On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:51:35 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
emptied ballast

Sir Eric may well have said/written that, however, given that Hiscock
was writing in an earlier time ("Wandering Under Sail" -1939) and who
died in 1986 I suggest that he was not writing about a rubber dinghy
which is a far different design from the small rowing boat that was
likely what Hiscock had experience with.

Poppycock! Sir Eric knew more about sailing than you can ever hope to. He
was talking about rowing dinghies and not so abortion of an inflatable which
he could not and would not abide for all the obvious reasons. You must think
I have a rubber duck. I do not. My dinghy is constructed of GRP and is six
feel long. Six-foot oars is the max length for my dinghy as they will lay
inside just like Sir Eric recommends. You are the clown the attempted to say
it was nonsense to suggest oars should fit in the length of the dinghy. So,
stop trying to obfuscate, man up, admit your mistake and apologize for your
ignorant abusive tone.

Are you sure that you know what you are talking about?
For a very quick example, you refer to "Sir Eric Hiscock". He was
never knighted and never used that title.

did you really read the book? Of just see it in the window when
passing the store?

It is nonsense to suggest that oars short enough to fit inside the
boat is a major criterion for oar design. and arguing is simply
attempting to justify yet another stupid statements.

Now go and ask anyone who rows a boat on a daily basis. They will
simply laugh at you and row away as you have just exposed yourself as
yet another Sunday Sailor who (in spite of having read Hiscock) still
knows nothing of boats.

Should I care about the opinion of some wannabe over that of a notable
expert like Sir Eric?

Wilbur Hubbard


Cheers,

Bruce