Ronald Raygun wrote:

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 ...

Your statement leads me to suppose that the US and the UK really _are_ two
bodies of land separated by both a different language, _and_ different
credibility standards. It has been my experience here in Leftpondia that
the utility and reliability of a suggestion is _strongly_ related to the
source. Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

... [you are] writing under what appears to be a nom-de-Usenet ...

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many
years ... in order to limit the amount of spam I get ...

Unless you receive email addressed to your name rather than your email
address, this justification is invalid. Spam is sent to an email address
that is independent of the actual name associated with it. I write under my
actual name but, depending on circumstances, associate my name with
different email addresses to keep things at least a bit organized. You can
confidently use your real name and _any_ email address, "munged" or
otherwise, with no fear of spam based solely on your actual name.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, but then it's certainly _my_ problem and perhaps not a problem to
others. I first started writing to r.b.c in 1997 under my real name. From
time to time I have written posts that perhaps should not have seen the
light of day, but it can be hoped that one learns as one goes along.
However in all cases I realized that whatever I wrote was associated with my
actual name and that I would have to live with the consequences. My
personal view is that same standard is not applied in many (but not
all) cases where the writer uses a pseudonym. I don't expect all share this
view, but it is _my_ view and it serves me well.

BTW, would you not agree that this discussion is a bit far afield from my
original intention of trying to save a few bucks on antifouling?

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare

Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

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 ...

Your statement leads me to suppose that the US and the UK really _are_ two
bodies of land separated by both a different language, _and_ different
credibility standards. It has been my experience here in Leftpondia that
the utility and reliability of a suggestion is _strongly_ related to the
source. Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

Well, one might think the immediate answer would have to be "probably
not", but after a few moments' thought one would have to admit that
there could be circumstances in which one might. It would depend on
the nature of the recommendation, but even if it came from someone
experienced, one wouldn't accept it blindly without thinking about
it to see whether it makes sense, and why. Things suggested by
non-experts can often make sense too.

The point is that at the end of the day it isn't really about source
credibility at all (as it would be if you were trying to assess the
truth or falsehood of a disputed statement of fact), but primarily
about credibility of the material itself.

We had a suggestion on the table that you can slap on enough
antifouling in one session to last 4-5 years of no hauling out.

I completely fail to understand why you believe you cannot form
a view on that suggestion without knowing who made it.

Admittedly, the fact that it was our friend Wilbur who made the
suggestion might make it easier for you to condemn it, and if I
wanted you to condemn it for that reason, then you are being very
fair indeed to reserve judgement when you didn't see him make it
and only have my word for it that he did.

But I'm not asking you to condemn it for that reason, nor do I
disagree with it for that reason. I disagree with it because I've
thought about it and my intuition tells me that it won't work (at
least not in general - there may be some locations where fouling
is so light that you'd get away with it).

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many
years ... in order to limit the amount of spam I get ...

Unless you receive email addressed to your name rather than your email
address, this justification is invalid.

You're perfectly right on that point, I could have coupled my real
name with an invalid email address, but that strikes me as somewhat
half-hearted. Besides it's not the only reason. The extra anonymity
gives me the confidence to be at times a little more, er, forthright
than I might otherwise be. If that's naughty, I hold my hand up to it.

But since you, like most of our readers, don't know me anyway, it
wouldn't serve any useful purpose from the credibility standpoint
if I did use my real name. The only benefit would be, as you seemed
to imply, that it would make me more careful of what I say, in case
someone who knows me in real life happens to drop in here and saw me
make an arse of myself.

But I do notice that while many people use what appears to be their
full real name, quite a few use what is probably their real name, but
not enough of it to identify them (they might use only a forename), so
they enjoy a certain amount of anonymity too. I note also that on many
web forums it seems to be the norm rather than the exception to use a
handle which is totally anonymous.

I accept your criticism as valid. My defence is that I'm not completely
at odds with widely accepted practice.

BTW, would you not agree that this discussion is a bit far afield from my
original intention of trying to save a few bucks on antifouling?

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote. :-)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:29:50 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

Spirit Lake Ia is 19 feet deep nearly everywhere . The usual anchor
that came with rental fishing boats was a cement filled tin can. Very
few knew anything about anchors. [We had a duck boat with a 20 lb
Danforth with a fifty foot braided rode.. I think my dad just bought
the biggest one at the store. I often buried it it in the mud with the
engine, and it never dragged.] The runabouts and sailboats all lacked
anchors, so any bogus advice would do.

Casady

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:42:19 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:29:50 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

Spirit Lake Ia is 19 feet deep nearly everywhere . The usual anchor
that came with rental fishing boats was a cement filled tin can. Very
few knew anything about anchors. [We had a duck boat with a 20 lb
Danforth with a fifty foot braided rode.. I think my dad just bought
the biggest one at the store. I often buried it it in the mud with the
engine, and it never dragged.] The runabouts and sailboats all lacked
anchors, so any bogus advice would do.

In that case, May I suggest a cinder block?

--Vic

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:

BTW, would you not agree that this discussion is a bit far afield
from my original intention of trying to save a few bucks on
antifouling?

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote ...

"Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in the
US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic formula.
Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole is unknown in
the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony antennae could
stand a tune-up.

Incidentally I don't cross-post without a good reason, and this thread is
not one that I would have chosen for such treatment. Somewhere along the
way this was cross-posted to u.r.s without my noticing. When you replied
the "flavoUr" of your response required that I continue the cross-posts. I
am sure that many readers at u.r.s have found this discussion less than
enthralling.

While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not sure
that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part of the
thread as particularly useful or enlightening. That aside, enjoy your
sailing, old sport.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare

Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote ...

"Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in the
US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic
formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole is
unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony
antennae could stand a tune-up.

Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just
might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be serious
and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification in
the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it literally?
I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote:

This means the paint was thinned about 25 to
27 percent, which is well in excess of the manufacturer
recommendations. In fact just about any source I can find would
disagree with my approach and advise that I will end up with less
than adequate protection. The only advantage to me is, of course,
cutting my paint cost by half.

See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't
look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly
denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let
you get away with it. :-)

While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not
sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part
of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening.

Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly
pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you.

That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport.

Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get
some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18
months! :-)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote ...

"Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in
the
US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic
formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole
is
unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony
antennae could stand a tune-up.

Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just
might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be serious
and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification in
the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it
literally?
I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote:

This means the paint was thinned about 25 to
27 percent, which is well in excess of the manufacturer
recommendations. In fact just about any source I can find would
disagree with my approach and advise that I will end up with less
than adequate protection. The only advantage to me is, of course,
cutting my paint cost by half.

See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't
look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly
denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let
you get away with it. :-)

While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not
sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part
of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening.

Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly
pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you.

That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport.

Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get
some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18
months! :-)



A full 18 mos? I guess that's normal, but I've gotten close to three years
on mine. I used Micron 99. I'm hoping to see about that long a time on the
new coat.

It wasn't super cheap, but it seems pretty cost-effective.

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

In article lutions,
lid says...
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote ...

"Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in
the
US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic
formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole
is
unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony
antennae could stand a tune-up.

Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just
might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be serious
and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification in
the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it
literally?
I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote:

This means the paint was thinned about 25 to
27 percent, which is well in excess of the manufacturer
recommendations. In fact just about any source I can find would
disagree with my approach and advise that I will end up with less
than adequate protection. The only advantage to me is, of course,
cutting my paint cost by half.

See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't
look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly
denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let
you get away with it. :-)

While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not
sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part
of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening.

Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly
pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you.

That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport.

Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get
some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18
months! :-)



A full 18 mos? I guess that's normal, but I've gotten close to three years
on mine. I used Micron 99. I'm hoping to see about that long a time on the
new coat.

It wasn't super cheap, but it seems pretty cost-effective.

Surely folks, it depends on where ya boat is, to a large degree. In
places like Havelock, New Zealand - in the heart of the Malborough
Sounds - the algae and whatever else is so prevalent that no boat goes
more than a year without requiring new antifouling.

--
Duncan.

"Dave Doe" wrote in message
...
In article lutions,
lid says...
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote ...

"Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in
the
US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic
formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that
hyperbole
is
unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own
irony
antennae could stand a tune-up.

Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just
might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be
serious
and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification
in
the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it
literally?
I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote:

This means the paint was thinned about 25 to
27 percent, which is well in excess of the manufacturer
recommendations. In fact just about any source I can find would
disagree with my approach and advise that I will end up with less
than adequate protection. The only advantage to me is, of course,
cutting my paint cost by half.

See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't
look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly
denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let
you get away with it. :-)

While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am
not
sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this
part
of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening.

Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly
pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you.

That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport.

Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get
some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18
months! :-)



A full 18 mos? I guess that's normal, but I've gotten close to three
years
on mine. I used Micron 99. I'm hoping to see about that long a time on
the
new coat.

It wasn't super cheap, but it seems pretty cost-effective.

Surely folks, it depends on where ya boat is, to a large degree. In
places like Havelock, New Zealand - in the heart of the Malborough
Sounds - the algae and whatever else is so prevalent that no boat goes
more than a year without requiring new antifouling.

--
Duncan.


It also depends on how much you sail... more is better, at least with the
ablative paint.

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...

As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get
some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18
months!

A full 18 mos? I guess that's normal, but I've gotten close to three years
on mine. I used Micron 99. I'm hoping to see about that long a time on the
new coat.

It wasn't super cheap, but it seems pretty cost-effective.

Do you generally stay afloat all the time with only occasional haul-outs,
or do you tend to follow a "6 months afloat, 6 months ashore" cycle, as
I usually do?

In other words, does your "close to three years" mean 3 half-years
immersed, with the intervening 2 half-years dry? If so, that would be
equivalent to my 18 months of uninterrupted immersion, because presumably
the length of time a coating stays effective is mainly related to the rate
at which the active ingredients leach out of the paint (or the paint itself
erodes), and this only happens when immersed.

I usually slap on 1 or 2 thin coats before launching and very little
fouling is evident 6 months later, but the fouling was pretty heavy last
time I stayed afloat for 18 months.