On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:50:25 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/23/14 1:35 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:16:36 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:15:50 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/24/14 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:05:00 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/23/14 10:44 AM, Tim wrote:
Very nice boats. Way pricy but very very nice boats!



Scout has always made some interesting fishing boats, but the idea of a
boat that size and weight with four 300+ gasoline outboards on it can
only make the oil companies smile.

That is why they make the 7 Marine ;-)
Two of them would make this a pretty fast boat.
Three would make it really fast.

Like Tim says, if money is an issue, you would not be buying this.



Well, i think the decision regarding the fuel burn should involved more
than "can I afford the gasoline."

Most of the people who buy boats like this, do not have the time to
actually use them much so I don't see the issue.

I bet they burned far more fuel in their Gulf Stream, just getting to
the boat.

===

Absolutely right. If you want to start limiting conspicuous
consumption of fossil fuels, start with the private jets. Boats are
almost efficient by comparison.

I wonder how much energy we could save by shutting down the internet
in Maryland?



I did not state or imply there should be limitations on consumption of
fossil fuels. I said the decision should involve more than "can I afford
the gasoline." As for what private planes consume, well, that's probably
a good issue for a private plane newsgroup.

Your snarky remark ignored, Wayne.


....but you still read it ass****.