Rich Hampel wrote in
:

You are dead right on this.

These are the folks who never really learned to sail (on small boats)
Got the idea of buying a BIG boat because the interior looked better
than the Winnabago they were looking at .........

Very sad.


The marinas in Charleston are full of unused "dock condos". It's amazing
how many never even get a visit from their owners!

Larry W4CSC wrote:

Rich Hampel wrote in
:

You are dead right on this.

These are the folks who never really learned to sail (on small boats)
Got the idea of buying a BIG boat because the interior looked better
than the Winnabago they were looking at .........

Very sad.

The marinas in Charleston are full of unused "dock condos". It's amazing
how many never even get a visit from their owners!

I don't think it is sad at all. I would rather sail a little bit, and
motor sail a lot and just motor some and be going somewhere on the
boat that I would sit at the dock somewhere. The marina queens are
what are really sad.

It isn't that I have to travel fast. It is that I have to get from
one safe place to another safe place. I like going someplace.

The nice thing about traveling by boat is that you bring your bed with
you and you don't have to pack and unpack. The motion of a sailboat
is nicer (even under power) with any kind of waves. I would never
have an RV - too much hassle.


grandma Rosalie

I think I know that guy... are his initials MR and the boat named after
a popular children's storybook character?

Larry W4CSC wrote:
Nope....JD and the boat's named after a computer part....(c;


OK, that's one to look forward to then.

DSK

I "sailed" my boat, when I first got her, from LA Harbor to
San Diego

OK, that's a SE heading.

sail was powering me at 2-3 mph

That's not too fast.

(the wind was from the NW)

So you were going dead downwind.

and it was storming with 12 foot swells.

So there was plenty of wind.

And you could only do 2-3 mph! Are you sure you had your
sails up?

dudley
..

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:07:10 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:

wrote:

I thought this was a sailing forum, not a grammer forum. Of course I meant the distance,
not the speed.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:31:25 GMT, "Falky foo" wrote:

I think it was a joke.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:59:18 -0800, said:
better knots per gallon

That pretty much says it all about the credibility of this poster.


That pretty much says it all about the sensitivities of that poster,
the eagerness to be con testicular, all that. Bloody brilliant!
Knots per hour, or knots per gallon does say it all quite well,
especially to an engineering mind:-)

Actually, an engineering mind would be more likely to use the current
meaning of 'knot,'--- 'nautical mile per hour.' In that case, the
engineering mind would read 'knots per hour' as an acceleration rate,
not a speed. "Knots per gallon' ?? I don't know.

However 'knot' was used in the 17th c to mean 'nautical mile' acc to
the OED, so maybe a 300-year-old engineer would read it as you say.





Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

Entering your freshman dorm for the first time, and seeing
an axe head come through the door on your right.