A tsunami can be a ****ing INCH. So what? frootie was warning about
a DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI, Tom. Big difference there. Pay more attention
to what's being said here, then maybe you'll make more sense! Your
reply is no more than a big pile of ****, and always remember: You
don't run Usenet!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:46:16 GMT, (Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , Saul Levy wrote:
You have to be kidding, frootie! An 8-16 INCH tsunami? That's known
as a WAVE FOOL! It is not destructive. Show me some proof of any
destruction.

You keep responding to the loons and it seems you're becoming one
yourself.

It's not a "WAVE FOOL", whatever that is. A tsunami doesn't have to be
destructive to be a tsunami. The recent EQ in the pacific generated a
tsunami. A small one I'll admit, but it was a tsunami.

If you feel it's necessary to respond to the nutcases on this newsgroup,
please make sure you have your own facts right first.