BoatBanter.com - Throw Back Thursday

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:23:08 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 3/9/17 3:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/9/17 2:46 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 3/9/17 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:31:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 3/9/17 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 09:40:36 -0500,
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:16:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Mrs.E. brought up the subject of the old "boats of rec.boats" website
this morning over coffee. Surprisingly, it still exists although not in
the original, complete form. Still, a lot of old names from the past.

When I first created the original website (back in a kinder, more
friendly rec.boats time) the packaged website creation software used
today didn't exist. Everything was done in html code which I learned
from visiting other websites and viewing the "source" code. Shuda been
a hacker. :-)

I remember my computer at the time was a Laser Pal 286 with a 40mb hard
drive with a "high speed" 2400 baud modem. The rec.boats participants
would email me a picture and description of their boat and I'd call up
the code for the website page that was stored on the hard drive and
insert the code to add the person and picture(s) to the list. I'd then
have to upload the entire website code just to add the person. No
method existed to simply add to the current, published code. With a
2400 baud modem each addition to the list took about an hour to do and
upload to publish. The other problem was that I had no way of viewing
what the page looked like until I published it, so if I screwed
something up I had to inspect the html code to see what was wrong, fix
it, and then upload the whole damn thing again. Times have sure
changed. Now you can just drop a picture into a pre-formatted software
package, add some text, publish just the changes and be done in a minute
or so.

Here's the link to what remains of the website:

http://thebayguide.com/rec.boats/

===

Good memories there, thanks. Those were the days when you could
actually learn something about boating on rec.boats

Hey Harry schooled us all on long range trawlers. ;-)
Silly me, I thought cruising up the entire coast of the US and looping
around the maritimes in Canada was long range but I seldom get past
Big Carlos Pass.

You're confusion an action - cruising - with an object - a slow, full
displacement hull boat.

With a cruising speed in the 8 kt range (what I saw on the SPOT), that
is a displacement hull. You are really getting hung up on semantics
but that is not surprising. If you can't dazzle with brilliance,
baffle with bull****.

It's a displacement hull at low speed, but it can get up on a plane. A
full displacement hull typically cannot do that.

You typically use the word typically when you typically don't
fully comprehend what you typically talk about. Further, you
typically do this when you know your typical bull**** will be
challeged. Now
I expect to hear some of your typical bull****, or even crickets.
Crickets is typically your response to being outed in some
manner.

Wrong yet again, **** for brains. The world isn't binary. Put enough
horsepower on some typically full displacement hulls and you can get
them to plane.

And unless you put a jet turbine engine in Wayne's boat, probably not
enough HP to plane. The 125' boat I long range fish on, cruises at 9-12
knots. 3000 HP from twin engines, and would never plane.

And a few morons wonder why I qualify statements sometimes, e.g., "Put
enough
horsepower on some typically full displacement hulls and you can get
them to plane."

Notice the words "some" and "typically."

D'oh.

Oh, we notice. Still not so sure of yourself, eh?

If he were sure of himself, he wouldn't be saying 'd'oh' every time he can't understand something.