Larry W4SC wrote:

Piece of crap. See for yourself what's inside a Sea Ray boat:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/Fib=ADerglass_Boats.htm
It's made of "putty"??....

***************************

If you're going to slam a brand, please try to use information that is
up to date. That chunk of Sea Ray hull is probably at least 15 years
old, and does not represent the way the boats are currently built.
Using that as an example is like telling people to stay away from Ford
Motor Company vehicles because the Pinto isn't much of a car.

Here's a factual look at the modern manufacturing process used by Sea
Ray, rather than one basher quoting another and using a 15-year old
hull as evidence.

http://www.netcomposites.com/downloads/RTMaut04.pdf


Are you going to disclose to the group that your "Sea Ray boat" was a
glorified jet ski, offered for only a year or two, (and quite possibly
built by some outside company and rebadged as a Sea Ray), or not?

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?

Every time somebody brings up that David Pascoe link to slam Sea Ray,
they fail to point out that there are hull chunks from a wide variety
of very "high end" boats. Very few runabout boats are built with a
cored hull these days. Larger cruisers often use Divynicell or other
cores (hardly putty) but normally only above the waterline.

wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht
standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.


Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and go
fast", or something to that effect.

He has to defend them.......SeaRay paid him to do so.

JimH wrote:

Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no
problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and
go
fast", or something to that effect.

*************************


I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual, current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"? (actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this NG)

You might ask Larry if he wore a lot of gold chains and needed a double
dose of Viagra while he owned his Sea Ray branded glorified jet ski.
Wouldn't it be fun to be right about something for a change?

As far as this ridiculous claim of yours goes,

"He has to defend them.......Sea Ray paid him to do so."

I am sure you know that's a lie. I'm also sure you do not care. Why let
truth get in the way of a good old-fashioned JimH patented personal
attack?

My "defense" of Sea Ray involved nothing more than exposing Larry's
dubious link to a site with long-ago outdated information about Sea Ray
hull construction as the bogus advice it was. It's one thing to say, "I
don't like that brand," but it's another to point to some badly
outdated information and maliciously insist that it represents current
technology.

Would it be better to let the lie stand unchallenged?
Isn't there some group where you're actually capable of participating
without tearing everybody and everything down all the time? That knock,
knock, knock, crap is for people who don't have the ability to discuss
the subject matter and so turn instead to bithcing about personalities.
What a shame.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely
no
problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look
good and
go
fast", or something to that effect.

*************************


I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from
first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative
standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual,
current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray
owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"?
(actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this
NG)

SeaRay owners wearing too many gold chains??? Imho, after they
make the down payment for the boat, they have to give them all
up in payment for the their lobotomy. Just observing after
cruising in Florida waters. I don't know if it is just arrogance
or too much Budweiser, but they tend to be the most
inconsiderate folks on the water.

Leanne

wrote in message
oups.com...
As far as this ridiculous claim of yours goes,

"He has to defend them.......Sea Ray paid him to do so."

I am sure you know that's a lie. I'm also sure you do not care. Why let
truth get in the way of a good old-fashioned JimH patented personal
attack?

Why is this not a factual statement? Does SeaRay run ads in your magazine?
Does your magazine live and die by the ad revenue generated by boat builders
and suppliers? Does the retail price of your magazine cover a tiny faction
of the cost to produce your magazine? Does your editor pay you to write
fluff pieces "selling the sizzle" of boats and boating? If you insisted on
writing unbiased reviews of the boats you discuss, would any of the articles
ever get published and would you earn any money?

Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it

were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast
his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

********

That's funny. You're still on line, spreading the Pascoe lie, and
Brunswick hasn't sued your hat off. Why is that? Could it be that
Brunswick has better things to do than argue with every kook that comes
along? If you believe everything simply because its online, you are one
confused guy.

Do you have any opinion about the material you viewed (assuming you
did) on the link I provided, (showing exactly how the hull in question
is built) or will you continue to spread the lie that Sea Ray hulls are
built up with "putty"?

It's too bad your SeaDoo or whatever didn't work out better for you.
It's disingenuous to report you experience as typical of a Sea Ray
"boat", and you know (or should know if you're going to presume to
render an informed opinion) that the hull on the Pascoe site is not
representative of
current production- yet you respond to a guy asking about a brand new
Sea Ray with some dubious information about a long defunct hull
standard with "see how they're made......".

I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual, current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"? (actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this NG)

Tell us, Larry, when you owned your Sea Ray, did you wear a lot of gold
chains? Do you consider yourself inadequately endowed? Assuming one
or both answers are "no", it goes to show that people who don't know
kkkrap about boats, or at least a specific boat, can post all kinds of
stuff on the internet without having their hats sued off.

Chuck,
Power Boat Reports had a story not too long ago about new, 55 foot Sea
Rays. Several of their owners have complained about water intrusion into
the coring.
Paul


wrote:
Larry W4SC wrote:

Piece of crap. See for yourself what's inside a Sea Ray boat:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/Fib�erglass_Boats.htm
It's made of "putty"??....

***************************

If you're going to slam a brand, please try to use information that is
up to date. That chunk of Sea Ray hull is probably at least 15 years
old, and does not represent the way the boats are currently built.
Using that as an example is like telling people to stay away from Ford
Motor Company vehicles because the Pinto isn't much of a car.

Here's a factual look at the modern manufacturing process used by Sea
Ray, rather than one basher quoting another and using a 15-year old
hull as evidence.

http://www.netcomposites.com/downloads/RTMaut04.pdf


Are you going to disclose to the group that your "Sea Ray boat" was a
glorified jet ski, offered for only a year or two, (and quite possibly
built by some outside company and rebadged as a Sea Ray), or not?

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?

Every time somebody brings up that David Pascoe link to slam Sea Ray,
they fail to point out that there are hull chunks from a wide variety
of very "high end" boats. Very few runabout boats are built with a
cored hull these days. Larger cruisers often use Divynicell or other
cores (hardly putty) but normally only above the waterline.

Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece they are
not important.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Larry W4SC wrote:

Piece of crap. See for yourself what's inside a Sea Ray boat:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/Fiberglass_Boats.htm
It's made of "putty"??....

***************************

If you're going to slam a brand, please try to use information that is
up to date. That chunk of Sea Ray hull is probably at least 15 years
old, and does not represent the way the boats are currently built.
Using that as an example is like telling people to stay away from Ford
Motor Company vehicles because the Pinto isn't much of a car.

Here's a factual look at the modern manufacturing process used by Sea
Ray, rather than one basher quoting another and using a 15-year old
hull as evidence.

http://www.netcomposites.com/downloads/RTMaut04.pdf


Are you going to disclose to the group that your "Sea Ray boat" was a
glorified jet ski, offered for only a year or two, (and quite possibly
built by some outside company and rebadged as a Sea Ray), or not?

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?

Every time somebody brings up that David Pascoe link to slam Sea Ray,
they fail to point out that there are hull chunks from a wide variety
of very "high end" boats. Very few runabout boats are built with a
cored hull these days. Larger cruisers often use Divynicell or other
cores (hardly putty) but normally only above the waterline.

Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and
other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least
David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The
fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit
of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective
boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece
they are
not important.

***************

?????????

I never submitted anything I ever wrote as a rebuttal to Larry's
insinuation that Sea Ray boats are made from "putty".

Do you have a comment on the actual evidence I submitted, (the website
showing photos of a Sea Ray layup and a description of the mfg
process), or is that also suspect because it appeared in print?

And while you're at it, oh wise one, please don't leave us dangling: If
you're in a position to dispute Pascoe's site as well as the European
article about Sea Ray layup schedules- please do so. Speak right up, no
need to keep it a secret.
Here's your opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the
talk:_______________

By the way, Pascoe does not claim that his items are "sureys". He
admits they are very negatively oriented opinion pieces. He has stated
that it is his mission to attemprt to "balance" any and all positive
opinion pieces. Try reading the introduction to his site sometime.