*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

If I told you the boat was built with alternating layers of Velveeta
and potato chips, you wouldn't know or appreciate the difference.

I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule. The technique
("uses no putty") is what is important to this discussion. I have
contacts
that could provide me with more technical information about the Sea Ray
hull than you or your buddy Smithers have the capacity to understand-
but why bother? A long, detailed, technical analysis would be
immediately dissed by you guys as it was "provided by Sea Ray, and who
can believe the mfgr?".

I think I'll sit and watch Smithers turn slowly on his own hook,
claiming I promised to provide something I never agreed to provide and
insisting that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" between Pascoe's
assertion that Sea Rays aren't really fiberglass boats and the photos
and description of the manufacturing process that are commonly and
publicly available. All the paniced insulting and finger pointing he
can muster aren't going to let him ge away without either 1)
establishing how much "putty" vs. how much fiberglass is in a Sea Ray
runabout hull or 2) admitting that he is speaking through his West
Marine "captain" hat and doesn't really know schidt from shine about
how Sea Ray hulls are built. So far, he's hooting down all sources that
don't agree with his bizarre position- but failing to provide a single
shred of evidence for his own, "in the middle" position.

I do commend him for doing some "research" into fiberglass fabrication
methods. Too bad he doesn't do such research before he fires off his
nonsense.

Gould,
If you read my comment, I said many boat builders will use putty to correct
any problems found when the boat is removed from the mold. Do you disagree
with this? While I have not made any insults, you seem to be getting
yourself worked up into a tizzy and hurling insults my direction.

I don't believe anything I have said concerning the PR pieces written for
boating magazines is incorrect.


wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

If I told you the boat was built with alternating layers of Velveeta
and potato chips, you wouldn't know or appreciate the difference.

I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule. The technique
("uses no putty") is what is important to this discussion. I have
contacts
that could provide me with more technical information about the Sea Ray
hull than you or your buddy Smithers have the capacity to understand-
but why bother? A long, detailed, technical analysis would be
immediately dissed by you guys as it was "provided by Sea Ray, and who
can believe the mfgr?".

I think I'll sit and watch Smithers turn slowly on his own hook,
claiming I promised to provide something I never agreed to provide and
insisting that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" between Pascoe's
assertion that Sea Rays aren't really fiberglass boats and the photos
and description of the manufacturing process that are commonly and
publicly available. All the paniced insulting and finger pointing he
can muster aren't going to let him ge away without either 1)
establishing how much "putty" vs. how much fiberglass is in a Sea Ray
runabout hull or 2) admitting that he is speaking through his West
Marine "captain" hat and doesn't really know schidt from shine about
how Sea Ray hulls are built. So far, he's hooting down all sources that
don't agree with his bizarre position- but failing to provide a single
shred of evidence for his own, "in the middle" position.

I do commend him for doing some "research" into fiberglass fabrication
methods. Too bad he doesn't do such research before he fires off his
nonsense.

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was being
used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat as
exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not fluff
PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most people who
read boating magazines that you will never see an honest review of any boat
in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review*
on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was being
used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat as
exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

And he had to reply with insults followed by his little spin as he usually
does when backed into a corner. He must be taking lessons from Krause.

Both those guys are predictable and funny to watch while they try to squirm
out of a lie or when backed into a corner.


"Newsgroup Reader" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not
fluff PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most
people who read boating magazines that you will never see an honest review
of any boat in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review*
on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was
being used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat
as exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
And he had to reply with insults followed by his little spin as he usually
does when backed into a corner. He must be taking lessons from Krause.

Both those guys are predictable and funny to watch while they try to
squirm
out of a lie or when backed into a corner.

But combined, they still don't come close to matching kevin. ;-)



"Newsgroup Reader" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not
fluff PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most
people who read boating magazines that you will never see an honest
review
of any boat in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff
*review*
on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely
you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was
being used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the
boat
as exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?