Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.

I changed my mind, I am sure you would never throw snotty remarks towards
Jim, you are above that. ; )



wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


As predicted, the Chuck spin begins....as does the "who, me?" routine.
Predictable.

And I am still waiting for the link to where I said my "on-topic posts are
*far*
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a *significant* amount." ...your quote (I added the *'s ).

I never said that. You know it. An apology is in order if you are man
enough to step to the plate Chuck.

Are you man enough to admit when *you* are wrong and slammed/flamed someone
for no reason?

On 14 Jul 2005 15:24:04 -0700, " wrote:



Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?
The only people who could think I was throwing barbs at JimH would be
folks who believe he fits the generic descrption of people who respond
to boating related posts with personal insults and remarks. Apparently
that includes JimH, although I can't understand why. Do you also
believe that JimH fits the generic description? Why would that be?

This is really bizarre. JimH accuses me of dragging him into this
thread, when all I have done is defend him from some remarks made by a
third party. How strange. I've even been asked to prove or justify my
defense of JimH- and by none other than JimH himself! Way weird, if you
ask me.

And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.

Most snide!

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

wrote:

snip
And the entire purpose of posting the remarks elsewhere was supposed to
be to avoid the snot fight that ordinarily erupts when comments about a
boat are posted here. Looks like we have the same old snot fight,
anyway. What does that mean? That some people are just spoling for a
snot fight, and boating related comments have only been used as a
convenient excuse? I'd like to think not.


I know you like to look for the best in people...but sometimes you just
have to 'call a spade a spade'.

wrote:
Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It looks like you started this thread, so you could throw some barbs at
JimH.

Looks like?
To whom? Mr Magoo?

Somebody else slammed poor ol' JimH and I spoke up to defend him. How
is that throwing barbs?


That bunch of pig-pilers can't follow a thread if their collective
lives depended on it!!!!!

On 13 Jul 2005 22:51:56 -0700, "
wrote:


To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

My brother's marina has two of these on the same pier he's on. I like
the styling, although they seem a little slab sided to me. It's kind
of like putting the sixties style cabin on a box and making the front
end pointy if you get my drift.

My brother went out on one and he said they tend to bounce a lot -
they don't seem to have any real weight to them. Any thoughts on
that?

Live long and prosper,

Tom

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 22:51:56 -0700, "
wrote:


To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

My brother's marina has two of these on the same pier he's on. I like
the styling, although they seem a little slab sided to me. It's kind
of like putting the sixties style cabin on a box and making the front
end pointy if you get my drift.

My brother went out on one and he said they tend to bounce a lot -
they don't seem to have any real weight to them. Any thoughts on
that?

Live long and prosper,

Tom


This is one of the "walkthrough" items I do every month, and we don't
get underway in the boat or claim that we have. The dealer says the
boat will do over 30mph, and depending on sea state its easy to imagine
there could indeed be quite a bit of bouncing. Some of the
characteristics that make the boat trailerable, such as the light
displacement and short waterline, give it a short and shallow
"footprint". Peeling off some speed *should* reduce the bounce, but one
would need to take the boat out to determine whether bouncing is much
of a problem and how speed related it might be. Proper adjustment of
trim and tabs would also have an effect on the amount of bouncing
experienced.

The "slab sides" are part of the evolution of this model. When it was
introduced, there was less freeboard but there was an engine box in the
cockpit. Inceasing the freeboard made it possible to place the engine
under a hatch in the cockpit and free'd up a lot of additional space.
Just another one of the compromises that every boat on the market is
forced to deal with: more of this means less off- or too much of-
something else.

On 15 Jul 2005 07:19:00 -0700, "
wrote:



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 22:51:56 -0700, "
wrote:


To view some comments on the Bayliner 242 Classic Cruiser:

My brother's marina has two of these on the same pier he's on. I like
the styling, although they seem a little slab sided to me. It's kind
of like putting the sixties style cabin on a box and making the front
end pointy if you get my drift.

My brother went out on one and he said they tend to bounce a lot -
they don't seem to have any real weight to them. Any thoughts on
that?

Live long and prosper,

Tom


This is one of the "walkthrough" items I do every month, and we don't
get underway in the boat or claim that we have. The dealer says the
boat will do over 30mph, and depending on sea state its easy to imagine
there could indeed be quite a bit of bouncing. Some of the
characteristics that make the boat trailerable, such as the light
displacement and short waterline, give it a short and shallow
"footprint". Peeling off some speed *should* reduce the bounce, but one
would need to take the boat out to determine whether bouncing is much
of a problem and how speed related it might be. Proper adjustment of
trim and tabs would also have an effect on the amount of bouncing
experienced.

The "slab sides" are part of the evolution of this model. When it was
introduced, there was less freeboard but there was an engine box in the
cockpit. Inceasing the freeboard made it possible to place the engine
under a hatch in the cockpit and free'd up a lot of additional space.
Just another one of the compromises that every boat on the market is
forced to deal with: more of this means less off- or too much of-
something else.

That's about what I figured.

Nice write up.

Later,

Tom

Yes, it is nice to see someone such as yourself saying away from personally
oriented insults, because you know JimH would never take the bait and I know
you would never make snide comments about JimH, because backhanded
compliments are beneath you.

"Who Me?"


From:
Subject: Link to some observations about a boat
Date: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:46 AM



Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It is statements such as this one that made me change my mind about you
trolling for a fight. You would never stoop to that level.

I'm flattered that you found time in the midst your own vast numbers of
positive, on-topic, not-personally oriented contributions to the NG to
even bother evaluating my motives.

And if I *were* trolling for a fight, JimH would be the last person I
would expect to take the bait.