And I will. You're the one who insists that surely everyone must be
envious of you.

The responses like yours prove it. If folks felt good about how they
sailed and what they sailed, they'd never bother with me.

Personally, I don't envy your boat or your sailing
area

Yeah....suuuuurrrr you don't!!!

and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a week, or
cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full year cruise,


I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in about 3-4 more
years.


I'll take my life style every time.

No style at all and no choice for you either.


And what fact is that? The only defense you've stated is that you
mis-used the term "VMG to Windward."

Yup, and you've been smart to argue about this for 4 days? Yep, you're
a genius!


Of course I knew that's the mistake you were making.


AHHHHH HAHHHHHH! SO BUSTED!!!! SO NOW you admit that you understood
what I was saying, even if it was phrased wrong. So NOW your whole
sad-ass position is based on your belief that I don't or didn't know
what VMG to windward is/was???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I claim that you
didn't understand the difference until someone explained it to you
last night.

Yippeee deee! This is RICH!


The event is simply that you mis-used a very precise and commonly
used
term, and failed to see your blunder for about 20 posts.

As you've just admitted, you KNEW what I meant and I certainly felt
that you did as well. So now your saying that I didn't DRAW it OUT for
you straight off?? BWAHAAHHAHA! Okay!



In other words, when the essential issue was whether the mark was
directly to windward, or just somewhere to windward of the course, you
got it wrong and then failed to correct yourself.

I certainly did correct myself, but I didn't go back and spot the error
either. You just seemed to be making it up. In fact your WHOLE argument
is based on phrasing that YOU UNDERSTOOD from the start, even if I
phrased it impropperly! You sure got me there, dude! You sure sewed
this one up. Don't be embarassed. Be ASHAMED!


Your original post did not mention a mark. When you then mentioned
a
mark I assumed it must be a distant mark directly upwind.

My original post was a repeat of Bob L.'s comment on our progress to a
mark to windward. I did not anticipate some dottering freak to bust a
pipe over a phrase...which he now admits he UNDERSTOOD from the get-go!
Dude, could you have dropped your panties in a more obvious way?


Until then, this is a big win for me.

What did you win? Lay your hand on it, boy!

LOL!!!!!!! Perhaps my best work here EVER!



RB
35s5
NY

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:34:13 -0400, katy wrote:

Capt. Rob wrote:
Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??

You DATE call someone else a spammer when you have spammed this group
with your boats for salen your Ebay commercials, and your name-dropping?
I'd say you have a lot of cajones, but we all know that couldn't be,
biggest pot/kettle/black....back into your black hole you go....you only
made it out for 4 days this time....

So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?

CWM

Yeah, I guess he did...but not so as to be obvious or obnoxious...

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...


That's
why no one has jumped to your defense on this.


I missed all the other posters that were backing you up.
Could you repost them all?




I was on a windward course for a mark.


That's not what you said at first ( before you backpedaled).

I suspect that you even know I have a
grasp of VMG.

finally?



Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat
sails better
with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would
still support
you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman
vs.
Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is
better, they just
won't admit to it because I said it.



Paranoid, Bobby?

" L F " *LF @*.com wrote


Man! I am really obsessed with Bobsprit. Is there some
internal,
latent homosexual stuff going on or what?

L F


Probably.

"Swab Rob" wrote in message

and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a
week, or
cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full
year cruise,


I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in
about 3-4 more
years.


Sure you will, just like you planned to sail the Round the
Island race and the 'Sail To Nowhere', that you never follew
through with. Did you, Mr Failure? MMmmmm?


SV

" L F " wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:54:17 -0400, "Scotty"
wrote:

Jeff, remember that saying about teaching pigs to sing?



Scotty


So how is that project coming along, Scotty?


just great, L F, they almost have the Star Spangled Banner
down pat.

SV

" L F " wrote in message
...
can a quick monohull make 6 knots VMG in 17 knots of
wind?




My boat "is" a POS.

L F


You don't even have a boat.

SV

So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?



Clearly. What's worse is that he's spamming people with the dated
Dutchman system. Doesn't matter though. Scotty can't afford any of it
anyway.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?



Clearly. What's worse is that he's spamming people with
the dated
Dutchman system. Doesn't matter though. Scotty can't
afford any of it
anyway.


That's right, I had to steal a neighbors wash line to use to
tie up my mainsail.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

This is a truly pathetic display by you, Bob. You made a blunder and
then you've spent the last two days backpedaling and changing your
story around. You've gone so far as to claim that you're the victim,
even blaming it on your friend.

But you seem to have settled on the story that when you said "to
Windward with a VMG of 6 knots" you really meant that the VMG was
measured to some random point, not directly upwind, and not ahead.
And you've claimed that this is a perfectly reasonable and common way
of describing your boat's performance.

However, this is total nonsense and continues to demonstrate that you
really don't understand the terms. Here's why: You could have simply
stated with your video that you doing doing 8+ knots on a close
reach - some may have bought it, others might be skeptical, but its
within the realm of physical possibility. But you chose to be clever,
trying to use "sailor talk" like VMG. It would have actually been
interesting if it were real. Unfortunately, you picked a speed that
is not physically possible, especially when supported by a video of
you footing off, and I called you on it. You then proceeded to give
us lots of double talk and conflicting stories, and finally settled on
the lame story that it was VMG to a random mark. But this is nonsense!

The VMG to a mark is of no use whatsoever except as a temporary local
reference. Even then its use is almost entirely when beating to
windward and speed is being balanced against pointing. It has no
value when reaching. I suppose there might be some value when working
a current, or some other complex situation, but your friend probably
used it only because the GPS was set up for racing so that's the value
it displayed.

Even though VMG to a random mark may have some temporary value in
racing, it has absolutely no value when describing a boat's
performance, and if that was your actual intent, as you claim, it
demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the concepts. Without
stating the exact location, it says nothing about boat speed, which
could have been as low as 6 knots. And even if you did give the
location, no one would actually bother computing the speed, except in
the trivial (and interesting) case of the mark being directly upwind.

So what is it Bob, were you lying by implying VMG to Windward, or just
an Idiot who doesn't understand the meaning and use of VMG?


Capt. Rob wrote:
Show me one such claim.


Go look for them. Much has been written about the 1st series boats and
the conservative polars for them.


At 55 degrees, a speed a 8.5 yields a VMG of only 4.8 knots. And
that
doesn't count leeway.

This is not the case headed for a mark that his not exactly to
windward. Sorry. You seem to be amazingly thick about this.



I never figured out your number system.


Yeah, not surprisingly, 3 clips numbered 1, 2 & 3 gave you some
trouble.


Why should they help?


Seriously???


Are you sure? How old are mine?

I don't know, but I doubt you bought them in the last three months.
You've hardly used your boat.


Its only three miles. I'm sure that's very scary for you, Bob.


Yep, we were scared to death! Can't you tell from the video?


Actually, IIRC Hart Island is not very high, you can probably see
your
slip from the masthead, or maybe with the radar.

Seriously?


I hardly looked at the videos at all.

Clearly!

You seem to be obsessed with
them, but they really weren't that good.

And yet you "hardly looked at them!" Boy oh boy!

I reacted entirely to you
obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward."


And even after I explained what I meant you continue to "react" much to
my amusement!


And when I said that that doesn't work unless the mark was exactly
to
windward you then said it was. You screwed up. You didn't know the
meaning of the term. You're now trying to weasel out.


Hmmm. I mentioned that the course was to the mark quite early on. It's
just fitting in with your silly POV to admit how clear I was. That's
why no one has jumped to your defense on this.


Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to
windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a
sailor.

I was on a windward course for a mark. That has MANY meanings to a
sailor. Your sad focus on my phrasing is meaningless, since you
obviously KNOW what I meant. I suspect that you even know I have a
grasp of VMG. In fact your whole focus is on my phrasing! Hilarious!


Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly?

Well, I STILL don't think I misused it in any important way...except to
you. What's odd is that you could not deduce what I meant.

You had plenty of time to
correct it if it was a misunderstanding.

Uhh...I did.

Bull****. You're lying again. They may have understood that you
were
confused and misused the term. No competent sailor says "to windward
with a VMG of 6 knots" when they mean a VMG to an arbitrary point.
Its a meaningless statement.

It's not a meaningless statement when you're on a boat shooting for a
mark. That was dumb of you, Jeff!


And yet, when I insisted that the mark had to be directly to
windward
you said it was.

And therin lies the only error I made, which I then corrected. But
NOPE. Old man Jeff hangs on doggedly to that because his whole castle
of frustration is built on it!


What facts? What details? You didn't know the course, you seemed
confused about where the mark was. First off the bow, then directly
upwind, now somewhere else but you don't know where.


Anyone who reads what you just wrote will know YOU'RE confused. You
can't even tell the clips apart and confused a hypothetical question
with the facts on a clip that didn't even relate to this discussion!


Its right here in this post.

You SAID that I admitted it. Please show everyone where I "admitted it"
so we know you're not a liar. In fact, you've repeatedly misquoted me
to support you sad excuse for a point. I have not.

You're now claiming the VMG to Windward
doesn't mean directly into the wind,

I like the way you changed my phrasing, but I think others will spot
this, Jeff. Nice try.

Every
book on yacht design uses VMG almost exclusively to mean either
directly upwind or directly downwind (actually, they are the same,
just a sign change).


Oh, well then we all know that we follow how things are done in books!
And that NEVER changes or is altered by anyone, right? LOL!



You implied that because of the wing your boat has less than normal
leeway; that's simply not the case.


Wow, you either have an awful grasp of English or you have no problem
with lying again and again. Here's my EXACT comment:

"The 35s5 does a fine job
of cutting leeway with her wing. "

That statement stands on it's own. It in now way infers a comparison
with a deep draft 35s5 or a CB C&C 36 or a WB Maxi 60. Stop lying and
you might get some respect around here.


Gee, you made the claim that you were going "to windward at just
over
6 knots VMG." And you showed a video, and then verified that you were
on a close reach. Sounds to me like you made the claim.

I guess what I said after that to further describe the situation can't
possibly matter, right Jeff???? Hmmmm?


No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread

has taken my side.


Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better
with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support
you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs.
Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just
won't admit to it because I said it.


Much later you tried to change it.

Much later? Is it April?


No, I'm happy to have everyone watch you embarrass yourself. You
must
know that every claim you make in the future is tainted by your
blunder here.

Now THAT'S funny, Jeff. everyone sees you on yet another one of my
hooks and I should feel embarassed? Not likely, dude!


And again you mis-use a common phrase. Every sailor would
understand
"windward work" to imply going upwind, not reaching slightly higher
than a beam reach.

And technically they'd be wrong, Jeff. And that's because anything
higher than a beam reach IS windward work. It doesn't matter at all if
people don't use the term in that way. I'm still correct.
And you're still wrong.

Face the truth old man! You saw my video of my boat sailing like a
bird, moving fine and fast and it ****ED YOU OFF!!!!

RB
35s5
NY