Steve Cramer wrote in
:

OK, I think this is getting perilously close to one of those
Angels-dance-pinhead* things, but what the hell, dinner isn't ready
yet...

Okay, last post on the matter from me.


John Fereira wrote:
Steve Cramer wrote in
:

John Fereira wrote:
wrote in news:1152736173.691216.253060@
75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

novice wrote:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3366/00009069xl.jpg
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/865/00009032yh.jpg
What is that, 8 feet or so? I figured you would have one of those
tiny ww boats.
In the context of whitewater boats, 8' is very long. If you look at
the first photo it the label on the hull reads "Pursuit 10" so it's
likely 10' long. In any case, this is rec.boats.paddle, not
rec.boats.paddle.only.boats.longer.than.16feet.all owed John, did
you have any particular motivation for that last comment?

It was in response to this statement.

I figured you would have one of those tiny ww boats.

Putting the emphasis on "you" rather than "figured" makes it sound to
me that he was disparaging novice (whose choice of handle almost
invites elitism) for his choice of kayak, and "tiny ww boats" could
have been written without the "tiny" qualifier.

And who placed that emphasis?

I did. When I write something on Usenet I'll often put *'s around a word I
want to emphasis to assist the readers in determining my meaning. It could
of helped here.

And when has anyone in r.b.p been
disparaged for paddling a WW boat of any size? Sorry, you couldn't
insult by saying I paddle a WW boat no matter how long it was.

If he would have written:

"I figured that it was a www boat", I wouldn't have responed. In any
case, novice seemed have read the same thing I did in the response
given his reaction.

www boat? I guess that's an occupational hazard for a network honcho
like you

Or it could be the beer I was drinking (Duvel).


Alas, it appears that it was basically a case of unclear phrasing
rather than an intential disparaging. I apologize to galt.


'Cause...galt didn't say anything about 8' WW boats, he was giving an
eyeball estimate of a boat in a picture.

Actually, he did. The "8 feet or so" question combined with "tiny ww
boats" implies that 8' is short in the context of ww boats.

It does nothing of the kind. It can as easily be interpreted to mean
"I'm surprised you have a boat as long as 8'. Given your sunject line,
I was expecting something much shorter, like one of those tiny WW
boats."

I guess we can agree then, that he post as written was open to
interpretation. I interpreted based on the context of some novices previous
posts and some of the responses (looking for a racing boat, ended up with a
10' long boat).


And his reaction was very
reasonable, I thought. You can't always go by the number on the side
of boats. Ever seen a QCC 700?

Yes, but I'm not sure how long it is. I know of quite a few touring
boats with 16, 17, or 18 in the model name but are often a few inches
shorter. I don't know of any that are two feet shorter.

What!? You, maintainer of a database of every kayak know to Man
(Person?),

To be fair, I haven't updated that datebase in several years. I have used
it as a reference application to play with some new technologies that I
might use for my real work, but my real work (and my 3 year old) have taken
priority.

demo paddler of hundreds of boats,

I haven't updated my list in a long time but I think it's more like 130
boats.

and you don't know the
specs of all those boats by heart? I'm shocked. Shocked!

We'll, no, but I could probably identify a QCC boat sitting on a roofrack
from a block away.

Anyhow, my point was that a QCC 700 is not 700 anything long, the 700
is a model number.

I see your point. The 500X is actually 2 inches longer than the 600X (okay,
I cheated and looked at the web site).