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.

John H. wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0700, " wrote:



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


More specifically to the point, JimH is a mature, intelligent adult who
would certainly never give anybody a *reason* to toss snotty remarks in
his direction. By his own admission, he has a wealth of boating
knowledge and experience and is a prolific on-topic poster here.
Participation by such people should be encouraged, and I would
certainly be doing the NG a disservice to follow JimH around the NG and
dump buckets of personal crap into his threads. (Consider the
"impressive sniping" thread for example- it was of such extreme value
to the NG that I made only a single comment and it didn't even mention
JimH). We need more guys like JimH. That's exactly why I defended him
against the unwarranted personal attack. :-)

Moster snide!

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


Why would you characterize my remarks as "snide"?
Are you saying my favorable characterization of JimH is untrue?
Why would you think that?
Must I begin defending this fine, prolific on-topic contributor from an
even greater number of attacks? Just a few posts ago, he expressed his
own admiration for me by suggesting I undertake a task that most people
would find physiologically impossible. He surely has a high regard for
my abilities, and apparently considers some of them almost
supernatural- what reason would I have to think less of him than he
does of me?

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.

Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It is good to see you stay above the fray. Some people would try to be
snide and come across as a horses ass. I am glad you didn't.

As am I. My favorable remarks about JimH could only be considered
"snide" by those who believe that they're untrue.

*JimH* wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
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'.


Chuck is among the most decent souls who post here. Why he even bothers
with the Assholes United is beyond me. I've asked him from time to time
and even gotten some thoughtful answers.


This thread speaks for itself Krause.

Apologize all you want for Chuck Gould but his personal ethics and morals
are clearly evidenced by his replies.

A pathetic old man.....just like you Krause...no wonder you are comrades.


Thanks, JimH. May I be truly worthy of your continued esteem.

I am a bit confused, however, by a previous conversation.

From your position of moral and intellecual superiority, perhaps you
can clarify how your response "Go **** Yourself" addressed my concern
that the phrase that you didn't use ("substantially outnumber") carries
an entirely different meaning than the phrase you admit using,(while
making the claim you deny making) "far exceed"? For those of us with
old, and pathetic intellects there is a specific disconnect between "I
didn't claim anything of the sort" and "These are the exact words I
used..." (when I didn't claim anything of the sort). I await a crumb or
two from your highly elevated table......

wrote in message
oups.com...


Real Name wrote:
Gould,
It is good to see you stay above the fray. Some people would try to be
snide and come across as a horses ass. I am glad you didn't.

As am I. My favorable remarks about JimH could only be considered
"snide" by those who believe that they're untrue.


And the wheel goes round and round.....

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!!!!!

*JimH* wrote:

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


I love how you come and start insulting, and Fritz is right there with
his nose stuck up your ass. I find it odd that you chastise others for
name calling, and insulting, but then YOU do it, and also you don't
chastise your boyfriend Fritz for doing the same.

wrote:
*JimH* wrote:

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


I love how you come and start insulting, and Fritz is right there with
his nose stuck up your ass. I find it odd that you chastise others for
name calling, and insulting, but then YOU do it, and also you don't
chastise your boyfriend Fritz for doing the same.

Oh no. Here I am once again called upon to defend the morally and
intellectually superior JimH against an unwarranted personal attack. No
rest for the weary....

Please be aware that JimH is graciously offering the rest of us the
benefit of his superior moral standards. He is capable of seeing things
in ways that those of more "pathetic" stature or more advanced age
cannot ever hope to appreciate. When JimH makes personal remarks, he is
surely motivated by a generous concern for the welfare of his fellow
human beings and is hoping that his criticisms will be considered
instructive commentary. I would be surprised to learn that improving
the morals, ethics, personalities, and intellects of others isn't one
of JimH's highest priorities. While he has never shared his line of
work with the NG, I think it rather obvious that he must be a highly
respected *judge* to whom other jurists flock for sage opinions.
Perhaps we'll soon see his name discussed in connection with a vacancy
on the Supreme Court. We are truly lucky to have JimH take so many
hours out of every busy day to instruct the rest of us in our
shortcomings and deficiencies.

It is only fitting that JimH have a few "disciples" at his command, so
while the actions and comments of others posting here might be
individually questionable, it all makes sense when one considers that
they have been enlisted in the crusade to improve the morals,
personalities, and intellects of mankind by the exalted JimH. One
blessed and baptized by the leader, these fellow-travelers should
likewise be exempt from any criticism. Remember, they are only hoping
to improve the rest of us to a point where we reach their own lofty
standards. That's a very noble mission.

Why torment JimH or his apostles so? It only distracts them from their
important work.

On 15 Jul 2005 07:40:54 -0700, " wrote:



John H. wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0700, " wrote:



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


More specifically to the point, JimH is a mature, intelligent adult who
would certainly never give anybody a *reason* to toss snotty remarks in
his direction. By his own admission, he has a wealth of boating
knowledge and experience and is a prolific on-topic poster here.
Participation by such people should be encouraged, and I would
certainly be doing the NG a disservice to follow JimH around the NG and
dump buckets of personal crap into his threads. (Consider the
"impressive sniping" thread for example- it was of such extreme value
to the NG that I made only a single comment and it didn't even mention
JimH). We need more guys like JimH. That's exactly why I defended him
against the unwarranted personal attack. :-)

Moster snide!

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


Why would you characterize my remarks as "snide"?
Are you saying my favorable characterization of JimH is untrue?
Why would you think that?
Must I begin defending this fine, prolific on-topic contributor from an
even greater number of attacks? Just a few posts ago, he expressed his
own admiration for me by suggesting I undertake a task that most people
would find physiologically impossible. He surely has a high regard for
my abilities, and apparently considers some of them almost
supernatural- what reason would I have to think less of him than he
does of me?

Lend me your ears. I come not to put down JimH, but to praise him!

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