On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT), pigo <bobt1...@gmail.com>
wrote this crap:
>On Friday, August 10, 2012 8:48:30 AM UTC-6, comadrejo wrote:
>> On 2012-08-09 11:33:57 +0000, Horvath1...@net.net said:
>> > If not for the US Military you would be speaking
>> > German or Japanese.
now you posted a long list. But General Patton said that nobody ever
won a war by dying for their country. They made the other dumbass die
for their's.
Holy shit. Once again, Brain Fried Bob Thompson proves what a stupid, ignorant, blithering idiot he is.
Hey, Dumbfuck?
"Great Britain and the Commonwealth" includes Canada, Australia, South Africa, and many other countries whose sacrifices matched our own, and more.
What is this, a Stupid Contest? The asshole Canuck claims Canadians were responsible for the entire Western Front, and Meth Freak Thompson is too stupid to honor Canadian dead, and then Huggies Horvath, the PUCsy himself, misses his buddies idiocy.
This is too good and deserves its own thread.
On Friday, August 10, 2012 2:01:50 PM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
> > now you posted a long list. But General Patton said that nobody ever
> > won a war by dying for their country. They made the other dumbass die
> > for their's.
> I thought of that when I found it. True enough. Just thought it was interesting.
Holy shit. Thompson has yet to realize how he fucked himself in public and proved how fucking ignorant and stupid he is.
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, did General Patton say that when you get caught in a lie, ignore it and keep lying?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
pigo wrote:
>>> If not for the US Military you would be speaking
>>> German or Japanese.
>> It was the Allied Nations, with the Red Army bleeding the
>> Wehrmacht
>> dry that helped defeat Germany. The US didn't fight the Germans or
>> Japanese alone.
> Not even a mention of Canada.
Looks kind of foolish when you begin by pointing out that your source has no idea what they are talking about then go on to quote them at great length.
From Wikipedia;
Canadian casualties 45,400 representing .40% of total population in 1938
USA casualties 418,500 representing .32% of total population in 1939.
Soviet Union (includes republics controlled after war) 23Million for 13.88% of their total population.
On Friday, August 10, 2012 6:59:36 PM UTC-6, NormG wrote:
> pigo wrote:
> >>> If not for the US Military you would be speaking
> >>> German or Japanese.
> >> It was the Allied Nations, with the Red Army bleeding the
> >> Wehrmacht
> >> dry that helped defeat Germany. The US didn't fight the Germans or
> >> Japanese alone.
> > Not even a mention of Canada.
> Looks kind of foolish when you begin by pointing out that your source has no idea what they are talking about then go on to quote them at great length.
I have no idea what YOU are talking about. I simply posted chart I happened upon and said that Canada wasn't menitoned. I made no comment about the sources veracity.
> From Wikipedia;
> Canadian casualties 45,400 representing .40% of total population in 1938
> USA casualties 418,500 representing .32% of total population in 1939.
> Soviet Union (includes republics controlled after war) 23Million for 13.88%
> of their total population.
OK? So had Canada been the main conquerers of the Nazi's don't you suppose that their "contribution" would be more in line with the countries that really were?
On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:23:11 PM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 6:59:36 PM UTC-6, NormG wrote:
> > pigo wrote:
> > >>> If not for the US Military you would be speaking
> > >>> German or Japanese.
> > >> It was the Allied Nations, with the Red Army bleeding the
> > >> Wehrmacht
> > >> dry that helped defeat Germany. The US didn't fight the Germans or
> > >> Japanese alone.
> > > Not even a mention of Canada.
> > Looks kind of foolish when you begin by pointing out that your source has no idea what they are talking about then go on to quote them at great length.
> I have no idea what YOU are talking about. I simply posted chart I happened upon and said that Canada wasn't menitoned. I made no comment about the sources veracity.
> > From Wikipedia;
> > Canadian casualties 45,400 representing .40% of total population in 1938
> > USA casualties 418,500 representing .32% of total population in 1939.
> > Soviet Union (includes republics controlled after war) 23Million for 13.88%
> > of their total population.
> OK? So had Canada been the main conquerers of the Nazi's don't you suppose that their "contribution" would be more in line with the countries that really were?
Thompson, you incredibly stupid dumbfuck, the least you could do was admit that you fucked up. Big time. Apologize. But as usual, when busted in a lie, you ignore it and keep on lying your ass offf.......
Here's a clue, Dumbfuck. There weren't that many Canucks to begin with. So their "contribution" was actually far greater per capita than ours. Idiot.
On Friday, August 10, 2012 5:59:36 PM UTC-7, NormG wrote:
> pigo wrote:
> >>> If not for the US Military you would be speaking
> >>> German or Japanese.
> >> It was the Allied Nations, with the Red Army bleeding the
> >> Wehrmacht
> >> dry that helped defeat Germany. The US didn't fight the Germans or
> >> Japanese alone.
> > Not even a mention of Canada.
> Looks kind of foolish when you begin by pointing out that your source has no
> idea what they are talking about then go on to quote them at great length.
> From Wikipedia;
> Canadian casualties 45,400 representing .40% of total population in 1938
> USA casualties 418,500 representing .32% of total population in 1939.
> Soviet Union (includes republics controlled after war) 23Million for 13.88%
> of their total population.
Hey, Dumbfuck? While I can't blame you for bitch slapping Bob Thompson for his ignorance, go on ahead and look up Utah Beach, you blithering dumbfuck. You know, the campaign that you claim the US did not participate in?
I LOVE IT!!!!!! Ignorant assholes fucking themselves!!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:35:09 -0400, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net>
wrote this crap:
>> The Vikings were seafaring people. Viking longboats were made from
>> wood. Repairs were made from wood.
>The Norse who settled Greenland were not Vikings.
Eric the Red was not a Viking?
> The age of Vikings was >almost past, the Norse had accepted Christianity and had been >brainwashed back to being farmers and traders. The didn't go very far >from their homes that small boats wouldn't suffice.
Really? Iceland and Greenland were not far?
>>> Your ancestors probably did, on the treeless plains of Hungary.
>> The Carpathian Mountains run through Hungary and they are covered by
>> trees.
>Uhm, if I remember my geography the Carpathian run along the southeast >edge of the larger version of Hungary which included Transylvania, now a >part of Roumania. By and large Hungary was the home of herders at least >partly nomadic following their herds and cooking with dried shit.
You surely don't know your history. The Hungarian-Austrian Empire
ruled most of Europe. The Hapsburg family ruled most of Europe for
600 years. King George was a Hapsburg when he ruled America. So you
are sitting on soil that should be part of Hungary.
When the Serbs shot and killed our beloved Archduke Ferdinand the
entire world became engaged in a world war and Hungary was on the
losing side. The Hungarian-Austrian Empire was chopped up and Romania
was created from the provinces of Moldavia Transylvania and Wallachia.
>>>> You just made my point. I'm sure in Greenland the Vikings cut down
>>>> all the trees and had to abandon the colony when they found that trees
>>>> were no longer growing there.
>>> Note that I said the forests were cut down on Iceland within a hundred
>>> years of colonization by Europeans. The entire Island was forested
>>> except for the lava flows. In Greenland, if there were trees for timber,
>>> which I doubt, they would have also been cut down in no more than a
>>> hundred years, yet the Greenland colonies lasted almost four hundred
>>> years. So a lack of trees wasn't the reason the colonies were vacated.
>> For someone who calls himself, "Vtskier," I assume you ski in Vermont.
>> I've been there and I know that trees grow in Vermont. I live in
>> Michigan and I have to go out in my garden and pull up the maple trees
>> that grow next to the weeds. Here in Michigan in an abandoned field
>> trees will grow and take over. In Greenland if there are no trees
>> growing, it must be too cold. When the Vikings were there it must
>> have been warmer.
>It was indeed warmer. Consider that many cultures can exist and prosper >without trees in their environment. Bedouins for instance on one end of >the temperature spectrum and I'm sure they burn dried camel shit too.
Bedouins have no houses and no fireplaces. You need wood for those
things. That's why they cooked with dried shit.
>Eskimos are at the other end of the temperature spectrum and do quite >well without much wood. There are no trees in their environment.
>There are still no tree in Greenland and if there were when the Norse >got there, they were gone within a hundred years yet the Norse survived >without trees for an additional 300 years. So your statement that the >Norse had to leave was a lack of trees does not follow from the evidence.
I saw the houses they built. You need trees. When they cut down the
trees and none grew back they abandoned the colony.
BTW, when I woke up this morning it was 60 degrees. 60 degrees in the
middle of August. I was actually thinking of turning on the furnace
but I didn't want to release the CO2 into the air.
On Friday, August 10, 2012 9:26:05 PM UTC-6, comadrejo wrote:
> Canada is part of the Commonwealth figures. The UK along with the
> Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, NZ, along with UK Colonies like
> India declared War on Germany/Deutschland on Sept. 3rd, 1939. Canada
> fought all over the world. From the Dieppe Raids, the Bombing campaign
> against Germany, to the sea battle around Okinawa. Many Canadians won the
> Victoria Cross.
I guess I'd forgotten that the UK still had subjects. The seem much more French than British. Oh well..oops..It doesn't make the comment that the Canadians were instrumental and the US a bistander in winning WW2 any less crazy. Without the US and Russia and Hitlers blunders (mainly to attack Russia) the allies wouldn't have won.
Anyone else here been to the Dday beaches? I suppose there will be ample to see without suggestions.
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:35:09 -0400, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net>
> wrote this crap:
>>> The Vikings were seafaring people. Viking longboats were made from
>>> wood. Repairs were made from wood.
>> The Norse who settled Greenland were not Vikings.
> Eric the Red was not a Viking?
>> The age of Vikings was
>> almost past, the Norse had accepted Christianity and had been
>> brainwashed back to being farmers and traders. The didn't go very far
>>from their homes that small boats wouldn't suffice.
> Really? Iceland and Greenland were not far?
<dopeslap> Iceland and Greenland were indeed far from Norway, yet...
the inhabitants of those far places DID NOT go far from their homes.
>>>> Your ancestors probably did, on the treeless plains of Hungary.
>>> The Carpathian Mountains run through Hungary and they are covered by
>>> trees.
>> Uhm, if I remember my geography the Carpathian run along the southeast
>> edge of the larger version of Hungary which included Transylvania, now a
>> part of Roumania. By and large Hungary was the home of herders at least
>> partly nomadic following their herds and cooking with dried shit.
> You surely don't know your history. The Hungarian-Austrian Empire
> ruled most of Europe. The Hapsburg family ruled most of Europe for
> 600 years. King George was a Hapsburg when he ruled America. So you
> are sitting on soil that should be part of Hungary.
The Hapsburgs were Catholics and would never have been allowed on the throne of England/Great Britain, so no, not so. Further, even Archduke Ferdinand wasn't a true Hapsburg since the male line of both the Austrian Hapsburgs and Spanish Hapsburgs went extinct in the 18th century. The archduke was a Hapsburg only through a female line and while called a Hapsburg, he was really of the house of Habsburg-Lothringen (Lorraine).
> When the Serbs shot and killed our beloved Archduke Ferdinand the
> entire world became engaged in a world war and Hungary was on the
> losing side. The Hungarian-Austrian Empire was chopped up and Romania
> was created from the provinces of Moldavia Transylvania and Wallachia.
No argument here, in fact I was citing the reality that part of what was traditionally Hungary is now part of Roumania. In fact what I was saying was that the open treeless part of Hungary was originally much larger than what we see now and therefore your ancestors were certainly used to the idea of cooking with dried shit.
>>>>> You just made my point. I'm sure in Greenland the Vikings cut down
>>>>> all the trees and had to abandon the colony when they found that trees
>>>>> were no longer growing there.
>>>> Note that I said the forests were cut down on Iceland within a hundred
>>>> years of colonization by Europeans. The entire Island was forested
>>>> except for the lava flows. In Greenland, if there were trees for timber,
>>>> which I doubt, they would have also been cut down in no more than a
>>>> hundred years, yet the Greenland colonies lasted almost four hundred
>>>> years. So a lack of trees wasn't the reason the colonies were vacated.
>>> For someone who calls himself, "Vtskier," I assume you ski in Vermont.
>>> I've been there and I know that trees grow in Vermont. I live in
>>> Michigan and I have to go out in my garden and pull up the maple trees
>>> that grow next to the weeds. Here in Michigan in an abandoned field
>>> trees will grow and take over. In Greenland if there are no trees
>>> growing, it must be too cold. When the Vikings were there it must
>>> have been warmer.
>> It was indeed warmer. Consider that many cultures can exist and prosper
>> without trees in their environment. Bedouins for instance on one end of
>> the temperature spectrum and I'm sure they burn dried camel shit too.
By the way, temperature is not the only criterion for tree growth. Both Michigan and Vermont have adequate rainfall as well as proper temperatures. Arabia and North Africa have the temperature, but not the rainfall, ergo, no trees except where groundwater is available.
> Bedouins have no houses and no fireplaces. You need wood for those
> things. That's why they cooked with dried shit.
Ah, so you admit that people of a certain culture can cook with dried shit? Especially those who are at least semi-nomadic and follow their herds. Not unlike your ancestors.
>> Eskimos are at the other end of the temperature spectrum and do quite
>> well without much wood. There are no trees in their environment.
You didn't get this one either. Eskimos, who have no wood, use animal oil/fat to cook the flesh of that same animal.
>> There are still no tree in Greenland and if there were when the Norse
>> got there, they were gone within a hundred years yet the Norse survived
>> without trees for an additional 300 years. So your statement that the
>> Norse had to leave was a lack of trees does not follow from the evidence.
> I saw the houses they built. You need trees. When they cut down the
> trees and none grew back they abandoned the colony.
You need trees for rafters, these can be imported or scavenged from the beach. There are still several countries in northern Europe where all of the trees have been cut (at least most of them and there is currently a concerted effort to replace the forests) and the inhabitants have not abandoned their land.
Are there still people in Ireland for instance? There are not enough trees to supply fuel for cooking and heating in Ireland and there hasn't been for at least a thousand years. Yet the people are still there, happily burning peat. Peat is still used in Scotland but trees are returning there enough so that there is now a lumber industry. Peat in Scotland is what makes your Scotch taste so good.
Denmark is another place where peat has historically been used extensively for fuel.
Lack of trees is not a good reason to abandon your home. The Greenlanders did not abandon their homes for this reason. They did, however, abandon their homes because of climate change.
> BTW, when I woke up this morning it was 60 degrees. 60 degrees in the
> middle of August. I was actually thinking of turning on the furnace
> but I didn't want to release the CO2 into the air.
Frequently when I get up in the summer it's 50 degrees or less. I also don't turn the heat on. I relish the cold, consider it's a harbinger of winter so that I can once again go (ob)skiing. I also know that it may well be 80 degrees by noon, so turning the heat on would be simply a great big waste.
> Global warming is a stupid myth.
No, it's not. Global warming was responsible for the period of time referred to as the Medieval Maximum when the Norse colonized Greenland. Global cooling resulted in the Little Ice Age when the canals in Holland froze in winter. We are back to global warming. Some of the climate models suggest that it might actually be a cooling time instead except for the man-made pollution. It might also be a warming time completely independent of anything humans are doing. The scientific consensus, however, is that human emissions have a large role in the present cycle of warming.
If you would like a glimpse of what runaway warming might look like, get yourself a copy of _Under a Green Sky_ by Peter D. Ward, PhD. This speaks about a time called Permian Extinction, which was far greater in impact than the period when the dinosaurs went extinct and, because it was probably caused by runaway global warming, it has implications for today.
Well, end of the history and science lesson for today. Everything I've written here can be confirmed with just a small bit of research (on the web if you like). Of course, if your mind is made up, I'll try not to confuse you with facts in the future.
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:43:01 -0700, comadrejo <comadrejoa...@mac.com>
> wrote this crap:
> now.
>>> I think if it wasn't for Albert Einstein we would be speaking a
>>> different language.
>> Einstein had little to nothing to do with the making of the Atomic
> I guess he never came up with E=mc2 ? Somehow the History Channel
> made a mistake.
Of course he did. However, that in itself has little to do with the atomic bomb except to predict how much mass (m) you need to yield a certain amount of energy (E). And that's all, it not a recipe to build a bomb.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 6:31:58 AM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 9:26:05 PM UTC-6, comadrejo wrote:
> > Canada is part of the Commonwealth figures. The UK along with the
> > Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, NZ, along with UK Colonies like
> > India declared War on Germany/Deutschland on Sept. 3rd, 1939. Canada
> > fought all over the world. From the Dieppe Raids, the Bombing campaign
> > against Germany, to the sea battle around Okinawa. Many Canadians won the
> > Victoria Cross.
> I guess I'd forgotten that the UK still had subjects. The seem much more French than British. Oh well..oops..It doesn't make the comment that the Canadians were instrumental and the US a bistander in winning WW2 any less crazy. Without the US and Russia and Hitlers blunders (mainly to attack Russia) the allies wouldn't have won.
Brain Fried Bob Thompson gets busted being an ignorant, stupid, uneducated liar and this is the best he can do? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. One thing for sure. I have not and never will forget that this dickless freak is a pathological liar.
Horvath threatens to shoot me and Richard Walsh engages in discussion. Of course, this pathetic stalking piece of shit coward encourages people who want to shoot me, up to and including posting my home address to help them out.
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:35:09 -0400, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>>> The Vikings were seafaring people. Viking longboats were made from
>>>> wood. Repairs were made from wood.
>>>
>>> The Norse who settled Greenland were not Vikings.
>>
>> Eric the Red was not a Viking?
Of course he was. However, the PEOPLE he brought to be colonists were not. They were ordinary farmers and fit the profile I wrote about earlier.
>>
>>> The age of Vikings was
>>> almost past, the Norse had accepted Christianity and had been
>>> brainwashed back to being farmers and traders. The didn't go very far
>>> from their homes that small boats wouldn't suffice.
>>
>> Really? Iceland and Greenland were not far?
>
> <dopeslap> Iceland and Greenland were indeed far from Norway, yet...
> the inhabitants of those far places DID NOT go far from their homes.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:59:01 -0400, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net>
wrote this crap:
>> Really? Iceland and Greenland were not far?
><dopeslap> Iceland and Greenland were indeed far from Norway, yet...
>the inhabitants of those far places DID NOT go far from their homes.
Then how did they get there?
>> I saw the houses they built. You need trees. When they cut down the
>> trees and none grew back they abandoned the colony.
>You need trees for rafters, these can be imported or scavenged from the >beach.
If there's no trees growing and the nearest trees are hundreds of
miles across the ocean how do you think they are going to wash up on
the beach? And you said they were not seafaring, so how could they
import them? Your logic is flawed.
>Are there still people in Ireland for instance? There are not enough >trees to supply fuel for cooking and heating in Ireland and there hasn't >been for at least a thousand years. Yet the people are still there, >happily burning peat. Peat is still used in Scotland but trees are >returning there enough so that there is now a lumber industry. Peat in >Scotland is what makes your Scotch taste so good.
There is no peat in Greenland.
>Lack of trees is not a good reason to abandon your home. The >Greenlanders did not abandon their homes for this reason. They did, >however, abandon their homes because of climate change.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that it was warmer in Greenland
when they were there. You are trying to tell me that they had climate
change when it got colder. Now you're trying to tell me climate
change is making it warmer? Your logic makes no sense.
>> BTW, when I woke up this morning it was 60 degrees. 60 degrees in the
>> middle of August. I was actually thinking of turning on the furnace
>> but I didn't want to release the CO2 into the air.
>Frequently when I get up in the summer it's 50 degrees or less.
In August? When I was at Camp Ethan Allen in August it was in the
90s. However, when I was in Fort Lewis outside Seattle it once got
into the 20s in August. But Seattle is not Burlington.
Global warming is a stupid myth.
I've just experienced the coldest July in Michigan's history, and the
coldest August. Yet the media is telling me it's been the warmest.
There's an ancient Chinese proverb that I once made up. It goes a
little something like this, "Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's
raining."
>>> I saw the houses they built. You need trees. When they cut down the
>>> trees and none grew back they abandoned the colony.
>> You need trees for rafters, these can be imported or scavenged from the
>> beach.
> If there's no trees growing and the nearest trees are hundreds of
> miles across the ocean how do you think they are going to wash up on
> the beach? And you said they were not seafaring, so how could they
> import them? Your logic is flawed.
See above.
>> Are there still people in Ireland for instance? There are not enough
>> trees to supply fuel for cooking and heating in Ireland and there hasn't
>> been for at least a thousand years. Yet the people are still there,
>> happily burning peat. Peat is still used in Scotland but trees are
>> returning there enough so that there is now a lumber industry. Peat in
>> Scotland is what makes your Scotch taste so good.
> There is no peat in Greenland.
Yeah there is. It's even used to document climate change today.
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPat...BIOSPHERE|AQUATIC+ECOSYSTEMS|WETLANDS|PEATLANDS&OrigMetadataNode=CANADA-CGD I&EntryId=Canada_GSC_BasalPeatRadiocarbon&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0& lbnode=mdlb2
>> Lack of trees is not a good reason to abandon your home. The
>> Greenlanders did not abandon their homes for this reason. They did,
>> however, abandon their homes because of climate change.
> The whole point I'm trying to make is that it was warmer in Greenland
> when they were there. You are trying to tell me that they had climate
> change when it got colder. Now you're trying to tell me climate
> change is making it warmer? Your logic makes no sense.
Climate CHANGE works both ways. Sometimes it get warmer, sometimes it gets colder. Certainly Greenland was warmer when the Norse were there. Nobody doubts this. The Point you seemed to be making was that there were trees in Greenland when the Norse were there and the removal of these trees by the Norse or by climate change (getting colder) was the reason the Norse left. It just ain't so. Climate change, yes. Getting colder, yes. No trees, never were. Not the reason.
>>> BTW, when I woke up this morning it was 60 degrees. 60 degrees in the
>>> middle of August. I was actually thinking of turning on the furnace
>>> but I didn't want to release the CO2 into the air.
>> Frequently when I get up in the summer it's 50 degrees or less.
> In August? When I was at Camp Ethan Allen in August it was in the
> 90s. However, when I was in Fort Lewis outside Seattle it once got
> into the 20s in August. But Seattle is not Burlington.
Sure in the 90's DURING THE DAY in VT in August, but always possible to get into the 40's or even 30's at night.
Someone asked me if I'd lived in Vermont all my life. I answered, "Not yet." However, it's been a long time and I've experienced snow, at least in the air at one time or another in every month of the year.
> Global warming is a stupid myth.
No it's not and when you snip something please have the courtesy to say that you've done so.
> I've just experienced the coldest July in Michigan's history, and the
> coldest August. Yet the media is telling me it's been the warmest.
I'll believe the records, not anecdotal stories.
> There's an ancient Chinese proverb that I once made up. It goes a
> little something like this, "Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's
> raining."
Nobody's pissing on your boots. It's really raining.
Wishful-hope rumor floating around (from a friend of a friend ^n of
Dave McCoy's grandson) that Dave himself will take some money out of
the bank and sub-lease June Mt, perhaps as soon as this season. So
those with the bumper stickers reading "What would Dave do?" may be
about to find out.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 8:04:52 AM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
> I've been to France. You won't like it. Besides, a beach is a beach.
> Unless there's skinny girls playing volleyball there's nothing new.
I've been to France too. Even took a train one day out to Cherbourg, just looked around a bit and back to Paris.
A beach IS a beach. I love the beach. But Omaha etc. will hold something special for me to see and remember. And for my wife who's family was direct victims of occupation. Their liberation days are quite the big celebrations in those countries. And to be there on the anniversary of Dday will be special to me. If you think about it, it would be for you too.
> On 2012-08-12 00:50:47 +0000, Richard Henry said:
> > Wishful-hope rumor floating around (from a friend of a friend ^n of
> > Dave McCoy's grandson) that Dave himself will take some money out of
> > the bank and sub-lease June Mt, perhaps as soon as this season. So
> > those with the bumper stickers reading "What would Dave do?" may be
> > about to find out.
> Beware that small towns tend to get these type of rumors, with no rhyme
> or reason.
> MMSA is not going charge a miminal price to sub lease or help with
> the permit process. They are going to demand $14 million or more
> dollars to let anyone operate June Mountain. It isn't leasing the
> mountain but the equipment, facilities, payment of insurance premiums,
> payment to workers' health insurance/HMO provider, etc. etc. They
> have to do this with the high risk that the first year of operation
> they could lose around tenth or so of their investments, (a million
> dollar loss on $14 million or more on their investment)
> There isn't going to be a white knight on shining armour to swoop
> down to save June Mountain. Any serious prospective owner is going to
> do some radical changes to June Mountain to make it profitable, number
> one to keep overhead down and raise season passes and lift ticket
> prices. It won't be pretty. A serious buyer probably has a background
> in commercial real estate.
The June Mt manager said at one oof the meetings that the book value
of the MMSA property on June Mt was about $14 million. A 5% ROI on
that would be $700K, with the added benefit to MMSA that they would
not be carrying any losses forward to next year, so I think they
could get it for a lot less. I also think the Forest service and Mono
County would be very helpful in any permit or licensing issues.
Dave McCoy has enough money in the bank that he could treat the whole
thing as his hobby, but I'm not holding my breath waiting on this one.
