|
Randy, to answer your questions I will start with the Tracvision. Yes it is
completely hassle free. I have DirectTV at my home so I have one receiver that is dedicated to the boat during the spring,summer,fall and comes home to the guest bedroom in the winter. The Tracvision comes already setup for DirectTV so once it was installed all I had to do was install my receiver. I turn on the power to the Tracvision, receiver and TV. Inital setup takes about 2 minutes to find the satellite, once it does so it locks on and once locked on there are no interruptions in service. This is an in motion system so once it begins tracking I can then drive the boat without loss of signal. If I power the unit down then move the boat then power it back up it has to search for the satellite again but within 2 minutes I am watching TV again. Although it was expensive it is worth every penny.I debated between Tracvision and Sea-tel for several weeks but finally decided on the Tracvision based on their reputation. The boat came with a 9 inch DC powered TV which didn't do the tracvision any justice so I took it out and installed a 13" flat panel Sharp Aquos LCD TV. The picture is phenomenal. As for the stereo it came equipped with all Clarion Marine AM/FM CD player, 6-disc CD changer and 4 6.5" speakers. I used to work at a car audio shop in my early 20's and ever since then I have been installing high end stereo equipment in my vehicles and my boat wasn't going to be any exception to that rule. Since it already had quality Clarion equipment to start I built on that by adding 2 more Clarion 6.5" speakers in the cockpit to make a total of 4. I powered them with a 80x4 USCoustic amp and added a 10" self amplified Bazooka tube subwoofer under the port aft bench seat and a helm mounted remote. I added the Delphi SkyFi XM radio reciever. I wanted a system that I could hear clearly while hanging around outside the boat whether it be on the dock or in the water. I chose Garmin GPS because my 1st boat had one already installed on it so I bought the chip for the Chesapeake Bay. Since I already had the chip when I bought my new boat i stayed with Garmin, plus I am very familiar with to use them.I bought a Garmin 3006C color charplotter and flush mounted in the dash. In my area storms can come out of no where and before you can react to the dark sky it is generally too late. I got caught in several bad storms this past summer and it wasn't fun. I don't want to go through that again so I added the XM satelltie weather receiver to the 3006C so I can constantly keep track of the weather around me by way of the real time weather radar. It overlays the weather radar on top of the chart so you constantly know where you are in relation to the weather around you. I only got to tinker with this system for a couple of days before I had the boat winterized but am looking forward to taking advantage of all this system has to offer next summer. "Brass Monkey" wrote in message ... Thanks for redirecting, Scott. Tell us more about why you picked the electronics you did, what the decisionmaking process was, and how you integrated it. What TV do you have, and sound system to take advantage of the XM, etc... Is the Tracvision completely hassle free? Thanks! Randy Scott Gardner Wrote: OK I will start by introducing myself. My name is Scott and I have a 2003 MAXUM 3300 SE. I purchased this boat new at the end of the 2003 season and had it splashed for the very 1st time in April 2004. It has twin 5.7L Merc. 350's rated at 250 HP each with Bravo 3 drives.It had every available option except a generator and the navigation electronics, which is fine for me because Maxum uses Raymarine equipment and I prefer Garmin. So i had the generator installed and added a Tracvision 4 in motion satellite tracking system and a Garmin 3006C color chartplotter with the GDL-30 XM satellite weather receiver.This thing is awesome. I can see live weather radar on my chartplotter in real time and get up to the minute weather forecasts. I love my boat and how I equipped it. I cruise on the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. How about everyone else? Where do you boat and what kind of boat do you have? I am new to this group but hope I will fit in. Scott. "JimH" wrote in message ...- "Scott Gardner" wrote in message news:C%[email protected] This is a boat newsgroup not politics, so can we keep the discussion to boats only please? - Lets go. You start. - -- Brass Monkey |
"Dr. Karen Grear MD, PHD" wrote in message ... That is a great answer. That way you will never **** out any advertisers. Indeed. Powerboat Report has no problem outlining weaknesses as well as positives....no need for advertising money with them. The rest of the reviews in so called boating magazines are nothing more than fluff...such as the one Chuck posted here in an attempt to spam a boat line and boat dealer. I wonder how he used the money he received from both for that review? A new car perhaps? Or maybe a brand new electronics setup for his tug. Only the shadow knows. |
Nonsense.
To do a truly objective test, you not only need to run the compared boats on the same day under the same conditions, you need to do like Consumer Reports does and actually buy the products, anonymously, at retail, from a dealer. Otherwise, how can you be certain that somebody hasn't "tweaked" something just a bit? In Herring's example, we would spend what, a quarter million bucks? To make sure we got undoctored boats for a single article? I know this is a hard concept for many of you to understand, and the posts of some here certainly support my observations, but it is possible to comment on Thing A without running down Thing B or Thing C at the same time. Most of the items a shopper will consider are subjective, and subject to individual preference. You guys seem to expect an objective comparison between top sirloin, lamb, and lobster and some definitive answer about which meal is "best". When you read a restaurant review, do you fault the reviewer for failing to comment on every other Chinese joint in town? How about movie critics? Can a critic say anything useful about "Lord of the Rings" without discussing "Ray", "The Titanic", and "Glory"? Boat reviews point out the highlights, and any glaring deficiencies in a boat. You don't read that many with glaring deficiencies because by the time a builder gets to major mfg status, the market weeds out the guys building true crap. I've never seen a major mfg. boat that is totally unsuited for safe and appropriate use by somebody, under the right conditions. Two equally knowledgeable boaters will evaluate the same boat, and one might rule it out immediately and go on to buy something else, while the other likes it so much he writes a check on the spot. Which one was "right"? (Hint: most likely both, they simply prioritized different needs). |
Most people who write those fluff pieces will readily admit they are fluff.
The articles are designed to sell ad space, not inform the boat buying public or provide a viable review of any boat. "JimH" wrote in message ... "Dr. Karen Grear MD, PHD" wrote in message ... That is a great answer. That way you will never **** out any advertisers. Indeed. Powerboat Report has no problem outlining weaknesses as well as positives....no need for advertising money with them. The rest of the reviews in so called boating magazines are nothing more than fluff...such as the one Chuck posted here in an attempt to spam a boat line and boat dealer. I wonder how he used the money he received from both for that review? A new car perhaps? Or maybe a brand new electronics setup for his tug. Only the shadow knows. |
wrote in message oups.com... Nonsense. To do a truly objective test, you not only need to run the compared boats on the same day under the same conditions, you need to do like Consumer Reports does and actually buy the products, anonymously, at retail, from a dealer. Otherwise, how can you be certain that somebody hasn't "tweaked" something just a bit? In Herring's example, we would spend what, a quarter million bucks? To make sure we got undoctored boats for a single article? I know this is a hard concept for many of you to understand, and the posts of some here certainly support my observations, but it is possible to comment on Thing A without running down Thing B or Thing C at the same time. Most of the items a shopper will consider are subjective, and subject to individual preference. You guys seem to expect an objective comparison between top sirloin, lamb, and lobster and some definitive answer about which meal is "best". When you read a restaurant review, do you fault the reviewer for failing to comment on every other Chinese joint in town? How about movie critics? Can a critic say anything useful about "Lord of the Rings" without discussing "Ray", "The Titanic", and "Glory"? Boat reviews point out the highlights, and any glaring deficiencies in a boat. You don't read that many with glaring deficiencies because by the time a builder gets to major mfg status, the market weeds out the guys building true crap. I've never seen a major mfg. boat that is totally unsuited for safe and appropriate use by somebody, under the right conditions. Two equally knowledgeable boaters will evaluate the same boat, and one might rule it out immediately and go on to buy something else, while the other likes it so much he writes a check on the spot. Which one was "right"? (Hint: most likely both, they simply prioritized different needs). Nice CYA job Chuck. We all know better though. It was nothing but fluff and spam. So what did you buy with the blood money? |
Hurtwit wondered.
I wonder how he used the money he received from both for that review? A new car perhaps? Or maybe a brand new electronics setup for his tug. ******************************** A new car? Ha! Chicken feed. With the vast sum of money I recieved, I paid cash for the homes on both sides of yours in A... *... Ohio! Howdy, neighbor. (I didn't know mobile homes were subject to sales tax in OH, so the total came to about eleven bucks more than I thought it might. How do they justify that much for a single wide these days?). I didn't have enough left over to start my full-ride scholarship fund for terminal aids patients, muslim clerics, and cross dressing anti-war activists in your community. This creates a rather serious inconvenience, as I had already invited about two dozen such individuals to relocate there. I guess I'll have no choice except to lodge them, rent free, on either side of your abode until I collect another royalty check and can then afford to put them all through your local university. Remember to "love thy new neighbors," but don't get too lovey with the terminal aids patients- that could have some negative consequences. :-) |
wrote in message oups.com... Hurtwit wondered. Powerboat Report has no problem outlining weaknesses as well as positives....no need for advertising money with them. The rest of the reviews in so called boating magazines are nothing more than fluff...such as the one Chuck posted here in an attempt to spam a boat line and boat dealer. I wonder how he used the money he received from both for that review? A new car perhaps? Or maybe a brand new electronics setup for his tug. ******************************** A new car? Ha! Chicken feed. With the vast sum of money I recieved, I paid cash for the homes on both sides of yours in A... *... Ohio! Howdy, neighbor. (I didn't know mobile homes were subject to sales tax in OH, so the total came to about eleven bucks more than I thought it might. How do they justify that much for a single wide these days?). I pasted the parts of my post you conveniently cut...a new MO for you in your lame attempt to support your position. But the end result is always this....childish name calling and insults....is that what you have been reduced to Chuck? I thought better of you but I was obviously wrong. A shame. And quite juvenile. Grow up Chucky. OK? ;-) |
A shame. And quite juvenile.
Grow up Chucky. OK? ;-) *************** What name calling? As for the rest, if you make an outrageous statement you have to be prepared for an equally outrageous response. We libs have a saying: "What goes around comes around......" Expect no less. (There's no need to repost your entire harangue when I'm only taking issue with the most asinine line or two.) |
wrote in message oups.com... Hurtwit wondered. Powerboat Report has no problem outlining weaknesses as well as positives....no need for advertising money with them. The rest of the reviews in so called boating magazines are nothing more than fluff...such as the one Chuck posted here in an attempt to spam a boat line and boat dealer. I wonder how he used the money he received from both for that review? A new car perhaps? Or maybe a brand new electronics setup for his tug. ******************************** A new car? Ha! Chicken feed. With the vast sum of money I recieved, I paid cash for the homes on both sides of yours in A... *... Ohio! Howdy, neighbor. (I didn't know mobile homes were subject to sales tax in OH, so the total came to about eleven bucks more than I thought it might. How do they justify that much for a single wide these days?). I pasted the parts of my post you conveniently cut...a new MO for you in your lame attempt to support your position. But the end result is always this....childish name calling and insults....is that what you have been reduced to Chuck? I thought better of you but I was obviously wrong. A shame. And quite juvenile. Grow up Chucky. OK? ;-) *************** What name calling? Look up Chucky...... ZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM As usual. Quite predictable. Quite sad. |
Gould,
Since you used the movie metaphor, lets follow the thread a little farther. If you read a movie critic who thinks every movie he sees is wonderful, you would begin to question the critic's ability to provide a review one can believe in. When one reads "boat reviews", the "reviewer" always loves the boat. There are movie critics who can be bought. The distributors give them a airline ticket to Hollywood, put them up in a 5 star hotel and the distributor is guaranteed a 5 star review. These movie "critics" are whores, who sell themselves for the price of an airline ticket and hotel. The difference between these unreliable movie critics and Boat reviewers are the price they charge to sell out. Boat Reviewers use ad dollars as the price to give a great review, they might also be persuaded by perks offered by the mfg. There are many reliable movie critics who are not whores, the same came not be said about boat reviewers. You boat review provided a valuable service, because it highlighted the need for boat buyers to take what they read in boat mags with a grain of salt. wrote in message oups.com... Nonsense. To do a truly objective test, you not only need to run the compared boats on the same day under the same conditions, you need to do like Consumer Reports does and actually buy the products, anonymously, at retail, from a dealer. Otherwise, how can you be certain that somebody hasn't "tweaked" something just a bit? In Herring's example, we would spend what, a quarter million bucks? To make sure we got undoctored boats for a single article? I know this is a hard concept for many of you to understand, and the posts of some here certainly support my observations, but it is possible to comment on Thing A without running down Thing B or Thing C at the same time. Most of the items a shopper will consider are subjective, and subject to individual preference. You guys seem to expect an objective comparison between top sirloin, lamb, and lobster and some definitive answer about which meal is "best". When you read a restaurant review, do you fault the reviewer for failing to comment on every other Chinese joint in town? How about movie critics? Can a critic say anything useful about "Lord of the Rings" without discussing "Ray", "The Titanic", and "Glory"? Boat reviews point out the highlights, and any glaring deficiencies in a boat. You don't read that many with glaring deficiencies because by the time a builder gets to major mfg status, the market weeds out the guys building true crap. I've never seen a major mfg. boat that is totally unsuited for safe and appropriate use by somebody, under the right conditions. Two equally knowledgeable boaters will evaluate the same boat, and one might rule it out immediately and go on to buy something else, while the other likes it so much he writes a check on the spot. Which one was "right"? (Hint: most likely both, they simply prioritized different needs). |
The man of a thousand screen names bitched:
You boat review provided a valuable service, because it highlighted the need for boat buyers to take what they read in boat mags with a grain of salt. ********************** Yeah, yeah. Yawn. Say, when was the last time you or Hurtwit posted anything *on* topic? How much salt is required to deal with a guy who hangs out in a boating NG and doesn't boat? |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:15:53 -0500, John H
wrote: On 9 Feb 2005 18:12:15 -0800, wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ I've never seen a major mfg. boat that is totally unsuited for safe and appropriate use by somebody, under the right conditions. Two equally knowledgeable boaters will evaluate the same boat, and one might rule it out immediately and go on to buy something else, while the other likes it so much he writes a check on the spot. Which one was "right"? (Hint: most likely both, they simply prioritized different needs). I really didn't expect an objective, million-dollar test. I just wanted your subjective opinion of how the three boats compared in your experience. Any boat looks, rides and feels good first time around - it takes time to find the little things that annoy or fail. I really like my Ranger and would hate to part with it, but over the four years I've owned it, there are things that I notice that annoy the hell out of me - the worst being the placement of the forward seat post. That's why I have a thing about Bluefin boats. They aren't the prettiest nor are they cosmetically perfect, but the damn things ride like a dream in all weather, are very nicely fit out for fishing and tough as hell. Another boat that I have been consistently impressed with are the Polar series boats. They are good looking, form/fit/function are damn close to perfect and they are very nicely laid out from an ergonomic standpoint. We've had this magazine "pro/con" debate before. For my money, if you want a truly objective report, ask owners about the boat, not the dealer. A lot of negative boat reports are related to the dealer, not the boat. You can get a good idea from the manufacturer's information and reading "test" reports in the magazines, but you will get closer to the truth by asking owners. Later, Tom |
Gould,
The post you responded to was on topic. Boat reviews in magazines are fluff pieces for the boat builder, they read like the boat manufacturer gave you the piece and you just signed your name. Karen calls these posts SPAM, and they are. I am amazed you actually try to convenience anyone they aren't. A new boater should understand the boat magazines make money by using their fluff PR pieces to sell ads and to sell reprints of the articles so the dealers can give them to everyone interested in the boat. Your contention that the reviews are always positive because every boat design is superb and all boat manufactures build quality boats shows you believe the buyers are gullible. Everyone who has responded to my statement that boat reviews are fluff PR pieces have agreed with me. NO boater in the group buys into your BS. oups.com... The man of a thousand screen names bitched: You boat review provided a valuable service, because it highlighted the need for boat buyers to take what they read in boat mags with a grain of salt. ********************** Yeah, yeah. Yawn. Say, when was the last time you or Hurtwit posted anything *on* topic? How much salt is required to deal with a guy who hangs out in a boating NG and doesn't boat? |
John,
Gould will not give you an opinion because he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. He gets paid to make every boat he reviews seem like the best thing since sliced bread. If he ever gave an honest review he would be scared he might loose ad revenue. Would you believe any movie reviewer who loved every movie he reviewed? "John H" wrote in message ... I really didn't expect an objective, million-dollar test. I just wanted your subjective opinion of how the three boats compared in your experience. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
"Dr. Karen Grear MD, PHD" wrote in message ... Gould, The post you responded to was on topic. Boat reviews in magazines are fluff pieces for the boat builder, they read like the boat manufacturer gave you the piece and you just signed your name. Karen calls these posts SPAM, and they are. I am amazed you actually try to convenience anyone they aren't. A new boater should understand the boat magazines make money by using their fluff PR pieces to sell ads and to sell reprints of the articles so the dealers can give them to everyone interested in the boat. Your contention that the reviews are always positive because every boat design is superb and all boat manufactures build quality boats shows you believe the buyers are gullible. Everyone who has responded to my statement that boat reviews are fluff PR pieces have agreed with me. Boating magazine is one of the worse. But, hey, what do you expect? They're a French-owned company. Powerboat Reports seems very objective in their reviews, however. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Dr. Karen Grear MD, PHD" wrote in message ... Gould, The post you responded to was on topic. Boat reviews in magazines are fluff pieces for the boat builder, they read like the boat manufacturer gave you the piece and you just signed your name. Karen calls these posts SPAM, and they are. I am amazed you actually try to convenience anyone they aren't. A new boater should understand the boat magazines make money by using their fluff PR pieces to sell ads and to sell reprints of the articles so the dealers can give them to everyone interested in the boat. Your contention that the reviews are always positive because every boat design is superb and all boat manufactures build quality boats shows you believe the buyers are gullible. Everyone who has responded to my statement that boat reviews are fluff PR pieces have agreed with me. Boating magazine is one of the worse. "worst" |
Powerboat Reports is the only one who even tries to be objective, they can
be objective because they do not accept advertising. They are the "Consumer Reports" for boating products. There reports aren't perfect, but they do their best to be objective. "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Dr. Karen Grear MD, PHD" wrote in message ... Gould, The post you responded to was on topic. Boat reviews in magazines are fluff pieces for the boat builder, they read like the boat manufacturer gave you the piece and you just signed your name. Karen calls these posts SPAM, and they are. I am amazed you actually try to convenience anyone they aren't. A new boater should understand the boat magazines make money by using their fluff PR pieces to sell ads and to sell reprints of the articles so the dealers can give them to everyone interested in the boat. Your contention that the reviews are always positive because every boat design is superb and all boat manufactures build quality boats shows you believe the buyers are gullible. Everyone who has responded to my statement that boat reviews are fluff PR pieces have agreed with me. Boating magazine is one of the worse. But, hey, what do you expect? They're a French-owned company. Powerboat Reports seems very objective in their reviews, however. |
NO boater in the
group buys into your BS. ********* Actual boaters usually have an interest in the opinions that other people hold about boating related issues. That's one reason they would visit a boating related discussion group You non boating characters are only interested in any statement or opinion that gives you a foothold for picking fight, which is the sole reason you visit a boating discussion group. |
wrote in message oups.com... NO boater in the group buys into your BS. ********* Actual boaters usually have an interest in the opinions that other people hold about boating related issues. That's one reason they would visit a boating related discussion group You non boating characters are only interested in any statement or opinion that gives you a foothold for picking fight, which is the sole reason you visit a boating discussion group. Just curious Chuck. Do you actually believe that one has to own a boat to be a boater? That seems to be your mindset, along with several others in this NG. Does past ownership count? Does "x" number of years of boating experience count? Does continued boating on boats not owned count? Does one have to boat on the ocean to fit your definition of a boater? And exactly what is your definition of a boat? Is it any vessel capable of floating while carrying a person aboard? Or does it have to be a custom made 36 foot Lobster boat? You seem to have a narrow minded view of how a boater is defined. Lastly, as far as OT posts, I believe you would score in the top percentage each and every month. The fact that you throw in some spam boat review once in a while makes it OK? Looks like what is good for the goose is not good for the gander....eh Chucky? |
hurtwit inquired:
(disclosure, much of his post snipped- this was the operative point. He will bitch that I didn't copy over his personal insults, but tough.)..... Just curious Chuck. Do you actually believe that one has to own a boat to be a boater? That seems to be your mindset, along with several others in this NG. Does past ownership count? Does "x" number of years of boating experience count? Does continued boating on boats not owned count? Does one have to boat on the ocean to fit your definition of a boater? And exactly what is your definition of a boat? Is it any vessel capable of floating while carrying a person aboard? Or does it have to be a custom made 36 foot Lobster boat? ************************************************** ** Let's begin with the observation that if a "boater" were participating in a boating discussion group, at least some of that person's posts would be about boating. In two or three years, under Dennis Compton, JimH, and all the other screen names in between you have made what, 4, 5, 6 (maybe) boating related posts? Vs. 4,5,6 personal attack posts almost every day. Boat ownership isn't critical. Lots of people charter once or twice a year, and one could argue that they are "boaters". A lot of boat owners don't get out that much more than charter boaters do..........but, the key difference is that they have an interest in boating. I do not call you a non-boater simply because you don't currently own a boat. You sold your Maxum (I believe it was) when your wife's health declined. If we can all hope that her health improves, perhaps you'll own a boat again some day. When you participate in the NG, you discuss people- not boats. For example, if you disagree with something I express as an observation or an opinion you never raise a counter argument or post a contrasting opinion on the same item, you simply start spreading crap about hundred dollar bills being stuffed through my mailbox, etc. You make no pretense about having any boating knowledge. Who was it that posted, jut over a year ago, that they only came to rec.boats to cause trouble and saved their "serious" boating discussion for other forums? Look in the mirror. You have admitted that you see your role here is to be as destructive as you can. You're not a boater because you have never expressed a serious interest in boating. No, you don't have to boat "on the ocean" to be a boater. No, you don't have to own a lobster boat. Any vessel that will keep you afloat in the water could be loosely defined as a boat. (or at least a raft). :-) We can only call 'em as we see 'em. You never post anything about boating, therefore it is safe to assume you are not a boater. Wouldn't matter if you had six of them sitting in your driveway, or whether you took a charter cruise on an annual basis. If you were a boater, you'd demonstrate an interest in the subject and some ability to discuss or debate issues rather than constantly pump your poison pen. |
wrote in message oups.com... hurtwit inquired: (disclosure, much of his post snipped- this was the operative point. He will bitch that I didn't copy over his personal insults, but tough.)..... Just curious Chuck. Do you actually believe that one has to own a boat to be a boater? That seems to be your mindset, along with several others in this NG. Does past ownership count? Does "x" number of years of boating experience count? Does continued boating on boats not owned count? Does one have to boat on the ocean to fit your definition of a boater? And exactly what is your definition of a boat? Is it any vessel capable of floating while carrying a person aboard? Or does it have to be a custom made 36 foot Lobster boat? ************************************************** ** Let's begin with the observation that if a "boater" were participating in a boating discussion group, at least some of that person's posts would be about boating. In two or three years, under Dennis Compton, JimH, and all the other screen names in between you have made what, 4, 5, 6 (maybe) boating related posts? Vs. 4,5,6 personal attack posts almost every day. Wrong. I have made about as many on topic boating related posts as you have. As far as personal attacks and OT postings, you remain in 3rd place behind Basskisser and Krause. Boat ownership isn't critical. Lots of people charter once or twice a year, and one could argue that they are "boaters". A lot of boat owners don't get out that much more than charter boaters do..........but, the key difference is that they have an interest in boating. As I do and most folks in this NG. I do not call you a non-boater simply because you don't currently own a boat. You sold your Maxum (I believe it was) when your wife's health declined. If we can all hope that her health improves, perhaps you'll own a boat again some day. Her health is not improving. But I will be purchasing a smaller boat (the Maxum was 35 LOA) when we purchase our retirement house on the water. When you participate in the NG, you discuss people- not boats. For example, if you disagree with something I express as an observation or an opinion you never raise a counter argument or post a contrasting opinion on the same item, you simply start spreading crap about hundred dollar bills being stuffed through my mailbox, etc. You make no pretense about having any boating knowledge. As you often do. Just because I don't write a multi paragraph 1,000 word essay does not mean my point was not expressed properly. Who was it that posted, jut over a year ago, that they only came to rec.boats to cause trouble and saved their "serious" boating discussion for other forums? Look in the mirror. I was half kidding as you and many others here seem to do that very thing. You have admitted that you see your role here is to be as destructive as you can. Really? I don't think so. You're not a boater because you have never expressed a serious interest in boating. Sure I have, many times. No, you don't have to boat "on the ocean" to be a boater. Good. No, you don't have to own a lobster boat. Good. Any vessel that will keep you afloat in the water could be loosely defined as a boat. (or at least a raft). :-) Well, I guess I am not boatless then as I still have an Achilles and motor in the attic. We can only call 'em as we see 'em. You never post anything about boating, therefore it is safe to assume you are not a boater. Not true. You just did not bother to look. Wouldn't matter if you had six of them sitting in your driveway, or whether you took a charter cruise on an annual basis. If you were a boater, you'd demonstrate an interest in the subject and some ability to discuss or debate issues rather than constantly pump your poison pen. Pot-kettle-black. |
BTW: Let's see if you can live by your own rules now. I summarized them
for you: 1. No name calling. You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name. 2. No dicussions of people...just boats. No politics. No religion. No union talk. 3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats. You must remain focussed and serious. 4. No personal attacks. I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it". Now that we have that straight let me say a couple of more things. One can be a boater yet not want to constantly participate in boating only discussions in a remote boating NG. If a topic is not of interest why participate in it? Do you just talk boats 24/7 Chuck? I have seen boating topics being discussed ad nauseum. I have seen boating topics discussed here that turned into nothing but name calling and personal attacks. Boating was still being discussed so I guess that is acceptable to you. You don't set the rules nor dictate them to me. I do hope, however, that *you* start following the rules you have now set. |
|
JimH protested:
Wrong. I have made about as many on topic boating related posts as you have. ******************* Hate to break this to you, but look up your posting history in Google. The archives are not your friend when you make this claim. "Gould is a lying asshole" is not a boating related post, even if interjected into a boating related thread. "Harry is a lying asshole" doesn't count, either, nor do attacks on jps, basskisser, or any of your other prefered victims. I am not saying that you don't participate in boating related threads, only that you do not participate with any boating related comments or content. That's an unassailable fact. Prove me wrong by listing several examples of posts you have made regarding boating issues, (where those posts are not merely serving as a vehicle for name calling and personal attack), rather than by simply denying the painfully obvious. Sadly, you cannot, and if you respond to this challenge it will be with some witty phrase like "pot, kettle, black". :-( You claim to have an interest in boats or boating, but actions speak louder than words and yours indicate only an interest in lobbing insult and seeking personal confrontations. Hey, everybody has to have a hobby. Yours is plainly evident. No big deal, but why make a pretense that your behavior is the fault of someone else, justified by something somebody else does, and better or worse than the behavior of another participant? It's not unreasonable to assume you are putting your best foot forward- and from a boating perspective nobody could possibly be even taking note, let alone impressed. Love to stick around and chat, but coffee break's over and I need to get back to work. There's a severe shortage of hundred dollar bills in this morning's mail, and If I'm going to buy up the rest of your neighborhood I'll have to write 2-3 more reviews. :-) |
wrote in message ups.com... JimH protested: Wrong. I have made about as many on topic boating related posts as you have. ******************* Hate to break this to you, but look up your posting history in Google. The archives are not your friend when you make this claim. "Gould is a lying asshole" is not a boating related post, even if interjected into a boating related thread. "Harry is a lying asshole" doesn't count, either, nor do attacks on jps, basskisser, or any of your other prefered victims. I am not saying that you don't participate in boating related threads, only that you do not participate with any boating related comments or content. That's an unassailable fact. Prove me wrong by listing several examples of posts you have made regarding boating issues, (where those posts are not merely serving as a vehicle for name calling and personal attack), rather than by simply denying the painfully obvious. Sadly, you cannot, and if you respond to this challenge it will be with some witty phrase like "pot, kettle, black". :-( You claim to have an interest in boats or boating, but actions speak louder than words and yours indicate only an interest in lobbing insult and seeking personal confrontations. Hey, everybody has to have a hobby. Yours is plainly evident. No big deal, but why make a pretense that your behavior is the fault of someone else, justified by something somebody else does, and better or worse than the behavior of another participant? It's not unreasonable to assume you are putting your best foot forward- and from a boating perspective nobody could possibly be even taking note, let alone impressed. Love to stick around and chat, but coffee break's over and I need to get back to work. There's a severe shortage of hundred dollar bills in this morning's mail, and If I'm going to buy up the rest of your neighborhood I'll have to write 2-3 more reviews. :-) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions of people...just boats. Broken. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. Broken. |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:38:56 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:15:53 -0500, John H wrote: On 9 Feb 2005 18:12:15 -0800, wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ I've never seen a major mfg. boat that is totally unsuited for safe and appropriate use by somebody, under the right conditions. Two equally knowledgeable boaters will evaluate the same boat, and one might rule it out immediately and go on to buy something else, while the other likes it so much he writes a check on the spot. Which one was "right"? (Hint: most likely both, they simply prioritized different needs). I really didn't expect an objective, million-dollar test. I just wanted your subjective opinion of how the three boats compared in your experience. Any boat looks, rides and feels good first time around - it takes time to find the little things that annoy or fail. I really like my Ranger and would hate to part with it, but over the four years I've owned it, there are things that I notice that annoy the hell out of me - the worst being the placement of the forward seat post. That's why I have a thing about Bluefin boats. They aren't the prettiest nor are they cosmetically perfect, but the damn things ride like a dream in all weather, are very nicely fit out for fishing and tough as hell. Another boat that I have been consistently impressed with are the Polar series boats. They are good looking, form/fit/function are damn close to perfect and they are very nicely laid out from an ergonomic standpoint. We've had this magazine "pro/con" debate before. For my money, if you want a truly objective report, ask owners about the boat, not the dealer. A lot of negative boat reports are related to the dealer, not the boat. You can get a good idea from the manufacturer's information and reading "test" reports in the magazines, but you will get closer to the truth by asking owners. Later, Tom Agree with what you say, although I've found that owners are usually somewhat biased. I thought, if Chuck had 'test driven' the three boats he could provide some feedback on his perceptions. If he can't, he can't. No big deal. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
ROTFLMAO.
Hurtwit the hypocrite hit his stride just after the ecstacy kicked in and wrote: BTW: Let's see if you can live by your own rules now. I summarized them for you: 1. No name calling. You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name. 2. No dicussions of people...just boats. No politics. No religion. No union talk. 3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats. You must remain focussed and serious. 4. No personal attacks. I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it". Now that we have that straight let me say a couple of more things. One can be a boater yet not want to constantly participate in boating only discussions in a remote boating NG. If a topic is not of interest why participate in it? Do you just talk boats 24/7 Chuck? I have seen boating topics being discussed ad nauseum. I have seen boating topics discussed here that turned into nothing but name calling and personal attacks. Boating was still being discussed so I guess that is acceptable to you. You don't set the rules nor dictate them to me. I do hope, however, that *you* start following the rules you have now set. ************ Responses: To "BTW:.........." I never set any rules nor proposed any. The last time we exchanged thoughts on this subject was after I objected to one of your insulting posts in which you called me a "liar". Do you recall that your response was "Liar isn't an insult, because I believe it to be true"? Do you recall that I then reserved the right to make statements about you, and that the standard shall be that as long as I sincerely believe them to be true you cannot, in return, complain about insult? I believe you are of less than average intellect, display some serious emotional or personality disorders, and show no real interest or ability to ever participate in this group, (in a constructive way), in any on-topic discussion. I believe you make every effort to drag on-topic discussions down to the flame war level so you can be somehow involved. None of those statements can be considered insulting, under the terms and definition you advanced when explaing why calling me a "liar" each time you disagreed with one of my opionions was not an insult. To: No name changing....... Sorry hurtwit, take that up with "Chucky." To: No discussion of politics, unions, religion, etc........I am willing to discuss any topic that somebody cares to raise. Once in a while there's a reasonable person on the other end of the argument, but all too often just somebody trolling for a flame. To: Serious discussion only..........Why? This pastime is supposed to be fun. You may find this surprising, but for a lot of people fun doesn't revolve around being as anti-social and destructive as possible. To: NO personal attacks.....Puhleaze. That would shut you down, completely and immediately. To: "I don't want to hear "But, Mom, he started it....." don't worry hurtwit. You won't hear that.There's not one chance in a million I'd ever confuse you with my Mom. To: Do I just talk boats 24/7? No. Of course not. But the difference between us, (and the reason I say you are not a boater), is that I often do- and can- talk about boats. Well enough that some of my opinions are controversial. To: "I have seen boating topics discussed here that turned into nothing but name calling and personal attacks". I agree. Shall we use the 260 Defiance thread as an example? You have had a very up front and personal view of boating threads turning into flame wars and exchanges of personal attacks. To: ........start following the rules you have now set. Sorry, hurtwit. I haven't set any rules. I don't expect you to follow any rules, either, or to post in a civil manner. It would be nice however if you'd stop wailing and bawling when somebody hands you a bucket load of your own crap in return. Be proud of who and what you are. Why pee and moan when people acknowledge your particular role in the world or "unique" contributions to a NG? Take a lesson from your new psycophant in this regard, she's twice as destructive as you are and revels in her glory. :-) |
wrote in message oups.com... ROTFLMAO. Hurtwit the hypocrite hit his stride just after the ecstacy kicked in and wrote: BTW: Let's see if you can live by your own rules now. I summarized them for you: 1. No name calling. You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name. 2. No dicussions of people...just boats. No politics. No religion. No union talk. 3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats. You must remain focussed and serious. 4. No personal attacks. I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it". Now that we have that straight let me say a couple of more things. One can be a boater yet not want to constantly participate in boating only discussions in a remote boating NG. If a topic is not of interest why participate in it? Do you just talk boats 24/7 Chuck? I have seen boating topics being discussed ad nauseum. I have seen boating topics discussed here that turned into nothing but name calling and personal attacks. Boating was still being discussed so I guess that is acceptable to you. You don't set the rules nor dictate them to me. I do hope, however, that *you* start following the rules you have now set. ************ Responses: To "BTW:.........." I never set any rules nor proposed any. The last time we exchanged thoughts on this subject was after I objected to one of your insulting posts in which you called me a "liar". Do you recall that your response was "Liar isn't an insult, because I believe it to be true"? Do you recall that I then reserved the right to make statements about you, and that the standard shall be that as long as I sincerely believe them to be true you cannot, in return, complain about insult? I believe you are of less than average intellect, display some serious emotional or personality disorders, and show no real interest or ability to ever participate in this group, (in a constructive way), in any on-topic discussion. I believe you make every effort to drag on-topic discussions down to the flame war level so you can be somehow involved. None of those statements can be considered insulting, under the terms and definition you advanced when explaing why calling me a "liar" each time you disagreed with one of my opionions was not an insult. To: No name changing....... Sorry hurtwit, take that up with "Chucky." To: No discussion of politics, unions, religion, etc........I am willing to discuss any topic that somebody cares to raise. Once in a while there's a reasonable person on the other end of the argument, but all too often just somebody trolling for a flame. To: Serious discussion only..........Why? This pastime is supposed to be fun. You may find this surprising, but for a lot of people fun doesn't revolve around being as anti-social and destructive as possible. To: NO personal attacks.....Puhleaze. That would shut you down, completely and immediately. To: "I don't want to hear "But, Mom, he started it....." don't worry hurtwit. You won't hear that.There's not one chance in a million I'd ever confuse you with my Mom. To: Do I just talk boats 24/7? No. Of course not. But the difference between us, (and the reason I say you are not a boater), is that I often do- and can- talk about boats. Well enough that some of my opinions are controversial. To: "I have seen boating topics discussed here that turned into nothing but name calling and personal attacks". I agree. Shall we use the 260 Defiance thread as an example? You have had a very up front and personal view of boating threads turning into flame wars and exchanges of personal attacks. To: ........start following the rules you have now set. Sorry, hurtwit. I haven't set any rules. I don't expect you to follow any rules, either, or to post in a civil manner. It would be nice however if you'd stop wailing and bawling when somebody hands you a bucket load of your own crap in return. Be proud of who and what you are. Why pee and moan when people acknowledge your particular role in the world or "unique" contributions to a NG? Take a lesson from your new psycophant in this regard, she's twice as destructive as you are and revels in her glory. :-) Chuck Gould posted the following rules on 2/10/05 at 2:10 p.m. est in rec.boats. I added some personal observations in parenthesis: Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. Chuck has failed to live by his own rules. A real shame as he was once a great contributor to this NG. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... A real shame as he was once a great contributor to this NG. Isn't he long overdue for another sabbatical? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JimH" wrote in message ... A real shame as he was once a great contributor to this NG. Isn't he long overdue for another sabbatical? Yep. Time for him to pick up his ball and bat and run home to Mommy again like he did a year or two ago. If I recall correctly he threatened never to return again......yet he did, and with a vengeance. He is once again showing all the signs of being over the edge. Perhaps Krause's wife could offer an on line diagnosis of his problems. Something to note: He is not following the rules he set this afternoon at 2:10 p.m. est. I added some personal observations in parenthesis: Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. Chuck has broken all his rules several times today. He has been a bad boy. Personal note to Chuck: Take a break from this NG. It would be the best thing for you.;-) |
hurtwit the hypocrite repeated his lie:
Something to note: He is not following the rules he set this afternoon at 2:10 p.m. est. ********************************************** I did not post any rules at 2:10 PM or any other time. Who has gone over the edge here? Not me. |
wrote in message oups.com... hurtwit the hypocrite repeated his lie: Something to note: He is not following the rules he set this afternoon at 2:10 p.m. est. ********************************************** I did not post any rules at 2:10 PM or any other time. Who has gone over the edge here? Not me. Chuck Gould posted the following rules on 2/10/05 at 2:10 p.m. est in rec.boats. I added some personal observations in parenthesis: Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Broken at least 7 times today after he himself set the rules. Shame, shame Chuck. Time for you to take a break and run home with your ball and bat like you did a year or so ago. You are losing it Chuck. |
Harry wrote:
They're garbage. That's all. And you, Chuckster, encourage them by responding directly to their posts. ****************** That's uncharitable, Harry. JimH is obviously under some serious emotional stress right now. His wife has been ill, and maybe he's losing whatever grip he used to have. He has made it his life's work to follow me around and lob insults. Who knows why? But there's still some redeemable qualities in everybody, even a guy who lives for flame wars and seeks to start as many as he can. The other guys you mention appear here so seldom they don't amount to much. Herring is an exception. John is an asset to the group, as is NOYB. None of these people are garbage. Don't forget to take a progressive view of the situation. We libs are supposed to be tolerant, it's the right wingers who are supposed to yell (as JimH is now doing) "conform to my standards or get the hell out of here", not the enlightened and tolerant lefties. :-) |
wrote in message oups.com... Harry wrote: They're garbage. That's all. And you, Chuckster, encourage them by responding directly to their posts. ****************** That's uncharitable, Harry. JimH is obviously under some serious emotional stress right now. His wife has been ill, and maybe he's losing whatever grip he used to have. He has made it his life's work to follow me around and lob insults. Who knows why? But there's still some redeemable qualities in everybody, even a guy who lives for flame wars and seeks to start as many as he can. The other guys you mention appear here so seldom they don't amount to much. Herring is an exception. John is an asset to the group, as is NOYB. None of these people are garbage. Don't forget to take a progressive view of the situation. We libs are supposed to be tolerant, it's the right wingers who are supposed to yell (as JimH is now doing) "conform to my standards or get the hell out of here", not the enlightened and tolerant lefties. :-) Chuck Gould posted the following rules on 2/10/05 at 2:10 p.m. EST in rec.boats. I added some personal observations in parenthesis: Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. Since he posted these rules he has broken all of them numerous times. I think it is time for Chuck to step away from this NG and take a break from it like he did a year or so ago. |
hurtwit the hypocrite wrote:
Since he posted these rules he has broken all of them numerous times. I think it is time for Chuck to step away from this NG and take a break from it like he did a year or so ago. ************* Has the medication not worn off, yet, to the point where you remember that *you* posted the rules you have been attributing to me? If you are actually this confused you really need some help. If you're just pretending to be demented, you are a seriously sad *******. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Harry wrote: They're garbage. That's all. And you, Chuckster, encourage them by responding directly to their posts. ****************** That's uncharitable, Harry. JimH is obviously under some serious emotional stress right now. His wife has been ill, and maybe he's losing whatever grip he used to have. He has made it his life's work to follow me around and lob insults. Who knows why? But there's still some redeemable qualities in everybody, even a guy who lives for flame wars and seeks to start as many as he can. The other guys you mention appear here so seldom they don't amount to much. Herring is an exception. John is an asset to the group, as is NOYB. None of these people are garbage. Don't forget to take a progressive view of the situation. We libs are supposed to be tolerant, it's the right wingers who are supposed to yell (as JimH is now doing) "conform to my standards or get the hell out of here", not the enlightened and tolerant lefties. :-) Chuck Gould posted the following rules on 2/10/05 at 2:10 p.m. EST in rec.boats. I added some personal observations in parenthesis: Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (You can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. Since he posted these rules he has broken all of them numerous times. I think it is time for Chuck to step away from this NG and take a break from it like he did a year or so ago. Once again, we have the liebrals whining about the very things they are guilty of. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com