N S Sherlock,
Well put! I enjoy Chuck's boat reviews. Yes they lack a lot of critical
content. Chuck's articles as well as most magazine writers go easy on
the manufacturers, the magazines need the advertisement revenue. You
can't blame the writers because other wise they wouldn't get published.
Most of these reviews are just an introduction to the boat, a tour so to
speak. I myself enjoy and understand this. I take it for what it's
worth. It's one reason why I subscribe to PowerBoat Reports. It's a bit
more expensive that the other boating magazines I subscribe to but they
don't hold back any punches. But then again, they're is just another
opinion.
Paul


N S Sherlock wrote:
Karen,

I agree that the article was a fluff PR piece for the boat, that is actually
an ad for the boat, but I do not agree that this article should not be
posted in rec.boats or would ever be considered SPAM. The OT political
arguments have taken over rec.boats and any kind of actual boating post is
desperately needed. If you check out the subscription rate for boating
magazines you will see that many many recreational boaters find these
articles enjoyable. I do not believe this articles or Chuck's other Boat
"reviews" would ever be considered SPAM. SPAM is " Unsolicited "junk"
e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services.
Also refers to inappropriate promotional or commercial postings to
discussion groups or bulletin boards."

I sincerely doubt anyone who is in the market for $2.2 million yacht is
looking in rec.boats for a boat to buy, and I sincerely doubt if the builder
requested Chuck post this article in rec.boats. Chuck is being paid to
write the article for publication in a magazine, not for making the post in
rec.boats. Since neither Chuck or the builder are profiting from the post
it would not be considered SPAM.

I believe Chuck posted this article, in the exact same vein he made the post
concerning gas pollution. It was a very legitimate attempt to get the NG
back on topic.