Scuba Forum / General / March 2006
Cozumel Trip Report
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Schmoe - 25 Feb 2006 19:44 GMT Spent 3 dive days in Coz the week before last prior to ferrying over to Playa and heading up to Cancun for a few more days. Here's a report on the Coz part of my trip:
Above Ground: Trees with full growth are nowhere to be found. Most trees have either been cut down to stumps or are just beginning to have regrowth. The flora damage to the island from Wilma is extensive to say the least. Many buildings, particularly those directly on the beachfront are destroyed or experienced significant damage. El Presidente, for example, looks like a war zone. They are a long, long way from reopening for sure. However, there is a great deal of building (new) and rebuilding active on the island everywhere. New resort is being built near the south int'l pier and it looks to be HUGE. The people of Cozumel are happy and are picking up where they left off before Wilma. I'm not sure how much Mexican gov't help they are getting but I'd bet it's far less than New Orleans. I give them alot of credit.
Underwater: From shallow reefs to the deep (i.e. Punta Sur), sand covers everything. The landscape is changed. Significant coral damage shallower reefs while the deeper walls mostly have just the sand cover. Fish life both big and small is still excellent. Many turtles, cuda, sand sharks, rays (eagle & s. sting) and all the usual smaller suspects abound. Saw a very nice splendid toadfish and at night, a fish I wasn't familiar with that sat on the sand in a cobra like position, about 12-14" long (need to look that one up). Conclusively, coral not good, fish life very good. Dove Punta Sur, San Francisco Wall/Reef, Yuncab, Palancar Wall and a few others.
Dive Operator: Went with Dive With Martin and was very pleased. Very courteous, fairly priced, good DM's & captains. Definitely recommend them to anyone. I checked their boats for oxygen and 1st aid and all looked good. They are operating in temporary digs at the Int'l Pier and it works out ok. I met many different divers their who have dived with this operator many times over the years which, to me, is an excellent sign.
Hotel: Stayed downtown at Vista Del Mar. Initially made the mistake of taking an street/oceanfront room which was too loud at night (main drag). They courteously moved me to a room on the backside of the hotel which was much bigger, completely quiet and I was happy. The morning coffee/buns sucked, recommend passing on that and going out but surely isn't a reason not to stay there. Paid $84/night for the room, they were very pleasant, easy access and nice to not have to drive anywhere. I recommend it if you're looking for a pure dive experience and don't need beachfront and other hotel luxury extras.
Taxis anywhere on the island are $1.50 for locals, $3-4 for divers and $6+ for cruise tourons. I generally paid the drivers $3-4 because they need the money.
In conclusion, I went to Coz this trip because I was meeting my family later in the week in Cancun so it was a convienent excuse to dive a few days. Sadly, this island is a few years at least from returning to quality diving. The sand overcast on everything is evident and removes most of the coral colors. I cannot recommend a dedicated trip to Cozumel for diving until things are reported improved and it will likely be sometime before I return. I had a terrific time, enjoyed the diving very much but it's a shadow of it's former self and, for better or worse, there are plentiful choices for excellent Carribean diving elsewhere. If I was in the area for other reasons, I would certainly dive Coz though.
Scott - 25 Feb 2006 22:54 GMT <el-snippo>
All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest.
Schmoe - 25 Feb 2006 23:28 GMT > <el-snippo> > > All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific > Northwest. I'll be right over. Keep the bar open.
Scott - 26 Feb 2006 01:27 GMT > > <el-snippo> > > > > All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific > > Northwest. > > I'll be right over. Keep the bar open. My lovely SO is a bar tender, but you gotta be careful what you wish for...
e-mail me and I'll send you an awesome picture of the local scenery that Coz cant touch
Greg Mossman - 27 Feb 2006 08:55 GMT > <el-snippo> > > All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest. Some Coz junkies like awesome visibility (easily 100+ feet). Others like warm water (80-81 degrees on my weekend dives). Still more like coral and tropical fish. What's the visibility like in the Pacific Northwest? Is the water 80-81 degrees in February? How's the coral and tropical fish situation?
Schmoe claims the diving is better in other Caribbean locales, but I was still impressed with post-hurricane Cozumel as compared to, say, Roatan. The reefs further south fared much better, as we found when we finally hit Palancar after doing San Francisco and Santa Rosa where the sand is prevalent even down to the 90-100' level. The shallower "second dive" spots are big sandboxes now, but Tormentos fared OK.
The seahorses are all gone. We were treated to a few diver-oblivious turtles, lots of spotted morays, and one exciting find of a sapo bacon that almost took Janna's finger off. That will teach her to poke at ugly fish.
Currents were nice and slow for the most part, seas were flat, and it stayed sunny with a few clouds and a nice breeze. It's hard for a junkie to kick a habit when the stuff is so good and only $72 for a 2-tank nitrox (1 32% and 1 36%) fix. I'm suffering major withdrawals already. Cold turkey is a bitch. God knows how I'll last the three weeks before we leave for Belize.
Schmoe - 27 Feb 2006 14:02 GMT > Schmoe claims the diving is better in other Caribbean locales, but I > was still impressed with post-hurricane Cozumel as compared to, say, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shallower "second dive" spots are big sandboxes now, but Tormentos > fared OK. I didn't find what you state above. Southern walls i.e. Punta Sur had plenty of sand even at 120-130' level. Like I said, fishlive was good but coral and sponge was dismal. No way that Coz today beats Bloody Bay Wall. It will take some time before I head back to that particular reef system including Belize, Roatan etc... The sustained damage was too signficant.
Ron Lee - 27 Feb 2006 15:36 GMT >> Schmoe claims the diving is better in other Caribbean locales, but I >> was still impressed with post-hurricane Cozumel as compared to, say, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >some time before I head back to that particular reef system including >Belize, Roatan etc... The sustained damage was too signficant. Sand on the reefs has been prevalent long before Wilma.
Ron Lee
Schmoe - 27 Feb 2006 15:47 GMT >> I didn't find what you state above. Southern walls i.e. Punta Sur >> had plenty of sand even at 120-130' level. Like I said, fishlive was >> good but coral and sponge was dismal. No way that Coz today beats >> Bloody Bay Wall. It will take some time before I head back to that >> particular reef system including Belize, Roatan etc... The sustained >> damage was too signficant.
> Sand on the reefs has been prevalent long before Wilma. Not like this. I've been to Coz and that reef system many times. Definitely not like this.
Al Rudderham - 27 Feb 2006 17:35 GMT >Sand on the reefs has been prevalent long before Wilma. My divemaster friend told me that a lot of the reef destruction happened in July during Emily. She says Wilma did more damage to the land. She also said the reef damage was BAD after Gilbert too.
When I was there 4 weeks ago we did Palancar Gardens, and in spots the bottom is more than 10 feet lower than it used to be (sand removed), with MANY new swim throughs. So it's not ALL bad. Although it is sad to see some favourite sites buried.
We did see a snow storm effect in some locations with sand getting picked up by the current and moved around. Made for lots of back scatter in photos. We also saw a river of sand pouring over the wall into the deep in one spot. I expect that will improve a lot over the next year.
I'm still planning to return next winter.
 Signature Remove preceding and trailing X from username for replies (Sorry, but I'm SICK of spam...)
Don - 02 Mar 2006 00:11 GMT > <el-snippo> > > All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest. This is where your ignorance shines ever so bright. f.cking faggit. Skip Coz for the rain soaked Northwest........what a f.cking shithead.
Greg Mossman - 02 Mar 2006 00:22 GMT >> <el-snippo> >> >> All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest. >> > This is where your ignorance shines ever so bright. f.cking faggit. Skip > Coz for the rain soaked Northwest........what a f.cking shithead. Hey, some people take religious holidays like St. Patrick's Day and Mardi Gras and self-flagellate instead of drinking themselves silly. Each to their own. Me, I'd rather be drunk and happy than bleeding from painful welts on my back or drinking a margarita after a 100' viz/81-degree boat dive on a beautiful coral reef rather than climbing out of 40-degree water into 40-degree rain and having to drink a fifth of cheap tequila to warm up, but we're all created differently and that's what brings us our celebrated diversity. God bless us one and all (and thankfully God blesses some of us more than others).
bob crownfield - 02 Mar 2006 00:25 GMT >> <el-snippo> >> >> All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest. >> > This is where your ignorance shines ever so bright. f.cking faggit. Skip Coz > for the rain soaked Northwest........what a f.cking shithead. your ignorance shines like a lighthouse...
Don - 02 Mar 2006 12:06 GMT >>> <el-snippo> >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > your ignorance shines like a lighthouse... Yea..............in the daytime.............now shut the f.ck up inbred.
Ron Lee - 02 Mar 2006 15:35 GMT >Yea..............in the daytime.............now shut the f.ck up inbred. Don, you have issues. Try taking a walk in the forest on a warm sunny day and learn to enjoy life.
Ron Lee
Dillon Pyron - 03 Mar 2006 03:53 GMT >>Yea..............in the daytime.............now shut the f.ck up inbred. > >Don, you have issues. Try taking a walk in the forest on a warm sunny >day and learn to enjoy life. > >Ron Lee He can't. His mom won't let him out of the basement except tor dinner time and when she gives him his bath.
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
Don - 04 Mar 2006 02:14 GMT >>>Yea..............in the daytime.............now shut the f.ck up inbred. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He can't. His mom won't let him out of the basement except tor dinner > time and when she gives him his bath. Could have been is in the pastCould have been is in the pastCould have been is in the past Could be is in the futureCould have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now There is only the now Could be is in the future There is only the nowCould have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now Could be is in the future There is only the now
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the nowCould have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
Thats really profound there dildo.................What the f.ck??????????????? Are you a complete faggit or what? Your a f.cking mess.........get it together asswipe.
Lembo - 02 Mar 2006 15:20 GMT > <el-snippo> > > All you Coz junkies need to buck up and come dive the Pacific Northwest. Are you nuts ? Spend vacation cash on a trip to PNW instead of Cozumel, Belize or Roatan ???
Schmoe - 02 Mar 2006 16:02 GMT >> <el-snippo> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Spend vacation cash on a trip to PNW instead of Cozumel, Belize or > Roatan ??? Rather than suggesting we forsake typical tropical reef diving I believe Scott is just pointing out that interesting diving (& challenging) can be had in the PNW. He e-mailed me a couple of nice pix. I wouldn't go up there just to dive but if I was there and the circumstances were right, I'd probably try it. It's like skiing, half the fun is variation in terrain and mountains. You all need to cut back on the Starbucks (PNW content).<g>
Greg Mossman - 02 Mar 2006 16:07 GMT > Rather than suggesting we forsake typical tropical reef diving I believe > Scott is just pointing out that interesting diving (& challenging) can be > had in the PNW. He e-mailed me a couple of nice pix. I wouldn't go up > there Interesting diving can be had in my toilet too. Wanna buy a ticket?
ben bradlee - 02 Mar 2006 16:48 GMT "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
> Interesting diving can be had in my toilet too. Define interesting.
Greg Mossman - 02 Mar 2006 17:06 GMT > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> >> Interesting diving can be had in my toilet too. > > Define interesting. "Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. He later clarified, saying officials believed, wrongly, after the storm passed that the levees had survived. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm - and Bush was worried too."
ben bradlee - 02 Mar 2006 17:30 GMT >> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the > storm - and Bush was worried too." All right, you've got interesting stuff in your toilet. Is there room to dive?
Schmoe - 02 Mar 2006 18:52 GMT >>> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > All right, you've got interesting stuff in your toilet. Is there > room to dive? That's not interesting, that's run of the mill governmental spew. Greg, go back down and find something that proves it's a more interesting dive than the PNW. I'm guessing there's not much more down there than your typical domestic crap but since you've been diving it for years, I'll wait for the proof.
ben bradlee - 02 Mar 2006 19:07 GMT >>>> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > domestic crap but since you've been diving it for years, I'll wait for the > proof. The man has the President of the United States announcing policy from his commode. What does the PNW have besides aquatic life and excellent diving? The Queen of England maybe?
Your statement about domestic crap may not be entirely correct either. Imported beer and Mexican beans do not mix to form domestic crap.
Greg Mossman - 02 Mar 2006 19:21 GMT > The man has the President of the United States announcing policy from his > commode. What does the PNW have besides aquatic life and excellent > diving? The Queen of England maybe? Queen of Clubs.
"The former Beatle and his wife, Heather Mills McCartney, arrived Wednesday night in this fishing community on Canada's Atlantic coast and intend to land a helicopter on the ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence if Thursday's weather permits. The longtime animal-rights activists want to publicize the plight of the fluffy white pups, which are calved and weaned from their mothers on the frigid ice before being clubbed to death."
Where are the divers in uproar? Obviously all of that seal blood fouls the waters for ice diving.
Lee Bell - 02 Mar 2006 19:32 GMT > "The former Beatle and his wife, Heather Mills McCartney, arrived > Wednesday night in this fishing community on Canada's Atlantic coast and > intend to land a helicopter on the ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence if > Thursday's weather permits. The longtime animal-rights activists want to > publicize the plight of the fluffy white pups, which are calved and weaned > from their mothers on the frigid ice before being clubbed to death."
> Where are the divers in uproar? Obviously all of that seal blood fouls > the waters for ice diving. Apparently you missed it. We roared about this one for a week, well, all us Americans did. At least some of the Canadians see no problem.
Lee
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 03 Mar 2006 17:18 GMT It is illegal to kill the white-coated seal pups. McCartney's actions are pure PR falsehoods.
Greg Mossman - 03 Mar 2006 17:54 GMT > It is illegal to kill the white-coated seal pups. McCartney's actions > are pure PR falsehoods. A Beatle with a one-legged wife? I'll believe him any day.
"Sperm whales in the gulf have been plucking sablefish off the one- to three-mile longlines for at least two decades. They also take halibut and, in one instance, lingcod. Killer whales in the Bering Sea and Prince William Sound also plunder sablefish longlines. Sperm whales and other toothed whales, such as pilot whales, cherry-pick fish catches all over the world."
When are you Canucks gonna start beating pesky whales in the head with clubs? You could make a lot of coats out of one whale hide.
Schmoe - 02 Mar 2006 21:19 GMT > Your statement about domestic crap may not be entirely correct either. > Imported beer and Mexican beans do not mix to form domestic crap. I believe it's a nativity test. Born in the USA, it's domestic. Melting pot rules apply. <pun utterly intended>
dazed and confuzzed - 02 Mar 2006 19:14 GMT >>"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm - and > Bush was worried too." Breached, or overtopped?
Big difference.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Alan Street - 03 Mar 2006 04:14 GMT > >>"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Big difference. Not really. When levees stop holding back water, things flood. To the person being flooded, it doesn't much matter if the water starts off going over the levee, and then it breaks, or if the levee just breaks.
But if you want to play civil engineering semantics, what are the odds of a levee being breached after it's been overtopped? Are they so low that you would say, with a straight face, that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" when you'd been told a few days earlier than overtopping the levees was a strong possibility?
dazed and confuzzed - 03 Mar 2006 04:29 GMT > € Greg Mossman wrote: > € > "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > anticipated the breach of the levees" when you'd been told a few days > earlier than overtopping the levees was a strong possibility? WHile the levee may fail due to undermining because of storm surge overtopping the wall, it may not. Depends on how it was built.
The storm surge overtopping is a limited duration and a limited amount of water. A breach is more serious, ad the water being held back is a larger reservoir. As it was, Lake Pochetrain (sp?) equalized into the "bowl". Storm surge would have been drastic, but not that drastic.
I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 03 Mar 2006 17:14 GMT It figures that a dumbfuck like you would spout the latest Repug excuse for Bush's ignorance.
When large amounts of water start going over the top of a dirt levee, it is going to be breached.
Bush lied when he said that nobody anticipated the levee failure. You're being a gullible moron for repeating the stupid excuses for Bush's lie.
Grumman-581 - 05 Mar 2006 12:27 GMT > I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea > level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again. Given the geology around there, that's probably not a good idea... A lot of the area is basically drained swamps... They slowly subside / sink... A better (and probably more economical) method would be to require all new construction to be raised above ground so that any floods would just wash underneath the buildings... If the ground subsides more over the years, it's a lot easier to just lengthen the piers that the house might be built upon than it would be to raise a concrete foundation that was already on the ground...
Scott - 05 Mar 2006 12:49 GMT > > I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea > > level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again.
> Given the geology around there, that's probably not a good idea... A lot of > the area is basically drained swamps... They slowly subside / sink... A [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than it would be to raise a concrete foundation that was already on the > ground... The easiest of all things is to simply blame the current administration.
Lee Bell - 05 Mar 2006 13:00 GMT >> I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea >> level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > than it would be to raise a concrete foundation that was already on the > ground... Easy answer - don't rebuild. Take over Baton Rouge and chance its name to New New Orleans.
Neither I, nor any other taxpayer, owes it to the residents of New Orleans to rebuild the city in a location that can't survive long term. Somebody wants a home there, no problem, build it at your own expense and self insure. I don't want those homes in my insurance pool. I don't want the multimillion dollar homes on the top of a mud slide waiting to happen or the ones on the fringing islands in hurricane vulnerable areas in them either. You want to build where you're almost sure to lose your home, not a problem, as long as you can afford all the expense of doing so.
Lee
Don - 05 Mar 2006 14:51 GMT >>> I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea >>> level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Lee Well said! The same should apply to the state of Fla and it's FEMA sucking inhabitants. Hurricane season is less than 3 months away!!
dazed and confuzzed - 05 Mar 2006 16:20 GMT >>I still think that the entire city should be raised to well above sea >>level before any rebuilding takes place. Otherwise it will happen again. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than it would be to raise a concrete foundation that was already on the > ground... Same effective result. Better than pouring money into a sub sea level mess that will flood again.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Gumby - 06 Mar 2006 14:13 GMT > Same effective result. Better than pouring money into a sub sea level > mess that will flood again. If they can build effective dams or levees, they should do it and rebuild New Orleans. It's a great town and important in American cultry & history.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
dazed and confuzzed - 07 Mar 2006 01:56 GMT >>Same effective result. Better than pouring money into a sub sea level >>mess that will flood again. > > If they can build effective dams or levees, they should do it and rebuild > New Orleans. It's a great town and important in American cultry & history. SO what do you do next time?
Sorry, any town that is below sea level needs filling or abandonment.
Sure as hell not a rebuild and a second bailout.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Alan Street - 07 Mar 2006 02:15 GMT > >>Same effective result. Better than pouring money into a sub sea level > >>mess that will flood again. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sure as hell not a rebuild and a second bailout. The Netherlands would be a lot smaller if they adopted that way of thinking.
It can be done, but it has to be done right. Doing it right is expensive. Who pays? Who benefits?
dazed and confuzzed - 07 Mar 2006 02:40 GMT > € Gumby wrote: > € > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It can be done, but it has to be done right. Doing it right is > expensive. Who pays? Who benefits? If the people of N.O. wish to build their city to be hurricane and flood proof, I think that that would be fine.
If they want someone else to pay, then I object.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Gumby - 07 Mar 2006 19:03 GMT >> It can be done, but it has to be done right. Doing it right is >> expensive. Who pays? Who benefits? > If the people of N.O. wish to build their city to be hurricane and > flood proof, I think that that would be fine. > > If they want someone else to pay, then I object. Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development Project building a new World Trade building? We all pay as we all should. New Orleans has been around longer than the WTC. Stop attacking countries around the world and use that money for domestic capital improvement projects ala New Orleans levees. It'll work out in the end.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
Lee Bell - 07 Mar 2006 20:24 GMT > Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development Project > building a new World Trade building? Good point. No new World Trade Building either. Works for me.
> We all pay as we all should. The last hurricane season cost me $9,000 for a new roof and $5,000 to replace my screened in patio. Insurance paid nothing for either. Let me know when your check is ready and I'll send the address you can mail it to.
> New Orleans has been around longer than the WTC. Stop attacking countries > around the world and use that money for domestic capital improvement > projects ala New Orleans levees. It'll work out in the end. I'm not sure rebuilding New Orleans qualifies as a capital improvement project. Are you sure a new New Orleans is better than a new swamp?
Lee
Gumby - 07 Mar 2006 21:46 GMT >> Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development >> Project building a new World Trade building? > > Good point. No new World Trade Building either. Works for me. They are building a new single tower. Just hasn't started yet but soon for sure.
>> We all pay as we all should. > > The last hurricane season cost me $9,000 for a new roof and $5,000 to > replace my screened in patio. Insurance paid nothing for either. Let me > know when your check is ready and I'll send the address you > can mail it to. Too late, I already sent my checks to your gov't & NY state. Collect from them. I take it you can't get hurricane insurance where you are. That does suck.
>> New Orleans has been around longer than the WTC. Stop attacking >> countries around the world and use that money for domestic capital [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not sure rebuilding New Orleans qualifies as a capital improvement > project. Are you sure a new New Orleans is better than a new swamp? Dunno if you've ever spent time there but I feel it's a special city with a relevant heritage, history and fine people (and food/booze <g>). It's worth fixing but let's do it right. Skip the next invasion of a sovereign nation and use that cash to build dams & levees.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
dazed and confuzzed - 07 Mar 2006 22:49 GMT >>>Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development >>>Project building a new World Trade building? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fixing but let's do it right. Skip the next invasion of a sovereign nation > and use that cash to build dams & levees. Or fill and level before rebuilding. At least if you get higher than mean sea level the water will drain off.
Not so now.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Lee Bell - 08 Mar 2006 01:22 GMT >>>The last hurricane season cost me $9,000 for a new roof and $5,000 to >>>replace my screened in patio. Insurance paid nothing for either. Let me >>>know when your check is ready and I'll send the address you >>>can mail it to.
>> Too late, I already sent my checks to your gov't & NY state. Collect from >> them. I take it you can't get hurricane insurance where you are. That >> does suck. Oh, I have hurricane insurance. It costs me about three times what the rest of my homeowners policy costs and has a deductible that's a percantage of my home's value. Had the roof and the patio been replaced as the result of a single hurricane, I would have gotten some money, but not much and I probably would have lost my coverage.
>>>I'm not sure rebuilding New Orleans qualifies as a capital improvement >>>project. Are you sure a new New Orleans is better than a new swamp?
>> Dunno if you've ever spent time there but I feel it's a special city with >> a relevant heritage, history and fine people (and food/booze <g>). It's >> worth fixing but let's do it right. Skip the next invasion of a sovereign >> nation and use that cash to build dams & levees. I first met Grumman there. Bourbon street's not a lot different from Duval street in Key West and I don't have to drive nearly as far to find seafood or a swamp. That girl walking down the street in the gauze-like outfit, however, made the whole visit worthwhile.
As for the people, I imagine they're as good or bad as people anywhere else. I'm sure there's a place in this world, above sea level, where they'd be welcome and happy.
> Or fill and level before rebuilding. At least if you get higher than mean > sea level the water will drain off. > Not so now. That's kind of tough to do this late in the game. Too bad they didn't do it right the first time.
Personally, I have no particular desire to pay to rebuild New Orleans. If those that live there want to do it, I won't complain. I may even help them out by visiting again, leaving some of my money behind.
Wait a minute, I have the solution. Let the f.cking oil companies, the ones that are making record profits at the expense of everyone else, pay for the restoration. They live there too, and they can damned well afford it.
Lee
Grumman-581 - 08 Mar 2006 06:23 GMT > Or fill and level before rebuilding. At least if you get higher than > mean sea level the water will drain off. > > Not so now. Not all of the New Orleans area is below sea level, but they still flooded... The house that I owned in Slidell on the north side of Lake Pontchartrain came out without any problems from what I heard, but it was around 28 ft above sea level... Can you imagine how much dirt you would need to haul in there to increase the elevation of the city around 25 ft? It's a 'ell of a lot cheaper to just build levees... Unfortunately, it's cheaper, but it doesn't always work... Mandate that all new construction must be built on piers / pylons to a certain height above sea level or insurance will not be available... If a person chooses to not do it that way, they will have to self-insure and purchase the house without a mortgage... If they can do that, fine... Most people will require a mortgage and if it's not insurable, the banks won't loan them money... Basically, let them have the option to be stupid if they want to, but don't give them a safety net for their stupidity...
Lee Bell - 08 Mar 2006 01:26 GMT > Too late, I already sent my checks to your gov't & NY state. Collect from > them. I take it you can't get hurricane insurance where you are. That does > suck. Yeah, like Hillary's going to kick money loose from her state so she can send it to my state, you know, the one where a Bush is Governor.
Lee
Dennis (Icarus) - 08 Mar 2006 05:35 GMT > >> Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development > >> Project building a new World Trade building? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fixing but let's do it right. Skip the next invasion of a sovereign nation > and use that cash to build dams & levees. Why? So it can be mismanaged by the local & state govts, rather than federal?
Dennis
Chris Guynn - 16 Mar 2006 18:29 GMT > >> Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development > >> Project building a new World Trade building? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fixing but let's do it right. Skip the next invasion of a sovereign nation > and use that cash to build dams & levees. Why is NO so important to rebuild?
Grumman-581 - 16 Mar 2006 19:56 GMT > Why is NO so important to rebuild? Awh,. come on Chris, when was the last time that someone in NYC traded beads for a view of breasts? Of course NOLA is culturally significant!@
Dillon Pyron - 17 Mar 2006 19:13 GMT >> >> Who do you think is paying for the Lower Manhattan Development >> >> Project building a new World Trade building? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Why is NO so important to rebuild? Because we need a chocolate city???
I have an even better idea, let's dig a big pit in the 9th Ward and put the place even further below sea level.
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
dazed and confuzzed - 07 Mar 2006 22:46 GMT >>>It can be done, but it has to be done right. Doing it right is >>>expensive. Who pays? Who benefits? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the world and use that money for domestic capital improvement projects ala > New Orleans levees. It'll work out in the end. You must be a liberal Democrat.
Stop whining.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Gumby - 07 Mar 2006 23:36 GMT > You must be a liberal Democrat. > > Stop whining. Neither. Where exactly is the whining you're talking about?
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
dazed and confuzzed - 07 Mar 2006 23:47 GMT >>You must be a liberal Democrat. >> >>Stop whining. > > Neither. Where exactly is the whining you're talking about? "Stop attacking countries around the world and use that money for domestic capital improvement projects ala New Orleans levees"
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Schmoe - 08 Mar 2006 15:50 GMT >>> You must be a liberal Democrat. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Stop attacking countries around the world and use that money for > domestic capital improvement projects ala New Orleans levees" That's not whining, silly. That's an opinion on the subject at hand. Just because have a different opinion, no need to resort to name calling. Well, at least your republican buddies will soon be shoved out of office for the myriad of political and personal f.ck ups over the past 3 years. Of course, then we'll just have someone else's democratic buddies to f.ck up things in a different way. At least they don't shoot their friends, just their enemies.
Popeye - 08 Mar 2006 22:49 GMT >>>> You must be a liberal Democrat. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's not whining, silly. Sure it is. :-)
>That's an opinion on the subject at hand. Just because have a different >opinion, no need to resort to name calling. Name calling?
f.ck -him-.
> Well, at least your republican buddies will soon be shoved out of office > for the myriad of political and personal f.ck ups over the past 3 years. We've heard that tune whistled before.
I'd say you have at least a 50-50 chance to get him out of office this time... ;-)
Probable as it is, you better come up with a viable candidate.
Those previous dolts are circling, and Bush may get re-elected in 2012.
Now that the Democrats have set the precedence for dirtbagging.
>Of course, then we'll just have someone else's democratic buddies to f.ck >up things in a different way. At least they don't shoot their friends, just >their enemies. It's gonna be Weapons Free, dude.
Gumby - 09 Mar 2006 14:19 GMT > Name calling? > > f.ck -him-. Stop playing with mommy's computer and get back to the tit, it's feeding time and the whore needs to empty the buckets.
> I'd say you have at least a 50-50 chance to get him out of office > this time... ;-) It must suck knowing you're on the losing end of the next few year's election because your party couldn't manage their greed. I don't blame you for being bitter. The GOP is dumping W faster than your mommy after finishing a trick.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
Popeye - 09 Mar 2006 15:07 GMT >> Name calling? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for being bitter. The GOP is dumping W faster than your mommy after > finishing a trick. My Mom sets record times with guys like you, when you can get it up, that is.
Leave the money when you scurry off, and don't forget to tip, I need a new assault rifle.
What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him.
Twice.
It's an empirical equation that the more stupid you make him out to be, the stupider that it proves your party is.
Swing away.
Even if you kick and scream about getting douched the first time, it still just makes the second loss even more humiliating (if that's possible).
Gumby - 09 Mar 2006 15:35 GMT > What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that > your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him. Funny thing is, we won't have to this time. Dem's could put a puppet up (as the GOP did the last 2 presidential elections) and still easily win. This November, the senate and house will swing back too. GOP's doing all the work.
1) President Moron wants Arabs to run our ports. GOP doesn't. Uh oh. Tough being abandoned by your own party. 2) Vice-President Moron shoots friend in face. This is the #2 guy with his hand on the big button. Duh. At least he'll probably drop dead from a heart attack before he's out of office. 3) Real estate values dropping nationally, rates expected to rise 3 more times, unemployment rate unexpectadly shoots up, economy clearly turning bad. 4) Invading sovereign Iraq with no valid explanation leaving a civil war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths behind. Middle east less stable than when when PM took office. Oops. 5) Unsuccessful negotiations with Iran & N. Korea. Whatta surprise. 6) Fill in the blanks for 6-20. Easy to do.
Sorry bud. Game over. Let the next group of morons have a whack at it.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
Popeye - 09 Mar 2006 16:00 GMT >> What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that >> your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him. > > Funny thing is, we won't have to this time. That's what you said in '04.
dazed and confuzzed - 09 Mar 2006 23:09 GMT >>> What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that >>>your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him. >> >>Funny thing is, we won't have to this time. > > That's what you said in '04. Cost Greg $100 bucks then too.
But it was good for the NRA.
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Greg Mossman - 10 Mar 2006 01:35 GMT > Cost Greg $100 bucks then too. > > But it was good for the NRA. Never again. Now I realize why Bush "won" both times. I was betting on the Democrat and I never win when I gamble. I jinxed them. As long as I don't bet in 2008, Hillary is a sure thing.
Lee Bell - 10 Mar 2006 04:27 GMT >> Cost Greg $100 bucks then too. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Democrat and I never win when I gamble. I jinxed them. As long as I > don't bet in 2008, Hillary is a sure thing. She's a sure thing alright, but that thing isn't President of the US.
Lee
Scott - 10 Mar 2006 06:43 GMT > She's a sure thing alright, but that thing isn't President of the US. <rimshot>
Dillon Pyron - 11 Mar 2006 20:05 GMT >>> Cost Greg $100 bucks then too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Lee Saw a bumper sticker Thursday
"I'll vote for Bill before I'll vote for Hill"
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
Scott - 11 Mar 2006 20:15 GMT > Saw a bumper sticker Thursday > > "I'll vote for Bill before I'll vote for Hill" I know.
We're doomed.
Almost any moron the republicans can come up with will beat Hillary.
Even the New Yorkers who elect her to their Senate wont carry her for President.
She is, after all, a carpetbagger.
Joe English - 12 Mar 2006 02:06 GMT >>Saw a bumper sticker Thursday >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > She is, after all, a carpetbagger. I am going to do the Dive with Greg - I am going to let him First Hand talk me into not voting republican ( ya think it will work?????)
Dillon Pyron - 12 Mar 2006 02:44 GMT >>>Saw a bumper sticker Thursday >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I am going to do the Dive with Greg - I am going to let him First Hand >talk me into not voting republican ( ya think it will work?????) If you really think that then I hope they don't do drug testing where you work.
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
bob crownfield - 09 Mar 2006 16:22 GMT >> What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that >> your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him.
> Funny thing is, we won't have to this time. Dem's could put a puppet up (as > the GOP did the last 2 presidential elections) and still easily win. This [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1) President Moron wants Arabs to run our ports. GOP doesn't. Uh oh. Tough > being abandoned by your own party. and clinton was the advisor to the firm. democrat clinton, husband of senator clinton. hmmm.
> 2) Vice-President Moron shoots friend in face. This is the #2 guy with his > hand on the big button. Duh. At least he'll probably drop dead from a heart [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sorry bud. Game over. Let the next group of morons have a whack at it. Chris Guynn - 16 Mar 2006 18:41 GMT > > What's even more embarrassing than present GOP performance is that > > your entire party couldn't field a candidate to beat him. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1) President Moron wants Arabs to run our ports. GOP doesn't. Uh oh. Tough > being abandoned by your own party. That's what happens when you try to cater to both sides. You just end up pissing everybody off.
> 2) Vice-President Moron shoots friend in face. This is the #2 guy with his > hand on the big button. Duh. At least he'll probably drop dead from a heart > attack before he's out of office. Yeah... the moron should have known better than to hunt with people who are too stupid to announce their presence.
> 3) Real estate values dropping nationally, rates expected to rise 3 more > times, unemployment rate unexpectadly shoots up, economy clearly turning > bad. Oh no. The rates are going to be going up from the historic lows they've been at. Tell me it isn't so.
> 4) Invading sovereign Iraq with no valid explanation leaving a civil war and > thousands of American and Iraqi deaths behind. Thank goodness weve finally left. Oh, wait, what was that again?
> Middle east less stable than > when when PM took office. Oops. Less stable? how can you get less stable than completely. The error here is thinking that the Middle East can be stabilized by any means short of making the area uninhabitable.
> 5) Unsuccessful negotiations with Iran & N. Korea. Whatta surprise. Yeah, he should have had more successful negotiations like his predecessors.
> 6) Fill in the blanks for 6-20. Easy to do. > > Sorry bud. Game over. Let the next group of morons have a whack at it. Isn't that pretty much going to happen regardless of who gets elected (Rep, Dem, or other?).
Popeye - 16 Mar 2006 21:09 GMT > Less stable? how can you get less stable than completely. The error here > is thinking that the Middle East can be stabilized by any means short of > making the area uninhabitable. If everybody elected me God, I'd glaze Tehran without warning, and ask who wants to be next.
Dennis (Icarus) - 17 Mar 2006 05:02 GMT > > Less stable? how can you get less stable than completely. The error here > > is thinking that the Middle East can be stabilized by any means short of > > making the area uninhabitable. > > If everybody elected me God, I'd glaze Tehran without warning, and ask who > wants to be next. You got my vote.
Dennis
Matthias Voss - 17 Mar 2006 00:39 GMT >>4) Invading sovereign Iraq with no valid explanation leaving a civil war > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank goodness weve finally left. Oh, wait, what was that again? The big silence before the final banggg.
>>Middle east less stable than >>when when PM took office. Oops. > > Less stable? how can you get less stable than completely. The error here > is thinking that the Middle East can be stabilized by any means short of > making the area uninhabitable. Too true. But everybody being literate and havin read the bible should now that.
Matthias
Chris Guynn - 17 Mar 2006 15:34 GMT > >>4) Invading sovereign Iraq with no valid explanation leaving a civil war > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Too true. But everybody being literate and havin read the > bible should now that. The Bible? Hell, just try a history book.
Matthias Voss - 17 Mar 2006 17:14 GMT >>>>4) Invading sovereign Iraq with no valid explanation leaving a civil war >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > The Bible? Hell, just try a history book. But I like the gorey details.
Matthias
Dennis (Icarus) - 09 Mar 2006 18:12 GMT > > Name calling? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for being bitter. The GOP is dumping W faster than your mommy after > finishing a trick. And they said that in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Dennis
Gumby - 09 Mar 2006 18:57 GMT > And they said that in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. In '96, '98 & '00, the senate was still democratic majority. House was GoP straight through.
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
Dennis (Icarus) - 10 Mar 2006 00:49 GMT > > And they said that in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. > > In '96, '98 & '00, the senate was still democratic majority. House was GoP > straight through. And do you recall folks saying how the GOP would lose, in each of those election cycles?
Didn't happen.
Dennis
Chris Guynn - 16 Mar 2006 18:46 GMT > > > And they said that in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Didn't happen. If they keep saying it long enough, it will happen.
Democrats: Give me your money so I can redistribute it to the poor after I take my cut. Republicans: Give me your money so I can redistribute it to the businesses after I take my cut.
Not really that much difference.
Greg Mossman - 16 Mar 2006 19:55 GMT > Democrats: Give me your money so I can redistribute it to the poor after I > take my cut. > Republicans: Give me your money so I can redistribute it to the businesses > after I take my cut. > > Not really that much difference. You don't see a difference between giving to the poor and giving to the rich? Robin Hood did.
Lee Bell - 09 Mar 2006 19:54 GMT >> It must suck knowing you're on the losing end of the next few year's >> election because your party couldn't manage their greed. I don't blame >> you >> for being bitter. The GOP is dumping W faster than your mommy after >> finishing a trick.
> And they said that in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. If the Democrats nominate Hillary for the position, they'll be saying it in 2008 and 2012 as well.
Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and mentally capable, we might vote for them too.
Lee
JOF - 09 Mar 2006 20:09 GMT >Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and >mentally capable, we might vote for them too. Ah, but would that "honest" nominee be equipped to survive in the den of thieves - errr, political arena?
JF
Scott - 10 Mar 2006 06:43 GMT > >Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and > >mentally capable, we might vote for them too. > > Ah, but would that "honest" nominee be equipped to survive in the den > of thieves - errr, political arena? How'd they do it in Canada?
JOF - 10 Mar 2006 13:17 GMT >> >Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest >and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How'd they do it in Canada? We have the same problem here.
JF
Lee Bell - 10 Mar 2006 14:00 GMT >>> >Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest >>and >>> >mentally capable, we might vote for them too. >>> >>> Ah, but would that "honest" nominee be equipped to survive in the den >>> of thieves - errr, political arena? I said "appears honest."
Lee
JOF - 11 Mar 2006 02:52 GMT >>>> >Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest >>>and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I said "appears honest." You meant an accomplished politician?
JF
dazed and confuzzed - 09 Mar 2006 23:21 GMT > Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and > mentally capable, we might vote for them too. > > Lee *****
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 09 Mar 2006 23:54 GMT Lee Bell sputtered: "if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and mentally capable"
Why should they do that? By voting for Bush twice, you've already demonstrated that you prefer to vote for someone who isn't honest or mentally capable.
Dennis (Icarus) - 10 Mar 2006 00:54 GMT > Lee Bell sputtered: "if you'd just nominate someone who at least > appears honest and mentally capable" > > Why should they do that? By voting for Bush twice, you've already > demonstrated that you prefer to vote for someone who isn't honest or > mentally capable. Thats one conclusion, but its the wrong one. He's stated on numerous occassions that GW was the "lesser of the two evils".
And just think, Calr, the Dems lost to Bush....twice.
:-) Dennis
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 10 Mar 2006 17:58 GMT Dennis the fuckwit sputtered:
>He's stated on numerous occassions that GW was the > "lesser of the two evils". So what? It still demonstrates that he'll vote for someone who does not appear to be honest or mentally capable.
Dennis (Icarus) - 10 Mar 2006 18:14 GMT > Dennis the fuckwit sputtered: > >He's stated on numerous occassions that GW was the > > "lesser of the two evils". > > So what? It still demonstrates that he'll vote for someone who does not > appear to be honest or mentally capable. Which would mean that Gore & Kerry.....appeared to be.....worse...than.....Bush.
Surely you see that, don't you Carl?
Dennis
Joe English - 10 Mar 2006 02:11 GMT > Lee Bell sputtered: "if you'd just nominate someone who at least > appears honest and mentally capable" > > Why should they do that? By voting for Bush twice, you've already > demonstrated that you prefer to vote for someone who isn't honest or > mentally capable. you obviously are too obtuse to remember who they were running against
Gore and Kerry, please
Lee Bell - 10 Mar 2006 04:29 GMT >> Lee Bell sputtered: "if you'd just nominate someone who at least >> appears honest and mentally capable" >> >> Why should they do that? By voting for Bush twice, you've already >> demonstrated that you prefer to vote for someone who isn't honest or >> mentally capable. I have never voted for a Bush. I did, however, vote against Kerry. I'm not sure how I voted when he ran against Gore.
Lee
chilly - 10 Mar 2006 10:36 GMT > Lee Bell sputtered: "if you'd just nominate someone who at least > appears honest and mentally capable" > > Why should they do that? By voting for Bush twice, you've already > demonstrated that you prefer to vote for someone who isn't honest or > mentally capable. Well, that's one perspective, another might be that the alternate choice wasn't a woman.
Dennis (Icarus) - 10 Mar 2006 00:51 GMT > >> It must suck knowing you're on the losing end of the next few year's > >> election because your party couldn't manage their greed. I don't blame [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If the Democrats nominate Hillary for the position, they'll be saying it in > 2008 and 2012 as well. Yeah, pretty much.
> Damn, guys, if you'd just nominate someone who at least appears honest and > mentally capable, we might vote for them too. Nominate a conservative. Heck, I thought GW would be a conservative.
> Lee Dennis
Joe English - 10 Mar 2006 02:07 GMT >>>It must suck knowing you're on the losing end of the next few year's >>>election because your party couldn't manage their greed. I don't blame [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Lee > I know I would! dazed and confuzzed - 09 Mar 2006 00:59 GMT >>>>You must be a liberal Democrat. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a different way. At least they don't shoot their friends, just their > enemies. or anyone who may be an embarassment.....
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Chris Guynn - 16 Mar 2006 18:28 GMT > >> It can be done, but it has to be done right. Doing it right is > >> expensive. Who pays? Who benefits? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the world and use that money for domestic capital improvement projects ala > New Orleans levees. It'll work out in the end. How about this... stop attacking countries around the world and give that money back to the people who worked hard for it.
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 07 Mar 2006 03:04 GMT Who benefits? d&c wants to make sure the African-Americans don't.
Alan Street - 07 Mar 2006 06:03 GMT > Who benefits? d&c wants to make sure the African-Americans don't. ?????
Come on. If you don't agree, that's fine. Argue your points intelligently.
Dennis (Icarus) - 07 Mar 2006 12:56 GMT > ? Who benefits? d&c wants to make sure the African-Americans don't. > ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Come on. If you don't agree, that's fine. Argue your points > intelligently. That's asking far too much of Carl.
Dennis
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 07 Mar 2006 21:49 GMT It's expecting far too much of you and your r.s. syncophants to understand complex arguments. When you're faced with with it, you and your buddies simply grunt, howl and run away.
Gumby - 07 Mar 2006 22:18 GMT > It's expecting far too much of you and your r.s. syncophants to > understand complex arguments. When you're faced with with it, you and > your buddies simply grunt, howl and run away. Without knowledge of usenet, you continue to post without quoting the relevant text thus rendering your posts even more meaningless then the actual content allows. Don, ask mommy nicely for either usenet lessons or the tit back. Seems malnourishment has affected your rationale. Save the air you'd use to speak and type a response, you'll be needing it for your blow up doll.
<insert immature, pathetic response here> Bye now <ploink>
 Signature I'm Gumby dammit!
nisarel@postmaster.co.uk - 07 Mar 2006 22:39 GMT It appears that "Gumby" is also too stupid to know how to follow a thread back one post.
Since you already wrote one, there's no need to insert a "immature, pathetic response" What you wrote is a perfectly fine example of it.
|
|