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?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:13:53 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"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.


First, Jim, I can't believe you're crossposting this crap. Second, yeah, Chuck
gets paid by his publisher who gets some advertising dollars from Sea Ray, so
indirectly your statement has a *very little* basis in fact.

Your assertion that Chuck shouldn't post his fluff piece here because newbies
might see it, also has *very little* basis in fact. In all your time here, have
you *ever* heard anyone say, "I bought my boat 'cause Chuck said it was nice and
it's a piece of ****?" Me neither.

I would hope that one who has earned enough money to buy a boat has more sense
than to buy one based on one article he's read.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:13:53 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"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.


First, Jim, I can't believe you're crossposting this crap. Second, yeah,
Chuck
gets paid by his publisher who gets some advertising dollars from Sea Ray,
so
indirectly your statement has a *very little* basis in fact.

Your assertion that Chuck shouldn't post his fluff piece here because
newbies
might see it, also has *very little* basis in fact. In all your time here,
have
you *ever* heard anyone say, "I bought my boat 'cause Chuck said it was
nice and
it's a piece of ****?" Me neither.

I would hope that one who has earned enough money to buy a boat has more
sense
than to buy one based on one article he's read.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

JimH wrote:

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

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

There's a bright fella. Sticks by his lie that I'm "paid by Sea Ray to
defend Sea Ray boats" when even his normally close allies point out the
absurdity.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.
You think that's "beneath" your own non-use, as a non-owner, or
something? My boat will do 10kts (when pressed hard) but that doesn't
mean I'm unable to appreciate the thrill of jumping into a small
runabout and zipping up and down the lake on a hot, sunny day. Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.
Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

You have to be the snobbiest non-boater in the crowd. Last week you
diss'd all Sea Ray owners with a comment that they all had large
inventories of gold chains and small manhoods. This week you imply that
owing a sporty looking boat for the sheer joy of looking good, going
fast, and having fun is somehow beneath the definition of a true
"boater". What in the Sam H would qualify a guy who doesn't even own a
boat to cast dispersion on the motivations of people who do?

This thread is supposed to be about Sea Ray boats. What prompted your
personal attack?
Go ahead and launch your last, limp "zinger" (talk about inadequately
endowed), and smirk away thinking you had the "last word". I won't help
you screw up this thread any worse by responding to more of your
classic JimH personality attack in this particular thread.

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

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

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

There's a bright fella. Sticks by his lie that I'm "paid by Sea Ray to
defend Sea Ray boats" when even his normally close allies point out the
absurdity.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.

LOL. That would explain us bass boat owners. 70.9 MPH Bass Cat under ideal
conditions with a full (tournament) load. 72 plus lightly loaded and out of
control. On the other hand my GPS indicates an average speed of les than 1
MPH when actually fishing. LOL.

I'ld have to say in my personal experience those people who can afford and
choose to buy a nice boat are either about looking good and going fast or
looking good and being comfortable. In my case I bought my Bass Cat after
reading hundreds of articles and listening to many other people with hands
on personal expereince of different boats, and having owned three used
beater bass boats so I could compare features and decide what I truly wanted
out of a Bass Boat.

In the case of my dad's two Searays. They are older models. Pre-Brunswick
so I guess my experience with them does not apply. I can say those old
Phoenix made Searays are rock solid rough water handlers. Stable and safe
at displacement speeds and pretty darned impressive when properly handled at
planing speeds. No flex and accurate tracking in the worst conditions we
have run them in. No, we have not run them offshore, but I think people who
call them an OK lake boat are really doing them a disservice. We have run
ahead of (and a few times trailing) storm driven waves in huge lakes with
these and they kept us safe and drive. Anybody who has run Lake Mead or
Lake Powel in the afternoon on a windy day will understand the type of
conditions I am talking about.

So, I guess I have no relevant opinion on modern Searay boats, but the odler
ones were incredible. At the time my dad bought his Searays they had a top
notch reputation in the industry. He also has an early 90s 22' Bayliner
walk around cuddy which had a transom rot out in just a couple years. (it
was kept on a trailer, covered and dry except for a few weeks each year.
They also sold it way under powered with a single Force 150. He had the
transom rebuilt by an independent shop, and set it up with twin 150s. It is
now a decent boat. If Searay in the early 90s was truly similar in quality
and construction.to the Bayliner then I would have to agree with their
detractors, and any current Seray would be subject to severe scrutiny by
myself before I would consider purchasing one.

Personally I love the look of that 68 footer they have on their website. If
I was able to afford something like that I'ld certainly consider my options
carefully. On the other hand. Do you think that thing could outrun pirates
off the coast of Yemen with the over 3 thousand (claimed) horsepower using
that pair of optional Cat diesels? LOL. Don't need no stinking guns. Just
catch us if you can. LOL. On the other hand with only a thousand gallons
of fuel capacity I doubt it would ever make it that far. LOL. I'ld never
make it across the Pacific with it.
--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

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

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

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

There's a bright fella. Sticks by his lie that I'm "paid by Sea Ray to
defend Sea Ray boats" when even his normally close allies point out the
absurdity.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.

Really?


You think that's "beneath" your own non-use, as a non-owner, or
something? My boat will do 10kts (when pressed hard) but that doesn't
mean I'm unable to appreciate the thrill of jumping into a small
runabout and zipping up and down the lake on a hot, sunny day.

But do you look good doing so Chuk?

Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.

Gee, I knew the spin would start soon. And it has.


Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

And that is why they boat a SeaRay....eh?



You have to be the snobbiest non-boater in the crowd. Last week you
diss'd all Sea Ray owners with a comment that they all had large
inventories of gold chains and small manhoods.

And you said for SeaRay owners it all just about "looking good and going
fast".....I would take more of an offence to that if I was a SeaRay owner.

Pot-kettle-black.

This week you imply that
owing a sporty looking boat for the sheer joy of looking good, going
fast, and having fun is somehow beneath the definition of a true
"boater".

Don't exagerate what I said. I repeated words that you used when reviewing
a SeaRay boat...."going fast and looking good." Are you now saying you
never said this?

What in the Sam H would qualify a guy who doesn't even own a
boat to cast dispersion on the motivations of people who do?

This thread is supposed to be about Sea Ray boats. What prompted your
personal attack?

If you took it as a personal attack (repeating what you wrote) then that is
your problem.