I asked:

Funny, you don't direct him to Pasco's site where he praises the Sea Ray
build
quality. Why is that, exactly?

Larry replied:

A picture is worth a thousand boat magazine ads......

No, no, no. I'm not suggesting that you should direct people to boating
magazine ads.

Allow me to restate:

Every time Sea Ray is mentioned in the NG, you trot out that link to one of
David Pasco's sites. It shows serious delamination on an old Sea Ray, with a
bunch of mismatched mystery goop behind the glass that is visually apparent to
differ from the original build material. As in this case, you say, "See what
you're buying! Look how Sea Ray is made!" You rely on David Pasco as an
authority to support your opinion.

So, my question is, why do you never direct people to the portion of the same
Pasco site where he discusses Sea Ray in depth (might even be the same model
the last guy asked about), and where he concludes that Sea Ray, although it has
a few faults, remains one of the best built boats you can buy?

Is it fair to use somebody as an authority to support your opinion if you're
going to
take one small item and blow it out of context and proportion while ignoring
that same person's extensive discussion of the actual boat in question?

Are you saying that Pasco's comments specific to Sea Ray are a "boating
magazine ad"?

And one final question, tongue in cheek.
You say:


A picture is worth a thousand boat magazine ads......

Hmmm. What if the boating magazine ad includes a picture? :-)