"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts,
George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had
to stretch & modify the truth. :-)

Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach
drinking royalties.

Casady

Read up on his round the world voyage. He contacted newspapers in
every port he entered to publish a notice that Capt. Slocum and the
Spray were in port on a single handed round the world voyage and you
could actually go aboard the Spray upon payment of money. He had
contacted a publisher and made a deal to write a book before he sailed
and the book was an international best seller.

He apparently died on a voyage to the West Indies in 1909 although no
wreckage or other evidence was ever found. He was declared dead in
1924.

The fact that the Spray did not have an engine was hardly an unusual
situation in 1895.

True! Those were the REAL sailors and those where honest times. Too bad the
passage of a century and some odd years has turned all too many sailors into
engine-addicted non-sailors who write to their pals about a short leg of a
voyage and the FIRST thing they proudly proclaim as an accomplishment is how
much diesel fuel they've burned in their stink pot engines.

Slocum's book about his voyage alone around the world was/is a best-seller
because it's interesting. It's all about sailing and the sailing life. All
about harnessing the winds and currents and making ones way without fuss
around the world.

Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his
auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned
363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? No harnessing
the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed
burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? Most certainly not! People
would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting about putting
an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below to scratch one's
ass for days at a time. This is the life of motor heads. Drab, boring, stupid,
useless and wasteful. And, BTW, motor-sailers as a class of vessels are little
more than sail-assisted motor boats. Might as well get a trawler with a riding
sail and at least be honest about it.

Wilbur Hubbard

rOn Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:34:09 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts,
George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had
to stretch & modify the truth. :-)

Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach
drinking royalties.

Casady

Read up on his round the world voyage. He contacted newspapers in
every port he entered to publish a notice that Capt. Slocum and the
Spray were in port on a single handed round the world voyage and you
could actually go aboard the Spray upon payment of money. He had
contacted a publisher and made a deal to write a book before he sailed
and the book was an international best seller.

He apparently died on a voyage to the West Indies in 1909 although no
wreckage or other evidence was ever found. He was declared dead in
1924.

The fact that the Spray did not have an engine was hardly an unusual
situation in 1895.

True! Those were the REAL sailors and those where honest times. Too bad the
passage of a century and some odd years has turned all too many sailors into
engine-addicted non-sailors who write to their pals about a short leg of a
voyage and the FIRST thing they proudly proclaim as an accomplishment is how
much diesel fuel they've burned in their stink pot engines.

Slocum's book about his voyage alone around the world was/is a best-seller
because it's interesting. It's all about sailing and the sailing life. All
about harnessing the winds and currents and making ones way without fuss
around the world.

Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his
auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned
363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? No harnessing
the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed
burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? Most certainly not! People
would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting about putting
an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below to scratch one's
ass for days at a time. This is the life of motor heads. Drab, boring, stupid,
useless and wasteful. And, BTW, motor-sailers as a class of vessels are little
more than sail-assisted motor boats. Might as well get a trawler with a riding
sail and at least be honest about it.

Wilbur Hubbard

Ah yes. Another report from the Arm-Chair Sailor.

So tell us, Oh Great Arm-Chair, about the time you were sailing up the
Malacca Straits without an engine and with no wind and had to drift
with the tide and anchor every time the tide changed? Or about the
time you were becalmed in the middle of the Atlantic, running low on
water,or about sailing up the Red Sea and having to sail 100 miles
across and then 100 miles back to make 50 miles northing, or about the
time you were embayed and couldn't get out for a week.

I hate to disillusion you but sitting at anchor hardly qualifies you
as a sailor, nor does reading sailing magazines.
--
Cheers,
Bruce

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book
about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked
about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a
short hop from port to port?


Yup. It's done all the time these days. People buy - key word - what they
want, sometimes what they need even. While we all enjoy a good fantasy, the
closer-to-home version would be about sailing with some power or motor
boating, or some variation in the middle. The reality is that motor power
is a necessity these days, and if someone is going to really contemplate
boating, then a motor is going to be part of that mix. To deny it is not
only foolish, but downright ignorant. To proclaim "it can be done" is going
to be harmful to the readers, if not deadly.

You can sail without an anchor. After all, the act of sailing relegates the
anchor to dead weight off the bow. Just leave it behind. Real sailors
don't need no stinkin' anchor. That'd be anchoring, not sailing.


No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but
plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water?

On a boat made by destroying the environment, if for no other reason than to
get the wood for the hull and mast. Power was used to create that boat, in
it's entirety or in part, for every component on it and in it. And unless
you compost yoru crap, you pollute the water, and unless you eat raw food,
you pollute the air while consumong fossle fuels in the cooking process.



Most certainly not!

I bet I can sell more books and magazines that is chock full of useful
information about how someone can realistically enjoy boating, and all that
goes along with it, than you can sell about a spartan lifestyle of "living
in harmony" that no one really wants to do.

Money talks.



People would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting
about putting an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below
to scratch one's ass for days at a time.


And safe boating is....not that.

"paulthomascpa" wrote in message
...
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book
about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked
about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a
short hop from port to port?

Yup. It's done all the time these days. People buy - key word - what they
want, sometimes what they need even. While we all enjoy a good fantasy, the
closer-to-home version would be about sailing with some power or motor
boating, or some variation in the middle.

I disagree. People who mostly motor their boats around know it's boring so why
would they want to read about somebody else's boring motoring?

The reality is that motor power is a necessity these days, and if someone is
going to really contemplate boating, then a motor is going to be part of
that mix. To deny it is not only foolish, but downright ignorant. To
proclaim "it can be done" is going to be harmful to the readers, if not
deadly.

A motor is not a necessity theses days. A motor is not needed. A motor is a
convenience in a sailboat. Anybody who really knows how to sail and knows his
sailboat's perforamance can do anything under sail that he can do using a
motor. It is rare that there is no wind at all. On those rare occassions when
there is absolutely no wind one can drift deep water or anchor if necessary in
shallow water. Readers need to understand what auxilliary means. Readers need
to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat.

You can sail without an anchor. After all, the act of sailing relegates the
anchor to dead weight off the bow. Just leave it behind. Real sailors
don't need no stinkin' anchor. That'd be anchoring, not sailing.

An anchor is used to stop and stay put. A motor is used to move. BIG
difference. Sails are for moving, too so a motor is redundant. An anchor is
not redundant so you have, in effect, created a straw man argument here.


No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but
plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water?

On a boat made by destroying the environment, if for no other reason than to
get the wood for the hull and mast.

So, by your reasoning, if some pollution is necessary to produce a boat then
more pollution running a diesel is then justified. LOL. That's not even
logical.


Power was used to create that boat, in it's entirety or in part, for every
component on it and in it. And unless you compost yoru crap, you pollute
the water, and unless you eat raw food, you pollute the air while consumong
fossle fuels in the cooking process.

So, one needs to stop breathing, food prep, eating, defecating? OMG. You dare
compare these NECESSARY things with burning diesel which pollutes both air and
water in huge amounts compared to the crew's bodily necessities? Bottom line
is your argument is a non sequitur.


Most certainly not!

I bet I can sell more books and magazines that is chock full of useful
information about how someone can realistically enjoy boating, and all that
goes along with it, than you can sell about a spartan lifestyle of "living
in harmony" that no one really wants to do.

Go buy a few sailing magazines and mostly all you will see regarding accounts
of voyages and cruising are what I call 'tales of woe'. These are compendiums
of how NOT to sail or cruise as they consist of a compendium of incompetent
ways and means resulting in mishaps and disasters in many cases exacerbated by
trying to use a motor to 'brute force' one's way to a destination instead of
'finessing' one's way under sail eschewing the deadlines and schedules that
motor heads get themselves in trouble with.

A good book describing harmonious voyaging and cruising under sail will
outsell those describing the disharmony of motoring. Motoring is for dullards
and lubbers who value destinations over time enjoyably, reasonably and
responsibly spent getting to a destination. For motor heads the cruise begins
at the arrival. For the sailor the cruise ends at the destination. Time spent
on the motor boat cruise is something to get over with as quickly as possible.
Time spent on a sailboat is something to enjoy and savor in and of itself.
That is perhaps the major difference between sailing and motoring. Sailing is
rejecting schedules, deadlines, brute force, pollution, noise, vibration,
fumes, maddening crowd, expensive marinas and all the other negatives motoring
entails. Sailing is living in harmony with the environment and motoring is
being at odds with and selfishly abusing the environment. Books about living
in harmony with the environment will sell better than books about being at
odds with and ultimately destroying the environment.

Wilbur Hubbard

On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Readers need
to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat.

It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is
sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Ian

"Rick Morel" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:48:16 +0100, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Readers need
to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a
sailboat.

It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is
sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Ian

Wilbur, I don't know why I'm jumping in here and feeding you, but...

Well, it IS supposed to be a discussion group, after all . . .


Actually, with the exception of very small sailboats, an engine is a
necessity in this day and age. There are many places now where it's
ilegal to proceed under sail, including going through bridges. You may
say those places are to be avoided, but in the real world that's
simply impossible or at least nearly so.

Some folks would call anything under about 30 feet a 'small sailboat' so small
is in the eye of the beholder. Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

There is also the safety factor to consider. I've run into situations
in my years of cruising where having an engine was actually a matter
of life or death, or at least losing the vessel and serious injury.

Transversely there are also a great many instances where the very reason folks
get into trouble in the first place is their over reliance on their engine.
Engines create a dependency upon their use because, in general, they are quite
reliable. So woe be to the individual who takes his engine for granted and
believes it will never fail him. Sails just don't break down unexpectedly and
often at the worst of times like engines do.

I have gone for months without cranking up the engine, except for
monthly runs only to "exercise" it. I used the engine when necessary,
never to make time or just because I could.

Atta boy for not being overly reliant on an engine. Always keep the auxiliary
in auxiliary.


Wilbur Hubbard

On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

Ian

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

Ian



"Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts.
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty
and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this
statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction
over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for
most of these actions in state court."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._admiralty_law


In other words, any US state or municipality that attempts to
control navigation rights over and above those limits placed upon
it by the federal courts is acting unilaterally and at odds with
federal jurisdiction. All it would take to overturn ANY local law
restricting sailing under bridges would be a case filed in
federal court.


Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote this crap:

Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the
rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance
makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps
no more or no less than a maintained diesel?

Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine
fail.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote this crap:

Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the
rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance
makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps
no more or no less than a maintained diesel?

Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine
fail.


You just admitted:

1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails,

2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so
as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions,

3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to
being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you
are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly.

I hope this helps.


Wilbur Hubbard