"Capt.American" wrote...
Tell me about the boat and crew you
knew like the back of your hand in 4 mo.

Shucks, any boat I've raced... takes only a couple of afternoons.



Perhaps a sunfish. But I doubt it. I've sailed several boat for
years and never did feel that I could not learn more.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "know like the back of your
hand." Usually after an hour or so I feel that I can sail the boat at
least 90% as well as anybody. Of course that hour is work (but is also
fun). For example, last time I went out for "practice" with a local PHRF
racer they had the idea that just sailing up and down the river,
occasionally with the spinnaker up, was "practice." I said, let's do
this for real. We worked out way upwind, with eyes rigorously on compass
& water & wind, working out the best ways to tack and then throwing some
quick tacks at the crew. Then we did about eight or ten spinnaker
hoists, working on the fastest ways to get it set & pulling. It turned
out we didn't have time to work on douses (which IMHO is actually more
important in most races). When we got back, the owner thanked me
sincerely and the rest of the crew said they felt whipped.


.... Always a way to
get just a little more out of her.

If you're a rock star sailmaker with a million bucks, yeah you can
squeeze 0.001 knot more out of anything. But most of the time people
cannot apply the basics consistently, that is where the gains are made
and that is one thing I am good at (not to brag, it's the classic
engineer's methodical approach that pays off... drives most people up
the wall).

However, to know absolutely every nuance of how the boat sails under
every possible condition takes more time, as well as knowing all the
wiring and all the plumbing and every inch of the structure etc etc.

I should warn you that Elmo Zumwalt Junior died of cancer due to his
exposure to Agent Orange, which his father ordered sprayed all over the
PBR operating zones.


Hind site is always 20/20. Im sure Elmo Sr was dupped by the dupont
clan as others were at the time.

Well, he had a bit to say about the politics of running that war, in
fact that's how he ended up as CNO. He was a candidate, and invited to a
meeting with several other really top brass, and they discussed how the
Navy could contribute to winning the war. He came away shocked at the
lack of strategic insight at the top. But he took the job.

As for Agent Orange, he explained that quite clearly... the VC, NLF, and
NVA used the rivers for shipping weapons; the Navy had a way to stop
them. But it was costly because the rivers with dense jungle canopy were
perfect spots for ambush. Take away the lush jungle greenery, presto no
more ambushes. He said that even knowing what it cost him personally, he
would do the same thing again in the same circumstances. It is rather
cold logic.





It sure would be nice to have the chance to elect a President that
was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Agreed, but I don't see it happening in the near future. Getting into
politics is a big money game. Clinton was the poorest President since
Truman. Swarzenegger rose from pretty humble beginnings. John Edwards
did too but got where he is as an ambulance chasing malpractice
attorney. He has a lot of powerful enemies and will be a major barrier
to a successful administration if he stays involved, although he sure
seems to be a champion vote-getter & rabble-rouser.




... Thats what worries me. If he become president and we
have to continue a fierce fight against terrorist and terrorist
supporting states will he be able to hang in there to the bitter end.
Regardless of the cost. We have all seen what low down dirty sticking
MF terrorist are and there willingness to kill and we must have a
leader that is willing to kill them before they kill us. Vietnam had
some ruthless **** going on but it is nothing on the scale of
ruthlessness that ossama is willing to sink to. We need to stomp and
stomp hard. No more sucker punches needed for me to get the message,
**** I got the message when the USS Cole was attacked. I hate to say
it but I think this war has just begun.

Where have you been? This war has been going on since the 1970s if not
the 1940s. And the current administration is doing some stomping, but
not in a constructive way. I agree that proven enemies should be taken
out ASAP, but the facts are that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are
supporting more terrorist organizations that Afghanistan (a very very
poor country) and Iraq. They are targets of convenience, a chance for
the military-industrial complex to make lots of money.

If you want to end the war on terrorism, we need to do two things... 1-
get back on track for a realistic peace between Israel and the
Palestinians and 2- root out the money trail and go after the deep
pockets, whoever they are. Bush & Cheney Inc is messing up on both
fronts, big time. By backing Israel to the hilt, no matter what, we
become bigger targets for increasing numbers of fanatics; and by
allowing the friends of rich & powerful oil businessmen to support
terrorist groups, we are financing our worst enemies through our energy
dependency and sending the message that we do not have either the brains
nor the willpower to find & kill them.

Killing the wrong people, such as 10,000+ Iraqi civilians (every one a
potential ally), will only make the situation worse.

The USS Cole was bad enough, but look up the USS Stark and the USS
Vincennes incidents.


Do you think Kerry will stick it out, or will he side with the Bagdad
Janes of the world and walk down that path he walked before?.

I think that almost anybody, with the possible exception of Jerry
Falwell, would make a better President than George Bush Jr. I did not
think much of his father, but Bush Sr was twice the President and five
times the man his son is. Kerry would not be my first choice but he
can't help but be an imporvement. The question is, given Bush & Cheney's
massive advertising budget, can they fool (or just distract) enough of
the people who will actually go out & vote?

Regards
Doug King