"Maxprop" wrote in message

But you could store more liquor and Belgian
beer in the aft lazarette if she had a classic stern. :-)

Hows 5 people for 3 weeks, $3200 of booze, $300 food and all the equipment
to Hunt, Fish and Scuba Dive. Capacity is not an issue with this vessel.....
I've had 22 people aboard.

Here's the webshots address

http://tinylink.com/?VdalUo6mgN

CM

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:9KdSd.7518$9a3.767@edtnps91...
Here's the webshots address

http://tinylink.com/?VdalUo6mgN


One must wonder why, on a modern GRP vessel, anyone could abide such an
ugly and dysfunctional bowsprit.

http://image04.webshots.com/4/4/49/8...0zQfKZy_ph.jpg

Modern boats should be designed to eliminate this anachronistic appendage.

It has no advantage other than increase the LOA of the vessel making a small
vessel seem larger in the advertising brochures.

CN

"Donal" wrote in message

You all have an inflated view of your knowledge. Most of you seem to think
that it is acceptable to take a guess. I'd like to give you a wake-up
call.
If you are not 100% certain, then you should admit that you don't know.
Your confidence is somebody's bereavement.

I really didn't care to get into this discussion, but it's obvious you have
absolutely no concept of how medicine is practiced. 100% certainty is
exceedingly rare in medicine, as in virtually anything where the human body
and mind are concerned.

Example: A patient comes to me with a painful, red eye. I can generally
determine from signs and symptoms whether it is an infection, or from some
other cause. Say, for example, that it's an infection. Once again via
signs and symptoms I can usually determine if the causative organism is
viral, bacterial, or parasitic. If viral, I'll prescribe an antibiotic
prophylactically (viruses tear up tissue like a rototiller through a garden)
and advise palliative measures. If a bacterial or parasitic infection, I
may culture it, if it is severely acute, and prescribe a broad-spectrum
antibiotic. If subacute, I'll simply prescribe an appropriate antibiotic
regimen and have the patient return in a day or so. The reason is
simple--if one waits until the results from a culture and sensitivity return
from the lab, one of three possible outcomes will have occurred: 1) the eye
will have gotten worse, 2) the infection will be unchanged, and 3) the eye
will have gotten better on its own. The first two are unacceptable, so an
antibiotic is prescribed as a matter of routine. And 95% of the time, the
antibiotic will clear up the infection. I can't recall the last time I had
a patient return with an infection that failed to respond to what I
prescribed. Yes, it has happened, but rarely. The point is, most medicine
is practiced in a similar manner, i.e.--without knowing 100% of the facts.
But that professional knowledge you seem to have no respect for actually
allows us to make a very educated guess, and far more often than not, it is
the correct one.

Another example: A patient presents with abdominal pain. The differential
diagnosis points to, say, two possibilities: a simple irritation to the
bowel from some unknown causative agent (toxin, hypersensitivity to
something ingested, etc.) or perhaps, say, an infectious agent of some sort,
like an enteric virus. So the doctor prescribes something to make the
patient feel better along with something to neutralize the irritant or kill
the infective agent. 90% or better of patient will be treated successfully
by this method. But say, for the sake of discussion, that the patient has a
bowel obstruction, a potentially fatal condition, and that the physician
missed the diagnosis. When 8 hours or less pass and the patient is still
suffering, he will call the doctor who will then order further testing, such
as lower-GI X-rays and/or and of a number of scans, bloodwork, and further
physical examination. So why, you'll no doubt ask, did he NOT order them in
the first place? Because of cost, plain and simple. To order such tests on
every patient that walks through the door with a belly ache would bankrupt
the third party carriers overnight, or at least end medical insurance
coverage as we know it. Such tests aren't generally needed by competent
clinicians with good differential diagnostic skills for routine belly aches.
And in most cases the patient won't expire before the necessary tests are
done. Occasionally doctors misread the symptoms and signs and miss the keys
that might have saved a patient's life. That is medicine in a nutshell--it
isn't perfect. As I said before, it's an inexact art. A physician's
confidence in his knowledge is his #1 tool in the diagnosis and management
of illness. Many tout technology as the savior of the human race, w/r/t
medicine, but without doctors with good diagnostic skills, technology is
useless.

Another aspect to this is that if tort reform or some sort judicial review
of medical malpractice cases does not become reality, the day might arrive
when a physician must order up every possible test for every sniffle and
belly ache that comes through his door in order to keep his ass out of
court. In that event, health care will reach astronomical cost points,
possibly hundreds of times what it costs today. And it will NOT be any more
effective in saving lives than it is now, only more expensive.

It's really your choice. Do you want reasonable health care costs, or do
you want 100% assurance that nothing is ever missed? You can't have both.

Do you have 100% assurance that every time you board an airliner you will
reach your destination alive? Do you have 100% assurance that your next
trip to the park with the kiddies won't result in a random, drive-by
shooting, killing your or your child? Do you have 100% assurance that when
you buy a bottle of Tylenol that one of the capsules won't be filled with
cyanide? Of course you don't. But the odds are overwhelmingly in your
favor for a favorable outcome. The same is true with medicine, despite what
the yellow journalistic anti-medicine press and websites wrongly profess.

Max

"JG" wrote in message

Why would I do that? Why do you care whether or not I have a PhD or
highschool diploma. You're the one who claimed to be an eye doc. So far,
you haven't offered any proof.

I've truthfully offered up my credentials.

You must be ashamed of yours as you won't do likewise.

Max

Bwahahahaaa.... truthfully? Bwaaahahahahahaaa

Like I said, you've offered nothing in the way of proof. But, you're really
good at putting others down.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JG" wrote in message

Why would I do that? Why do you care whether or not I have a PhD or
highschool diploma. You're the one who claimed to be an eye doc. So far,
you haven't offered any proof.

I've truthfully offered up my credentials.

You must be ashamed of yours as you won't do likewise.

Max

Jeesus... I'm really, really glad I'm not one of your patients. I understand
how someone might not be able to keep up with all the literature about this
or that medication or procedure, but to be so totally lacking in
understanding of the real costs and problems of the healthcare profession by
someone who claims to be a physician is truly beyond belief.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Donal" wrote in message

You all have an inflated view of your knowledge. Most of you seem to
think
that it is acceptable to take a guess. I'd like to give you a wake-up
call.
If you are not 100% certain, then you should admit that you don't know.
Your confidence is somebody's bereavement.

I really didn't care to get into this discussion, but it's obvious you
have absolutely no concept of how medicine is practiced. 100% certainty
is exceedingly rare in medicine, as in virtually anything where the human
body and mind are concerned.

Example: A patient comes to me with a painful, red eye. I can generally
determine from signs and symptoms whether it is an infection, or from some
other cause. Say, for example, that it's an infection. Once again via
signs and symptoms I can usually determine if the causative organism is
viral, bacterial, or parasitic. If viral, I'll prescribe an antibiotic
prophylactically (viruses tear up tissue like a rototiller through a
garden) and advise palliative measures. If a bacterial or parasitic
infection, I may culture it, if it is severely acute, and prescribe a
broad-spectrum antibiotic. If subacute, I'll simply prescribe an
appropriate antibiotic regimen and have the patient return in a day or so.
The reason is simple--if one waits until the results from a culture and
sensitivity return from the lab, one of three possible outcomes will have
occurred: 1) the eye will have gotten worse, 2) the infection will be
unchanged, and 3) the eye will have gotten better on its own. The first
two are unacceptable, so an antibiotic is prescribed as a matter of
routine. And 95% of the time, the antibiotic will clear up the infection.
I can't recall the last time I had a patient return with an infection that
failed to respond to what I prescribed. Yes, it has happened, but rarely.
The point is, most medicine is practiced in a similar manner,
i.e.--without knowing 100% of the facts. But that professional knowledge
you seem to have no respect for actually allows us to make a very educated
guess, and far more often than not, it is the correct one.

Another example: A patient presents with abdominal pain. The
differential diagnosis points to, say, two possibilities: a simple
irritation to the bowel from some unknown causative agent (toxin,
hypersensitivity to something ingested, etc.) or perhaps, say, an
infectious agent of some sort, like an enteric virus. So the doctor
prescribes something to make the patient feel better along with something
to neutralize the irritant or kill the infective agent. 90% or better of
patient will be treated successfully by this method. But say, for the
sake of discussion, that the patient has a bowel obstruction, a
potentially fatal condition, and that the physician missed the diagnosis.
When 8 hours or less pass and the patient is still suffering, he will call
the doctor who will then order further testing, such as lower-GI X-rays
and/or and of a number of scans, bloodwork, and further physical
examination. So why, you'll no doubt ask, did he NOT order them in the
first place? Because of cost, plain and simple. To order such tests on
every patient that walks through the door with a belly ache would bankrupt
the third party carriers overnight, or at least end medical insurance
coverage as we know it. Such tests aren't generally needed by competent
clinicians with good differential diagnostic skills for routine belly
aches. And in most cases the patient won't expire before the necessary
tests are done. Occasionally doctors misread the symptoms and signs and
miss the keys that might have saved a patient's life. That is medicine in
a nutshell--it isn't perfect. As I said before, it's an inexact art. A
physician's confidence in his knowledge is his #1 tool in the diagnosis
and management of illness. Many tout technology as the savior of the
human race, w/r/t medicine, but without doctors with good diagnostic
skills, technology is useless.

Another aspect to this is that if tort reform or some sort judicial review
of medical malpractice cases does not become reality, the day might
arrive when a physician must order up every possible test for every
sniffle and belly ache that comes through his door in order to keep his
ass out of court. In that event, health care will reach astronomical cost
points, possibly hundreds of times what it costs today. And it will NOT
be any more effective in saving lives than it is now, only more expensive.

It's really your choice. Do you want reasonable health care costs, or do
you want 100% assurance that nothing is ever missed? You can't have both.

Do you have 100% assurance that every time you board an airliner you will
reach your destination alive? Do you have 100% assurance that your next
trip to the park with the kiddies won't result in a random, drive-by
shooting, killing your or your child? Do you have 100% assurance that
when you buy a bottle of Tylenol that one of the capsules won't be filled
with cyanide? Of course you don't. But the odds are overwhelmingly in
your favor for a favorable outcome. The same is true with medicine,
despite what the yellow journalistic anti-medicine press and websites
wrongly profess.

Max

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

One must wonder why, on a modern GRP vessel, anyone could abide such an
ugly and dysfunctional bowsprit.

The Bowsprit is not only functional but adds to the fine sheer of the
vessel.

Modern boats should be designed to eliminate this anachronistic appendage.
It has no advantage other than increase the LOA of the vessel making a
small
vessel seem larger in the advertising brochures.

I don't think you are thinking this out clearly..... It provides a secure
platform to change sail in foul weather, as well as being a clutter free
area to store & deploy ground tackle. The bowsprit is stainless and teak...
a massive and solid construction. From the end of the bowsprit I can deploy
a gennaker. It makes an excellent platform for bow watch on a tricky entry.
The ladies love to strip off and use it as a dive platform.

Form & Function.... that's all I ask... that's all I get.

CM

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:59:43 +1100, OzOne wrote this crap:


Bwaaahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaaaaa!
You trying to reclaim your idiot of the week award?


Have you decided to give it up?






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message

But you could store more liquor and Belgian
beer in the aft lazarette if she had a classic stern. :-)

Hows 5 people for 3 weeks,

A goddam crowd that wouldn't leave?

$3200 of booze,

Enough for the first week.

$300 food

Hot dogs and nachos?

and all the equipment to Hunt, Fish and Scuba Dive. Capacity is not an
issue with this vessel..... I've had 22 people aboard.

Sounds like my friend's (now gone) Catalina 30 that we took about 2/3 that
many on one stormy night. Katy remembers that one.


Here's the webshots address

http://tinylink.com/?VdalUo6mgN

As I said, she appears a yar vessel.

Max

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:iVTRd.2036$9a3.464@edtnps91...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

Ya think Donut works 24/7/363?

Ya but he only gets paid for 8/5/360.....

If you and Scotty want to know how much I earn, - why don't you ask
straight
out?

It's obvious that neither of you earn as much as Australian
ex-coppers.


Pay attention Donut. We were talking hours/days worked per year, not
rates.

So, straight out, how many days a year do you work (put in time )?

It varies a bit from year to year. I always take the period from Christmas
Eve to 2nd January off. I usually have at least two weeks for a summer
cruise around the north coast of France or a sailing holiday in Turkey. I
sometimes have two weeks in Ireland for the "Mayfly season".

I guess that I have an average 4-5 weeks holiday each year. A couple of
years ago I had six weeks.

On the other side of the coin, I occasionally go into work for a couple of
hours on a Saturday of Sunday.



Regards


Donal
--