Pink Kate
#1151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
'nuff said.
tw________________________________________________ ________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and condoning
>>acts of terrorism.
>
>
> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not encourage
> ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an abortion clinic being
> destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel, and you cant help your
> feelings. this isnt the same as participating or inciting others to peform
> these acts.
>
"<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
'nuff said.
tw________________________________________________ ________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and condoning
>>acts of terrorism.
>
>
> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not encourage
> ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an abortion clinic being
> destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel, and you cant help your
> feelings. this isnt the same as participating or inciting others to peform
> these acts.
>
#1152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Ok...one more:
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
#1153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Ok...one more:
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
#1154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Ok...one more:
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
"its not illegal to praise them earle, anymore than it is to praise
someone for blowing up an abortion clinic. its not something i would
do, but i can appreciate those who would."
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
twaldron wrote:
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "<shrug> i dunno what to tell you. i would never do such a thing, but i
> wouldnt do anything to stop those who would."
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> tw________________________________________________ ________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>
>> "twaldron" <thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com> wrote in message
>> news:qhq3g.71409$Jd.41828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> you are confusing your stance on abortion with encouraging and
>>> condoning acts of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> to me there is no greater disgrace then killing a child. i do not
>> encourage ANYONE to blow up anything......but when i hear of an
>> abortion clinic being destroyed, i smile inside. its just how i feel,
>> and you cant help your feelings. this isnt the same as participating
>> or inciting others to peform these acts.
>>
#1155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
#1156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
#1157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
news:p1g3g.98$qe.17678@news.uswest.net...
> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:U773g.7074$Sa1.26@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > I'll ignore the obvious insults, and say you are wrong to think you
> > are the only one who is capable of objectivity, and you are foolish
> > to think someone with first hand experience doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)
>
And, apparently from your posts, you don't. Unless of course one counts the
skinmags you posted on your web site, that got you in the original trouble
with Daimler Chrysler. You made the argument, that thousands of hours of
field observation, and the research based on that observation, be discounted
merely because it conflicts with your personal observations, and because all
university professors are screwballs and liberals. The research in question
also conflicts with a very basic principle, that Nathan is always right.
The reason research is so expensive, is because individual observations, no
matter of what, cannot be trusted to give the entire picture. That is why
we have science, and why ignorant yokels such as yourself do not trust it.
One observation, no matter how many extraneous factors may have interferred
with it, is good enough for you. You hear, what you want to hear. You see,
what you want to see. And you believe, what you want to believe.
If you want to have a discussion, you should learn how to argue properly,
rather than shooting from the hip. You have contradicted yourself several
times, and you back pedalled on several key issues. You support the laws of
this country and your state, for example, yet you support those who would
violently and in secret break those laws. You use the example of one
private ranch, to disprove that ranchers take welfare. Private property
owners are the most notorious abusers of government generosity, especially
tax breaks. You state that I don't know anything, because I got my
knowledge from books, but you expect me to believe that your Usenet postings
are a more reliable source of knowledge than books. What kind of fool would
I be, if I based all my conclusions on Usenet, as you apparently do? Your
worst logical flaw, is that you refuse to recognize, that this is a
complicated issue. No, what you have seen, or what you choose to see, is
the only truth that can be admitted.
You should learn to recognize when you are whipped. Lord knows, it has
happened to you enough already. Of course, if you did that, this newsgroup
wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
I have taken the liberty of including a snippet or two of Classic Nathan
Collier. Google Groups is full of stuff like this.
------------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Wed, Mar 6 2002 9:54 am
>
> i _have_ decided a few things. regardless of the
> outcome, i will not be purchasing a jeep rubicon this
> summer as i had originally planned. daimler chrysler
> will never receive another penny of my money.
> although i have a sincere passion for jeeping, i loathe
> what the jeep corporation has become and i will
> never support it again.
------------------------------
And the inevitable back pedalling, less than a year later.
------------------------------
> From: Nathan W. Collier
> Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 10:51 pm
> "Earle Horton" <ear...@doglover.com> wrote in message
>
> > Was it you or some other Nathan that recently got rid of a built TJ and
> > swore up and down he would never buy another DaimlerChrysler product?
>
> hi earle,
> i can remember swearing that i would never
> pay over $1 for a gallon of gas. back when i
> used to smoke, i can remember swearing that
> i would never pay more than $1 for a pack of
> smokes. in '89 after putting the third rear end
> in my 87 f150 4x4, i can remember swearing that
> i would never buy another ford. when my oldest
> daughter was born, i can remember swearing that i
> wasnt going to have anymore kids. when i paid
> about $10,000 in medical bills for beating the
> tar out of the fellow i caught banging my ex, i
> can remember swearing that i would never get
> married ever again. after every severe case
> of the ***** i always swear that ill never
> eat chinese again. after a herpes scare i can
> remember swearing id never touch another central
> american $2 ----- (turned out to just be a
> jungle rash). when i completed my mcse training
> i can remember swearing that i would never wear
> a hood ever again (professionally, of course).
> when my kids wouldnt sit down and be quiet at
> lonestar last week i can remember swearing that
> i would never take them out of the house ever
> again. when my fingers broke through, i swore i
> would never buy charmin ever again.
Earle
#1158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle
#1159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle
#1160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle
news:0eq3g.13$z_.1350@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > I am just trying to teach Nathan how to argue
> > properly.
>
> lol......by losing? :-)
>
A quick search of Google Groups should be enough to convince anyone, that
you are a sore loser.
Earle