republican.
>>>> If you notice, I also converse with you, and other members that often resort
>>>> to name calling and frustrated vulgarity.
>>>> If you also notice, I don't return the same.
>>>> So, bottom line is, I am sorry you and others can't have civil discussion
>>>> with those you can't agree with. To me it sounds like the little kid who,
>>>> when he can't compete, takes his ball and goes home. There are several
>>>> people who participate in this newsgroup who share different viewpoints, but
>>>> can express them thoughtfully without personally attacking each other.
>>>> If everyone made an honest effort to drop the personal insults, conversation
>>>> could be had by all. The problem and question is, who is big enough to
>>>> make the first effort?
>>>> Eisboch
>>> Well said.. I have one last question for you. Do you, or do you not
>>> believe there are several here who reguardless of the manner presented
>>> could never have a civil conversation with Harry without being
>>> insulted, taken out of text, or just plain misrepresented? If your
>>> answer is "no" then I suggest you note the thread about the wooden
>>> boats. I tried to participate without any insults or misrepsentations,
>>> and was quickly attacked, my boats, my skills, my knowledge, my
>>> personal hygene even...:0
>> Stop whining. You're simply getting back from me what you toss in my
>> direction. You reap what you sow.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Revisionist history...



Listen up: I suspect you are capable of building decent little dinghies
and rowboats. Your site and your photos indicate that. That doesn't mean
you have what it takes in terms of engineering, tools, or knowledge to
build an ocean capable larger wooden boat, especially one you have
designed yourself.

Now, building a kit that someone else has engineered and tested, sure,
you could do that.

But boat kit building does not make you an expert in boat design or
engineering.

*I* used to help build plywood boats from "kits" the guys in my father's
shop cut out from patterns. I even built a few dinghies from kits
myself. Big deal...it was like assembling a model airplane, and it
didn't mean I knew anything about aeronautical design.

If you've built a few 20-30' wood boats that are ocean capable, and I
don't mean a lightweight skiff, let's see 'em. I'd love to see a 24'
cold molded boat with rounded chines, 16 degrees of vee at the transom,
a flared bow, and built on a frame.

Oh...if I were buying a a dinghy, it would be a a Dyer Dhow or Dink, and
if I wanted something larger to do some inshore sound fishing, I'd look
for a 16' Amesbury dory by Sturdee. No offense...but I think the 'glass
boats are more suitable for rugged use.
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 22, 3:29 pm, hk <payer33....RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote:

>> Listen up: I suspect you are capable of building decent little dinghies
>> and rowboats. Your site and your photos indicate that. That doesn't mean
>> you have what it takes in terms of engineering, tools, or knowledge to
>> build an ocean capable larger wooden boat, especially one you have
>> designed yourself.
>
> Ahhh, but I have designed a nice 26 footer, and the numbers were run
> by a well known designer through rhino and found to be a quite
> acceptable design. The plans include the internal engineering too,
> right down to the electrical and plumbing.... You on the other hand
> with so many of your comments prove again and again, you really don't
> know much about modern wooden composite boats, save what you have
> read.. And furthermore, your comments usually suggest you really never
> even built a kit..


Yeah, I designed a robot once. Also many rocketships. And I took
measurements once to determine if a small block V8 would fit into an
engineless Austin-Healey chassis. Wowzer.

The point is, I am not in the boatbuilding business, and your
boatbuilding business consists of dinghies and small rowboats.
If I were shopping for an ocean-capable wood boat or just advice on one,
I'd go to a builder or designer with a long track record in that area.
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:11:18 -0400, "Eisboch" <rce DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
><justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2f32e2b8-443a-432e-8479-76a649c389d3@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>At the expence of the rest who really can't participate in those
>threads without having to go on the defensive and correct the twisted
>bullshit... For someone here to suggest "all you have to do is be nice
>to harry" is either niave or malicious. Simply having an opposing
>opinion than wafa means you get attacked, especially if you prove his
>points to be lies, out of context, or just plain made up.. There are a
>very few here who can participate in any of those conversations, so
>little but one side and the other sides' lies get put up for
>consideration.. not much of a debate;) But if you are debating with
>only harry, at least you can pat yourself on the back for pobably
>being right...
>
>Yes, this is a direct knock at Dick and my friend Tom... I won't hide
>that here, it would be useless. Hey, if Tom, Dick, and Harry (I
>have been waiting for the chance...) can have disagreements, hopefully
>Tom and Dick will appreciante my point of view here... Or at least
>appreciate that I am being honest and don't kiss anyones......
>later, time to go to work...
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>You've made your point. Now, let me make one.
>
>Newsgroups always been a place of debate, a forum to express opposing
>viewpoints and for spirited conversation, within a general category of
>common interest. It dates back to the very early days of Usenet and, in
>fact, predates it. Anyone who thinks rec.boats should *only* be about boats
>is woefully unaware of the background of unmoderated newsgroups.

No one is saying that.
>
>But, discussion and debate can be done in a civil manner without resorting
>to name calling and vulgarity. That is nothing but childishness.
>
True.

>Believe me, I am not in the habit of kissing anyone's ass, nor do I expect
>anyone to kiss mine. However, I can engage is a lively debate without
>having to resort to personal name calling. .... most of the time .. I
>admit, there is at least one person who posts here that I find so personally
>disagreeable that I find it very difficult to stick to my own rules.

Yes, we agree.
>
>I debate with Harry for three reasons. One. Although I disagree with him
>regularly, he does make compelling points once in a while that cause me to
>think. That never hurt anyone. Two. I am well aware of your (and
>several other people's) objections to me "engaging" with Harry. I do so
>however to demonstrate that halfway civil conversation may be had, even if
>the parties are in total disagreement. Three. I've had newsgroup
>discussions and debates with Harry for about 13 years now. Eventually, I
>want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a Republican.

It's a shame you two can't have your discussions via email. Then he be less
motivated to post his trash here.
>
>If you notice, I also converse with you, and other members that often resort
>to name calling and frustrated vulgarity.
>If you also notice, I don't return the same.

I've noticed only one who has called you names. Of course, Harry accuses
you of piling bullshit on bullshit, but that's respectful.
>
>So, bottom line is, I am sorry you and others can't have civil discussion
>with those you can't agree with. To me it sounds like the little kid who,
>when he can't compete, takes his ball and goes home. There are several
>people who participate in this newsgroup who share different viewpoints, but
>can express them thoughtfully without personally attacking each other.
>
You have no need to be sorry. Almost all of us can have civil discussion
with those we don't agree with.

>If everyone made an honest effort to drop the personal insults, conversation
>could be had by all. The problem and question is, who is big enough to
>make the first effort?

Right! :>) Harry has said repeatedly that he will not change his
behavior. He has done what he could to bring about the demise of the group.
>
>Eisboch

You will do what you wish. We've been through this before. Your
encouragement of Harry is not helping the group, regardless of how you
parse the blame. But, it's a free world.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com
wrote:

>On Aug 22, 3:05 pm, hk <payer33... DeleteThis @mypacks.net> wrote:
>> justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Aug 22, 2:11 pm, "Eisboch" <r... DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> <justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:2f32e2b8-443a-432e-8479-76a649c389d3@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> At the expence of the rest who really can't participate in those
>> >> threads without having to go on the defensive and correct the twisted
>> >> bullshit... For someone here to suggest "all you have to do is be nice
>> >> to harry" is either niave or malicious. Simply having an opposing
>> >> opinion than wafa means you get attacked, especially if you prove his
>> >> points to be lies, out of context, or just plain made up.. There are a
>> >> very few here who can participate in any of those conversations, so
>> >> little but one side and the other sides' lies get put up for
>> >> consideration.. not much of a debate;) But if you are debating with
>> >> only harry, at least you can pat yourself on the back for pobably
>> >> being right...
>>
>> >> Yes, this is a direct knock at Dick and my friend Tom... I won't hide
>> >> that here, it would be useless.       Hey, if Tom, Dick, and Harry (I
>> >> have been waiting for the chance...) can have disagreements, hopefully
>> >> Tom and Dick will appreciante my point of view here...  Or at least
>> >> appreciate that I am being honest and don't kiss anyones......
>> >> later, time to go to work...
>>
>> >> -------------------------------------
>>
>> >> You've made your point.   Now, let me make one.
>>
>> >> Newsgroups always been a place of debate, a forum to express opposing
>> >> viewpoints and for spirited conversation, within a general category of
>> >> common interest.  It dates back to the very early days of Usenet and, in
>> >> fact, predates it.  Anyone who thinks rec.boats should *only* be about boats
>> >> is woefully unaware of the background of unmoderated newsgroups.
>>
>> >> But, discussion and debate can be done in a civil manner without resorting
>> >> to name calling and vulgarity.  That is nothing but childishness.
>>
>> >> Believe me,  I am not in the habit of kissing anyone's ass, nor do I expect
>> >> anyone to kiss mine.  However, I can engage is a lively debate without
>> >> having to resort to personal name calling. ....  most of the time ..  I
>> >> admit, there is at least one person who posts here that I find so personally
>> >> disagreeable that I find it very difficult to stick to my own rules.  
>>
>> >> I debate with Harry for three reasons.  One.  Although I disagree with him
>> >> regularly, he does make compelling points once in a while that cause me to
>> >> think.   That never hurt anyone.   Two.   I am well aware of your (and
>> >> several other people's) objections to me "engaging" with Harry.  I do so
>> >> however to demonstrate that halfway civil conversation may be had, even if
>> >> the parties are in total disagreement.  Three.  I've had newsgroup
>> >> discussions and debates with Harry for about 13 years now.  Eventually, I
>> >> want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a Republican.
>>
>> >> If you notice, I also converse with you, and other members that often resort
>> >> to name calling and frustrated vulgarity.
>> >> If you also notice, I don't return the same.
>>
>> >> So, bottom line is, I am sorry you and others can't have civil discussion
>> >> with those you can't agree with.   To me it sounds like the little kid who,
>> >> when he can't compete, takes his ball and goes home.  There are several
>> >> people who participate in this newsgroup who share different viewpoints, but
>> >> can express them thoughtfully without personally attacking each other.
>>
>> >> If everyone made an honest effort to drop the personal insults, conversation
>> >> could be had by all.   The problem and question is, who is big enough to
>> >> make the first effort?
>>
>> >> Eisboch
>>
>> > Well said.. I have one last question for you. Do you, or do you not
>> > believe there are several here who reguardless of the manner presented
>> > could never have a civil conversation with Harry without being
>> > insulted, taken out of text, or just plain misrepresented?   If your
>> > answer is "no" then I suggest you note the thread about the wooden
>> > boats. I tried to participate without any insults or misrepsentations,
>> > and was quickly attacked, my boats, my skills, my knowledge, my
>> > personal hygene even...:0
>>
>> Stop whining. You're simply getting back from me what you toss in my
>> direction. You reap what you sow.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Revisionist history...

You can't be coming down on Eisboch for not ignoring Harry when you can't
do so yourself!
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:55:10 -0400, hk <payer33859 DeleteThis @mypacks.net> wrote:

>Richard Casady wrote:
>
>> My family has a square stern Grumman canoe with a sailing rig. [that
>> hasn't been used since the fifties] Also a three HP evinrude that is
>> downright scary at WOT. It could easily handle the trip sail, or
>> power. It isn't that far...
>
>> Casady
>
>
>You think a canoe with a 3 hp outboard is sufficient for a trip from
>Florida to Bimini, eh?
>
>I think taking or even advising taking that sort of trip in a canoe is
>foolish. Aside from all the other stuff that could happen, one sudden
>wave breaking broadside and you are shark food.

Trip would take less than three hours.

Casady
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:56:28 GMT, richardcasady.RemoveThis@earthlink.net (Richard
Casady) wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:55:10 -0400, hk <payer33859.RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>>Richard Casady wrote:
>>
>>> My family has a square stern Grumman canoe with a sailing rig. [that
>>> hasn't been used since the fifties] Also a three HP evinrude that is
>>> downright scary at WOT. It could easily handle the trip sail, or
>>> power. It isn't that far...
>>
>>> Casady
>>
>>
>>You think a canoe with a 3 hp outboard is sufficient for a trip from
>>Florida to Bimini, eh?
>>
>>I think taking or even advising taking that sort of trip in a canoe is
>>foolish. Aside from all the other stuff that could happen, one sudden
>>wave breaking broadside and you are shark food.
>
>Trip would take less than three hours.
>
>Casady

Catastrophe could be a matter of seconds or minutes. Three hours could
be an eternity.
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

<thunder RemoveThis @TAKEOUTgti.net> wrote in message
news:xLudncnBGq7ilzLVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@posted.gtinet...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:11:18 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
>
>
>> Eventually, I want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a
>> Republican.
>
>
> Are you sure you really want to succeed in that?


Good point. Back to the drawing board.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

<justwaitafrekinminute.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d5e2c29-35ed-49c9-a57d-11f146ffb16e@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

Well said.. I have one last question for you. Do you, or do you not
believe there are several here who reguardless of the manner presented
could never have a civil conversation with Harry without being
insulted, taken out of text, or just plain misrepresented? If your
answer is "no" then I suggest you note the thread about the wooden
boats. I tried to participate without any insults or misrepsentations,
and was quickly attacked, my boats, my skills, my knowledge, my
personal hygene even...:0

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

I don't believe that all can conduct themselves in a civil manner.

Personally, I just ignore them. It's Usenet.

Believe it or not, I don't have anybody in a "Bozo Bin". I don't even have
a Bozo Bin.
I *have* checked the "block sender" for the jerks selling watches and
jewelry, but that's about it.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

"hk" <payer33859.DeleteThis@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:Rr-dnQom5sWfkzLVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> justwaitafrekinminute.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2:11 pm, "Eisboch" <r....DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> <justwaitafrekinmin....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2f32e2b8-443a-432e-8479-76a649c389d3@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> At the expence of the rest who really can't participate in those
>>> threads without having to go on the defensive and correct the twisted
>>> bullshit... For someone here to suggest "all you have to do is be nice
>>> to harry" is either niave or malicious. Simply having an opposing
>>> opinion than wafa means you get attacked, especially if you prove his
>>> points to be lies, out of context, or just plain made up.. There are a
>>> very few here who can participate in any of those conversations, so
>>> little but one side and the other sides' lies get put up for
>>> consideration.. not much of a debate;) But if you are debating with
>>> only harry, at least you can pat yourself on the back for pobably
>>> being right...
>>>
>>> Yes, this is a direct knock at Dick and my friend Tom... I won't hide
>>> that here, it would be useless. Hey, if Tom, Dick, and Harry (I
>>> have been waiting for the chance...) can have disagreements, hopefully
>>> Tom and Dick will appreciante my point of view here... Or at least
>>> appreciate that I am being honest and don't kiss anyones......
>>> later, time to go to work...
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> You've made your point. Now, let me make one.
>>>
>>> Newsgroups always been a place of debate, a forum to express opposing
>>> viewpoints and for spirited conversation, within a general category of
>>> common interest. It dates back to the very early days of Usenet and, in
>>> fact, predates it. Anyone who thinks rec.boats should *only* be about
>>> boats
>>> is woefully unaware of the background of unmoderated newsgroups.
>>>
>>> But, discussion and debate can be done in a civil manner without
>>> resorting
>>> to name calling and vulgarity. That is nothing but childishness.
>>>
>>> Believe me, I am not in the habit of kissing anyone's ass, nor do I
>>> expect
>>> anyone to kiss mine. However, I can engage is a lively debate without
>>> having to resort to personal name calling. .... most of the time .. I
>>> admit, there is at least one person who posts here that I find so
>>> personally
>>> disagreeable that I find it very difficult to stick to my own rules.
>>>
>>>
>>> I debate with Harry for three reasons. One. Although I disagree with
>>> him
>>> regularly, he does make compelling points once in a while that cause me
>>> to
>>> think. That never hurt anyone. Two. I am well aware of your (and
>>> several other people's) objections to me "engaging" with Harry. I do so
>>> however to demonstrate that halfway civil conversation may be had, even
>>> if
>>> the parties are in total disagreement. Three. I've had newsgroup
>>> discussions and debates with Harry for about 13 years now. Eventually,
>>> I
>>> want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a Republican.
>>>
>>> If you notice, I also converse with you, and other members that often
>>> resort
>>> to name calling and frustrated vulgarity.
>>> If you also notice, I don't return the same.
>>>
>>> So, bottom line is, I am sorry you and others can't have civil
>>> discussion
>>> with those you can't agree with. To me it sounds like the little kid
>>> who,
>>> when he can't compete, takes his ball and goes home. There are several
>>> people who participate in this newsgroup who share different viewpoints,
>>> but
>>> can express them thoughtfully without personally attacking each other.
>>>
>>> If everyone made an honest effort to drop the personal insults,
>>> conversation
>>> could be had by all. The problem and question is, who is big enough to
>>> make the first effort?
>>>
>>> Eisboch
>>
>> Well said.. I have one last question for you. Do you, or do you not
>> believe there are several here who reguardless of the manner presented
>> could never have a civil conversation with Harry without being
>> insulted, taken out of text, or just plain misrepresented? If your
>> answer is "no" then I suggest you note the thread about the wooden
>> boats. I tried to participate without any insults or misrepsentations,
>> and was quickly attacked, my boats, my skills, my knowledge, my
>> personal hygene even...:0
>
>
>
> Stop whining. You're simply getting back from me what you toss in my
> direction. You reap what you sow.
>

Ergo, the problem. But nobody remembers who was first. Why don't you both
call a truce and start over.
At least we could keep score.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

"hk" <payer33859.DeleteThis@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:Rr-dnQsm5sUqkDLVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> thunder.DeleteThis@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:11:18 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Eventually, I want to succeed in my goal of converting him into a
>>> Republican.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure you really want to succeed in that?
>
> Ain't gonna happen. I was a "Republican" because of my mama (she was a
> Republican town committeeperson or something like that) until I was about
> 16, and when there were some pretty decent Republicans around running for
> national office. Not any more. Now they are mostly "I've got mine, so
> screw you" corporate suckups.


In your early days Kennedy would be considered a Republican, by current
standards.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

"hk" <payer33859.RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:PfidnQ9alKMjgTLVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Calif Bill wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Only wall I saw fall down from bad mortar was at my dad's shop and was
>> built by "Union Masons"! The construction union never bothered my dad
>> again.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Also, the first part of my response was literary. D'oh. Are you related to
> Loogy and Justwait?


Tweet.

Foul ...... Krause...

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

"John H." <salmonremovebait@gmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:hs7ua41g58estg1ss6vhif0uirc9ick35c@4ax.com...
>
> I've noticed only one who has called you names. Of course, Harry accuses
> you of piling bullshit on bullshit, but that's respectful.
>>

Nope. That was not directed at me. I would have taken notice.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not 

"Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:mOidnenGJbgLsTLVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "hk" <payer33859.RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:PfidnQ9alKMjgTLVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Calif Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only wall I saw fall down from bad mortar was at my dad's shop and was
>>> built by "Union Masons"! The construction union never bothered my dad
>>> again.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Also, the first part of my response was literary. D'oh. Are you related
>> to Loogy and Justwait?
>
>
> Tweet.
>
> Foul ...... Krause...
>
> Eisboch

ROTFL ~ Glad I didn't have a mouthful of Diet Coke or it would be new
keyboard time.

Ah, the new *zebra* on the block. How long before you wear out your
whistle? 8>)
 >> Stay informed about: Self bailing or not