AlleyKike wrote:
>
> I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
> now, because I'm "reform".

You're a Jew?

Sheldon

Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>
> Why the **** shoot the looters? Maybe you've never gone without food
> for a day...

Well, it easy to determine that you are reading and comprehension
challenged. Try reading the back thread before shooting off your mouth
and removing all doubt of your idiocy. I have never faulted those going
for survival stuff - food, water, blankets, etc. I am address in the
jewelry store looters, the electronics store looter.

Now, mentalmidget, get the concept?

Read and comprehend before engaging mouth. Works winders.


jim

Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Dave Smith wrote:

>> Shoot them because they are the scum of the earth who take advantage of a
>> natural disaster to prey upon individuals and businesses after they have
>> already been victimized.
>
>
> see, there are people like the ones you describe. we generally call
> them pirates. people who weren't affected by the disaster, but use it
> to steal food and water from people and condemn them to die.

What you call them and what the rest of the world calls them are two
different things. Too bad you didn't read a bit more before making such
an idiotic post.


> I'm not going to fault anyone in a situation of anarchy for trying to
> restore a bit of order, even at gunpoint (although I might question
> their means, their ends are at least in good heart).
>
> If I lived in New Orleans, that would probably be me, out there trying
> to build something useful, be useful enough (with my paltry first aid
> training), to not be killed. and trying not to be killed outright.
>
> These people were abandoned, by the government, by everyone else who
> lived there. Let 'em take what they can, from those that fled. For
> what good that will do them (I fully expect trials, after this is over.).
>
>> It has been clearly indicated here that we can
>> overlook those who took foot and water out of desperation, but there
>> are those
>> who took electronic equipment are another matter.
>
>
> why so? I'm not saying that everyone's talented enough to make a
> self-defense mechanism out of electronic eq. but some are.
>
> There are thousands dead (the gov't planned on 100 thousand deaths). Am
> I gonna cry about a lousy dvd player being stolen? Nah... Feel free,
> if you want, to cry about it. It's a free country. But me... forgive
> me, but I don't have a car. I wouldn't have gotten out.
>
>>> Personally, I'm all in favor of shooting all the people who got out.
>>> With
>>> a television, instead of the person down the street. I've got this to
>>> say, to everybody that left... "How many did you save?" Could you have
>>> smuggled a baby out of there? Did you really cram as many people into
>>> your car as you could have?
>>
>>
>> You espouse high moral standards for someone who can tolerate looting and
>> chaos in the path of disaster. You expect people to rise above their
>> concerns
>> for their personal well being but turn a blind eye to a descent from the
>> veneer of civilization
>
>
> Civilization has the morals it can afford. If you've got a car, you can
> afford to get out as many people as you can.
>
>>> Sorry, folks, today's the day that I hate humanity.
>>>
>>> Everyone that left, without people packed in the car, is guilty of
>>> manslaughter (perhaps involuntary? i don't know the legal terms...).
>>
>>
>> I am not surprised that you don't know the legal term, since there is
>> no law
>> that requires a person trying to save their life in a disaster to
>> become a aid
>> agency. Some people got out ahead of time. Some people left when it
>> became
>> clear that their lives were in danger. Some people were unable to
>> leave on
>> their own. And then there were those who simply refused to leave.
>
>
> There's plenty of precedent for it being a criminal offense to leave a
> disaster region without taking as many as you can. Imagine a person on
> the Titanic, taking a liferaft for only themselves (they can hol dfar
> more that that).
>
> If you knew enough to bet that something big was going down, you knew
> enough to get as many people out as you could. (and, I believe, a goodly
> portion of people did get out as many people as they could. maybe 10%)
>
> Lena

Lena B Katz wrote:

> There's plenty of precedent for it being a criminal offense to leave a
> disaster region without taking as many as you can. Imagine a person on
> the Titanic, taking a liferaft for only themselves (they can hol dfar
> more that that).

Really, cite us the law on that, if you can.

And hold your breath until you find it.


jim

Craig Welch wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:09:57 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There has to be some
>>law and order, and wide scale looting is the start of a downhill plunge in our
>>civilization.
>
>
> As is the notion of allowing the police to 'shoot to kill'.
>

So you support anarchy, chaos and looting?


jim

On 6 Sep 2005 17:32:49 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Allan Matthews wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2005 13:14:54 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >JimLane wrote:
>> >> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> >>For those decrying shooting looters here's some of the reason they should
>> >> >>be shot on sight (and, fortunately, were):
>> >> >>
>> >> >>New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out
>> >> >>By Mark Egan Sun Sep 4, 9:26 PM ET
>> >> >>
>> >> >>NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans police killed four looters who had
>> >> >>opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic
>> >> >>waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated
>> >> >>corpses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > It continues to amaze me that you and some others are so festeringly stupid
>> >> > that you cannot tell the difference between someone who is shooting at the
>> >> > authorities and an unarmed person who is looting.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Looters are criminals who are playing carpe diem to feather their nests
>> >> with stolen goods. I do not have a problem with someone grabbing
>> >> survival goods.
>> >>
>> >> I am happy to know you ENDORSE looting of stores, stealing of jewelry,
>> >> electronic goods, guns and ammo and so on.
>> >>
>> >> When I address looters, I am not talking about some mom grabbing food or
>> >> water, even blankets.
>> >>
>> >> But can you tell me what the hell stealing a large flatscreen TV has to
>> >> do with survival?
>> >>
>> >> Anyone shooting at authorities should be shot to death period.
>> >
>> >Anyone shooting at *anybody* should be shot to death.
>> >
>> >
>> Sheldon , On 9/5/2005 you posted that you would shoot a looter.
>> Make up yur mind or remember what you post.
>
>Illiterate Matthews ******* can't read... it's patently obvious your
>grandpa is yer pappy.
>
>Sheldon
Sheldon, I corrected you and you cannot stand it to be wrong. I will
not sink to your level of name calling. Have a good day and try to
enjoy life. Exactly what did I post that was in error?
A;llan

In article >,
Lena B Katz > wrote:


Lena, Lena, Lena. Please always say "administration" and not
"government" when you're faulting the handling of the Katrina crisis.
If you keep saying "government" for eight years of the current
administration's incompetence, you're falling into the hands of those
folks who've been trying to kill the Federal government for decades.
The Federal government is not the beast; it's probably us.

AlleyGator wrote:
> However, while being armed is not a prob
> anymore, shooting apparently bothers someone. It doesn't matter if
> it's legal or not, they have to respond when someone complains. I'm
> pretty certian who's doing it, based on past experience, but it's not
> something to get all mad about.

It's not your problem that the sheriff has to investigate every time
some loony calls about a gunshot out in the country. Let the sheriff
deal with the idiot who keeps calling in the complaints.

Just be polite and respectful when the sheriff shows up.

Best regards,
Bob

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Stark wrote:

> In article >,
> Lena B Katz > wrote:
>
>
> Lena, Lena, Lena. Please always say "administration" and not
> "government" when you're faulting the handling of the Katrina crisis.
> If you keep saying "government" for eight years of the current
> administration's incompetence, you're falling into the hands of those
> folks who've been trying to kill the Federal government for decades.
> The Federal government is not the beast; it's probably us.

I write what I write for a reason. the gov't, state local and national,
planned on 100,000 people dying. That's the civilians. That's the people
who didn't speak out, despite being government workers.

There were whistleblowers here. They spoke out. We didn't listen.

Bush is at fault for many things, but this one isn't one i'm gonna blame
just on him.

Lena

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, JimLane wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>> There's plenty of precedent for it being a criminal offense to leave a
>> disaster region without taking as many as you can. Imagine a person on
>> the Titanic, taking a liferaft for only themselves (they can hol dfar more
>> that that).
>
> Really, cite us the law on that, if you can.
>
> And hold your breath until you find it.

Let's see, where to start... Well, the first example of this being illegal
is the laws against assisted suicide (where the doctor simply fails to
provide care that would sustain life). Here, someone turns a blind eye to
helping other people out.

wikipedia seems to think that it is gross criminal negligence (at least it
seems to fit under that), which is allowing an otherwise avoidable
situation to persist that wantonly endangers human life.

If you're not going to talk about the essential morality of the issue, I
don't think I'm gonna bother talking anymore about the legalese.

Lena

and, of course, none of this is relevant because i'm quoting english
common law definitions. can someone find me a source of Napoleonic law?

"Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>AlleyKike wrote:
>>
>> I guess you probably have me killfiled, Sheldon, which is unnecessary
>> now, because I'm "reform".
>
>You're a Jew?
>
>Sheldon
>
LOL. No, I'm a recovering jerk.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, JimLane wrote:
>
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>> There's plenty of precedent for it being a criminal offense to leave
>>> a disaster region without taking as many as you can. Imagine a
>>> person on the Titanic, taking a liferaft for only themselves (they
>>> can hol dfar more that that).
>>
>>
>> Really, cite us the law on that, if you can.
>>
>> And hold your breath until you find it.
>
>
> Let's see, where to start... Well, the first example of this being
> illegal is the laws against assisted suicide (where the doctor simply
> fails to provide care that would sustain life). Here, someone turns a
> blind eye to helping other people out.

Far out, but it will not fly. No one is committing suicide in this
situation - deliberate or otherwise.

Let's see the LAW, not your wishful thinking and pipe dreams.


> wikipedia seems to think that it is gross criminal negligence (at least
> it seems to fit under that), which is allowing an otherwise avoidable
> situation to persist that wantonly endangers human life.

Wikipedia doesn't think at all. It might indicate something or the
other, but WHERE IS THE LAW?

>
> If you're not going to talk about the essential morality of the issue, I
> don't think I'm gonna bother talking anymore about the legalese.
>
> Lena
>
> and, of course, none of this is relevant because i'm quoting english
> common law definitions. can someone find me a source of Napoleonic law?

You haven't quoted squat, Lena, and that is a fact. You are entitled to
your opinion of course, but don;t try bsing about law.


jim

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, JimLane wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's plenty of precedent for it being a criminal offense to leave a
>>>> disaster region without taking as many as you can. Imagine a person
>>>> on the Titanic, taking a liferaft for only themselves (they can hol
>>>> dfar more that that).
>>>
>>>
>>> Really, cite us the law on that, if you can.
>>>
>>> And hold your breath until you find it.
>>
>>
>> Let's see, where to start... Well, the first example of this being illegal
>> is the laws against assisted suicide (where the doctor simply fails to
>> provide care that would sustain life). Here, someone turns a blind eye to
>> helping other people out.
>
> Far out, but it will not fly. No one is committing suicide in this situation
> - deliberate or otherwise.

I was merely giving an example of the thinking... allowing someone to die
when you could have prevented it is a crime. not just in attempted
suicide, there are all sorts of malpractice cases where a psychologist
allowed a suicidal person to leave the premises without recommending
treatment.

Lena

as stated, i'm more interested in morality than legalese. particularly
legalese about louisiana's legal system.

Lena B Katz wrote:

>
>
> I was merely giving an example of the thinking... allowing someone to die
> when you could have prevented it is a crime. not just in attempted
> suicide, there are all sorts of malpractice cases where a psychologist
> allowed a suicidal person to leave the premises without recommending
> treatment.

Criminal negligence? That might apply if you left an invalid in your house when
you bailed out ahead of the flood. It's a far cry from being expected to go on a
search and rescue mission among strangers when your own life is in danger. While
some of the people who stayed may not have been able to leave, many of them chose
to stay for one reason or another. I saw a guy being interviewed yesterday who
has been there for more than a week and has no intention of leaving, even though
the water is still 5 feet deep on his street.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Dave Smith wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I was merely giving an example of the thinking... allowing someone to die
>> when you could have prevented it is a crime. not just in attempted
>> suicide, there are all sorts of malpractice cases where a psychologist
>> allowed a suicidal person to leave the premises without recommending
>> treatment.
>
> Criminal negligence? That might apply if you left an invalid in your house when
> you bailed out ahead of the flood. It's a far cry from being expected to go on a
> search and rescue mission among strangers when your own life is in danger. While
> some of the people who stayed may not have been able to leave, many of them chose
> to stay for one reason or another. I saw a guy being interviewed yesterday who
> has been there for more than a week and has no intention of leaving, even though
> the water is still 5 feet deep on his street.

20% of the city didn't have access to a car. You do the math. Most of
the people didn't have a way out.

So, is it criminal negligence for the nurses who left babies in cribs in
the hospital? or is it criminal negligence for you to leave your
neighbor, who you knew was diabetic?

Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the hurricane
hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a ride.

Lena

Lena B Katz wrote:

> . I saw a guy being interviewed yesterday who
> > has been there for more than a week and has no intention of leaving, even though
> > the water is still 5 feet deep on his street.
>
> 20% of the city didn't have access to a car. You do the math. Most of
> the people didn't have a way out.

I acknowledged that some people had no way to get out. I referred to those who
specifically refused to leave, even when offered a ride out.

> So, is it criminal negligence for the nurses who left babies in cribs in
> the hospital? or is it criminal negligence for you to leave your
> neighbor, who you knew was diabetic?

My neighbour is diabetic. He would probably get out before I would.

> Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
> operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the hurricane
> hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a ride.
>

What strawman.? You condemned people who left and had room in their cars and left
others behind. There is no obligation for them to stick around in a hurricane and look
for other people. Many of them had the good sense to leave early, before the storm hit.
Those left behind were at risk, but not in imminent peril. I agree that would have been
nice of them to go out of their way to help others, but there was no legal or civil
obligation to do so.

BTW... how to you contact a stranger? I don't keep a list of strangers' phone numbers
in my house.

Lena B Katz wrote:
> Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
> operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the
> hurricane
> hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a ride.
>
> Lena

How do you contact a "stranger"? The word itself means someone you don't
know. I don't open my door to strangers. The UPS person better be wearing
a brown uniform with a badge and have that little signature thing in his/her
hand, otherwise leave me a slip and I'll go pick whatever it is up. I don't
stop for hitchhikers either, regardless of the weather.

Here's a personal horror story about my brothers and a friend of theirs
hitching a ride to SC once back in the 1970's - the guys they caught a ride
with were great fun! Good tunes on the radio, beer, a little pot. Also
turned out they'd murdered the owners of the car and stole it. Their friend
D. lost his wallet in the back seat so when these guys were apprehended,
everyone thought they'd killed D. and my brothers, too. That was a lovely,
frantic 72 hours.

It's a nice thought to suggest folks could or should have gone around
picking up strangers but it's simply not a safe or sane idea. And despite
what you maintain, there is no legal precedent for doing so.

Jill

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:13:51 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz
> wrote:

<snip>

>Sorry, folks, today's the day that I hate humanity.
>
>Everyone that left, without people packed in the car, is guilty of
>manslaughter (perhaps involuntary? i don't know the legal terms...).

Lena, just about everyone who got out ahead of the hurricane did so
b/c they feared the worst, not because they *knew* Katrina was going
to be a Category 5 hurricane. No one did. At noon on that Monday,
Katrina was a Category 2 hurricane. Most of the residents wouldn't
have filled up a bathtub with water for a Category 2 (I've lived
through 2 hurricanes, Categories 2 and 3). Once Katrina's force
escalated, it was too late. Any number of people clogged the roads
leading out of the Gulf coast, only to turn back. You are right about
one thing: a lot of people didn't have vehicles or a way to buy a
ticket out of town.

Can we stop pointing fingers at each other now and demand
accountability from our government, from the federal on down to the
fire warden, so this never happens again?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"Just what kind of jackassery do I have to put up with today?" Danae
in "Non Sequitur"

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was merely giving an example of the thinking... allowing someone to
>>> die
>>> when you could have prevented it is a crime. not just in attempted
>>> suicide, there are all sorts of malpractice cases where a psychologist
>>> allowed a suicidal person to leave the premises without recommending
>>> treatment.
>>
>>
>> Criminal negligence? That might apply if you left an invalid in your
>> house when
>> you bailed out ahead of the flood. It's a far cry from being expected
>> to go on a
>> search and rescue mission among strangers when your own life is in
>> danger. While
>> some of the people who stayed may not have been able to leave, many of
>> them chose
>> to stay for one reason or another. I saw a guy being interviewed
>> yesterday who
>> has been there for more than a week and has no intention of leaving,
>> even though
>> the water is still 5 feet deep on his street.
>
>
> 20% of the city didn't have access to a car. You do the math. Most of
> the people didn't have a way out.
>
> So, is it criminal negligence for the nurses who left babies in cribs in
> the hospital? or is it criminal negligence for you to leave your
> neighbor, who you knew was diabetic?
>
> Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
> operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the
> hurricane hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a
> ride.
>
> Lena

Lena, you said there is a PRECEDENCE for this. There may be from a moral
point, but there is not a single one legally.

Be prepared to back up your statements with facts and not just opinion.
We get enough of that without a single fact to stand upon.


jim

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, jmcquown wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
>> Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
>> operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the
>> hurricane
>> hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a ride.
>>
>> Lena
>
> How do you contact a "stranger"?

In my case, it's fairly easy. I've done community service around, helping
folks in need. So, I go to someone I know and say, "know someone who
needs a ride out". But, you're asking about me. which is not really
relevant, as I don't have a car to get anyone out of anywhere. I'd
imagine dropping by a soup kitchen would do the trick, or a homeless
shelter. Or hell, just drop by a hospital and pick up someone old.

> Here's a personal horror story about my brothers and a friend of theirs
> hitching a ride to SC once back in the 1970's - the guys they caught a ride
> with were great fun! Good tunes on the radio, beer, a little pot.

When you're miles out on a deserted country road, that man in a car can do
whatever he wants with you. Ain't nobody gonna do nothin' about it,
aint' nobody gonna see it. So,
yeah, go ahead and ask for a ride. Ain't gonna spoil your chances.

> Also
> turned out they'd murdered the owners of the car and stole it. Their friend
> D. lost his wallet in the back seat so when these guys were apprehended,
> everyone thought they'd killed D. and my brothers, too. That was a lovely,
> frantic 72 hours.

Nice to see that even murderers can be good folk too. I've read books
about rapists. Anthropology books, the kind that get inside someone's
head without judging them (didn't help that the guy didn't know they were
rapists till he knew them a year or two). I've read books about drug
dealers, and people who perpetually steal clothing from stores (funny
thing about those last ones, they were _proud_ whenever they could afford
to buy something. proud to have a receipt.)

> It's a nice thought to suggest folks could or should have gone around
> picking up strangers but it's simply not a safe or sane idea.

It is as safe and sane as you want it to be. You're in control of the
car, you're in control of who you let into the car. And, if you're trying
to tell me that fifteen crying two-year-olds can overpower you, you're
full of shit. Here's the numbers, such as they are. you could probably
fit double the amount of kids in a car than you could their parents (more
if you put some in the trunk).

> And despite
> what you maintain, there is no legal precedent for doing so.

as someone else was stating, the legal precedent pertains more to how
people behave during disasters than how they behave before them. but
legal precedent is all in how a judge decides which laws are relevant to
your case. Less you're the judge, don't claim to know what's going on,
legally speaking.

Lena

Lena B Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>> Don't raise the strawman of needing to do a "search and rescue
>>> operation"... most of the people who left did so well before the
>>> hurricane
>>> hit. They could have easily contacted strangers who needed a ride.
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> How do you contact a "stranger"?
>
> In my case, it's fairly easy.

What you're saying is double-talk. First you say "I've done community
service around, helping folks in need. So, I go to someone I know and say,
"know
someone who needs a ride out". But, you're asking about me. which is not
really relevant, as I don't have a car to get anyone out of anywhere." Make
up your mind. Do you have a car or not?

>> Here's a personal horror story about my brothers and a friend of
>> theirs hitching a ride to SC once back in the 1970's - the guys they
>> caught a ride with were great fun! Good tunes on the radio, beer, a
>> little pot.
>
> When you're miles out on a deserted country road, that man in a car
> can do whatever he wants with you. Ain't nobody gonna do nothin'
> about it,
> aint' nobody gonna see it. So,
> yeah, go ahead and ask for a ride. Ain't gonna spoil your chances.
>
Spoil your chances for WHAT? Life or death?

>> Also
>> turned out they'd murdered the owners of the car and stole it.
>> Their friend D. lost his wallet in the back seat so when these guys
>> were apprehended, everyone thought they'd killed D. and my brothers,
>> too. That was a lovely, frantic 72 hours.
>
> Nice to see that even murderers can be good folk too. I've read books
> about rapists. Anthropology books, the kind that get inside someone's
> head without judging them (didn't help that the guy didn't know they
> were rapists till he knew them a year or two).

Let me guess, you read Ann Rule?

I've read books about
> drug dealers, and people who perpetually steal clothing from stores
> (funny
> thing about those last ones, they were _proud_ whenever they could
> afford
> to buy something. proud to have a receipt.)
>
>> It's a nice thought to suggest folks could or should have gone around
>> picking up strangers but it's simply not a safe or sane idea.
>
> It is as safe and sane as you want it to be. You're in control of the
> car, you're in control of who you let into the car.

Not according to you. According to you, people were just supposed to go
around willy nilly picking people up. They wouldn't have any idea who they
were letting into their car.

And, if you're
> trying
> to tell me that fifteen crying two-year-olds can overpower you, you're
> full of shit.

Honey, I can barely fit myself, a passenger and my cat in my car. Forget
about fifteen children.

Here's the numbers, such as they are. you could
> probably
> fit double the amount of kids in a car than you could their parents
> (more
> if you put some in the trunk).
>
Okay, so now we're stuffing kids in the trunk. How humane. I suppose I
should also loot a drill and drill some air-holes so they can breathe. Then
I can file a lawsuit later claiming the trunk was too constrictive and the
kids I packed in it died due to lack of air. I can blame the manufacturer.

>> And despite
>> what you maintain, there is no legal precedent for doing so.
>
> as someone else was stating, the legal precedent pertains more to how
> people behave during disasters than how they behave before them. but
> legal precedent is all in how a judge decides which laws are relevant
> to
> your case. Less you're the judge, don't claim to know what's going
> on, legally speaking.
>
> Lena

Unless *you're* an attorney or a judge, don't proclaim to know the law
yourself. Disasters don't come with laws attached, except for those already
on the books against looting, robbery, stealing, etc. You have the right to
defend yourself. You don't have the right to steal other people's shit.
Period.

Jill
Jill

jmcquown wrote a lot of sense:
> Lena B Katz wrote a lot of Sh*t:


Jill, you are wasting your breath on our buddy Lena. In fact I am
shocked that you are getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed
person.
Cheers
cathy(xyz)

cathyxyz wrote:
> jmcquown wrote a lot of sense:
>> Lena B Katz wrote a lot of Sh*t:
>
>
> Jill, you are wasting your breath on our buddy Lena. In fact I am
> shocked that you are getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed
> person.
> Cheers
> cathy(xyz)

LOL! I know, I'm sorry I let it happen. Some people just get my goat. Not
that I have a goat

jmcquown wrote:
> cathyxyz wrote:
>
>>jmcquown wrote a lot of sense:
>>
>>>Lena B Katz wrote a lot of Sh*t:
>>
>>
>>Jill, you are wasting your breath on our buddy Lena. In fact I am
>>shocked that you are getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed
>>person.
>>Cheers
>>cathy(xyz)
>
>
> LOL! I know, I'm sorry I let it happen. Some people just get my goat. Not
> that I have a goat
>
>
I don't have one either (yet) but I know what ya mean


--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

On Thu 08 Sep 2005 11:29:12p, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cathyxyz wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote a lot of sense:
>>> Lena B Katz wrote a lot of Sh*t:
>>
>>
>> Jill, you are wasting your breath on our buddy Lena. In fact I am
>> shocked that you are getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed
>> person.
>> Cheers
>> cathy(xyz)
>
> LOL! I know, I'm sorry I let it happen. Some people just get my goat.
> Not that I have a goat

Well, no, somebody already got it! :-) Ya gotta keep those goats tied up!

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four,
unless there are three other people.