Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote:

Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd.

Not having seen this post, I am unable to judge.

... I did tell you what his suggestion was, so you *were* able to judge
...

Have we met somewhere?

Highly unlikely, bcause we seem to be on opposite sides of the Altlantic
(I'm in Scotland).

Your implicit assumption seems to be

But it isn't, you couldn't be further from the truth.

that I should readily base my opinion on hearsay from a stranger

The concept of hearsay has to do with indirect evidence, and has
little value outside of a court room. I'm not asking you to judge
Wilbur based on what I claim he said. I merely disagree with your notion
that simply because you didn't see him make it, you are unable to judge
the suggestion itself.

What I'm saying is that you should be able to judge (i.e. agree or
disagree with) the suggestion on its own merit, irrespective of who made
it, or even of whether anyone actually made it at all. I could easily
have said instead, without reference to anyone else, that "the idea that
you can beef up the thickness of your antifouling coat to the extent that
you can expect it to last 5 years is absurd".

OK, perhaps "absurd" was too strong a word. All I really meant was that
the idea that thicker coats last longer is fine, but that stretching it
to 4-5 years is going too far.

writing under what
appears to be a nom-de-Usenet. BTW forgive me if that is indeed your
actual name.

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many years
(I don't remember exactly how many, but let's say 15-20) in order to limit
the amount of spam I get. Do you have a problem with that?