On Feb 1, 8:31?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 1, 3:51?am, wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:49 pm, "Chuck Gould" wrote:

The Fathom 40 is a pilothouse style vessel, with traditonal workboat
proportions but somewhat modernized lines.
Very clever - now a guerilla marketing campaign. Pimping to posts he
doesn't like.

You know, you have to wonder how much money is being made here. How
much
is Mr. Gould being paid per post pimping these overpriced, useless
boats?

It's not like it hasn't been done before you know - it's called spam.

Your pathetic attempts to drag me into a flame war are noted. Glad to
see you are concerned about the content of the group. The initial post
at the beginning of this thread succinctly illustrates your level of
commitment to a purely intellectual group where a comment about a
newly available *boat* (heaven forbid!) is entirely inappropriate. Why
would I assume that anybody in a boating newsgroup would care if a new
boat line is available? What an error. Apparently, by the standards
evident in this thread, a personal attack message would be far more
appropriate content here. Sorry to have strayed so far from the flock.

Chuck,
I agree with you, even if the boat is butt ugly, poorly constructed, and
is way over priced, it still encourages a boating discussion about other
trawlers.

I have to assume you're referring to a hyptothetical boat, rather than
the Fathom 40. Ugly is entirely subjective, and we don't know anything
definitive yet about the quality of construction or pricing.




I thought your post about the "snake oil" was a great thread, even if I
found you naive in believing that it would possible work.- Hide quoted text -

A couple of recent developments on that front (without reopening the
thread).
The manufacturer of the specific device I mentioned contacted the
local dealer and said, "By the way, if that Gould character puts
anything about this in a magazine, make sure he doesn't even begin to
imply that we believe our specific device kills microbial growth.
Other companies make that claim, but we don't believe that it's true."
I'm going to delete that paragraph, as it could be read as something
this specific mfgr does believe since I didn't menition any
competitors by name.

The local dealer says he has now spoken to enough current users of the
product that he is convinced it will probably reduce smoking, at a
minimum. He runs a boatyard, and he says he is on a mission to get
this product in the hands of "some of the meanest, toughest, hard
nosed boaters I know with smoking engines", on a money back guarantee
basis, and see if it reduces smoking in any, many, most, or all cases.
His real world test will be testing the effectiveness of the concept
itself, as there is no "additive" asociated with this specific product
to alter the chemistry of the fuel.

The bumblebee. You probably know that it's "aerodynamically
impossible" for a bumblebee to fly, yet we see them flying all the
time. :-)