wrote:

Did say you won't find a 50-foot, full displacement fiberglass
trawler for $160k, though. And you won't, not in reasonable shape.

You really are a word twisting slimeball, Gould. You are munging the
original specs we discussed in Seattle, and you KNOW it.

I never said you couldn't "buy a boat" with your budget

That's total BS, Gould. You've taken three positions regarding price; a
few years ago in the NG AND in Seattle you stated $160,000 to $180,000
COULD get a good boat meeting the specs, then on the 22nd of last month
you stated in this NG that it takes a Nordhavn or equivalent
($400,000+), and now you modify that statement with the one above.

Most of the regular NG readers know you CAN find many vessels capable of
comfortable and safe topic cruising for $160,000 to $180,000. Your posit
that one MUST spend $400,000+ is ignorant misinformation.

Much like the Gulfstar 44's with full standup engine room.

http://tinyurl.com/9vf4m

And once again, Gould is without a clue.

I have a clue that a 44-foot Gulfstar doesn't meet your stated minimum
of 50-feet LOA.

Who said it did? The Gulfstar 44 is a great design and hard to find. And
once again, we find you twisting truth...50' was NEVER a minimum. You
know our original discussion in Seattle was for single powered trawler
OR sail, and that the 50' was a "target" because of cabin heights on
many *sailboats*.

--
Skipper

Harry,
Why do you keep encouraging Skipper? ; )


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
wrote:

Did say you won't find a 50-foot, full displacement fiberglass
trawler for $160k, though. And you won't, not in reasonable shape.

You really are a word twisting slimeball, Gould. You are munging the
original specs we discussed in Seattle, and you KNOW it.

Yawn. Take your meds, scheisskopf.

In article , says...
wrote:

Did say you won't find a 50-foot, full displacement fiberglass
trawler for $160k, though. And you won't, not in reasonable shape.

You really are a word twisting slimeball, Gould. You are munging the
original specs we discussed in Seattle, and you KNOW it.

Boy, if anyone knows about twisting words, it'd be you Snippy.

jps

Skipper wrote:
wrote:

Did say you won't find a 50-foot, full displacement fiberglass
trawler for $160k, though. And you won't, not in reasonable shape.

You really are a word twisting slimeball, Gould. You are munging the
original specs we discussed in Seattle, and you KNOW it.

I never said you couldn't "buy a boat" with your budget

That's total BS, Gould. You've taken three positions regarding price; a
few years ago in the NG AND in Seattle you stated $160,000 to $180,000
COULD get a good boat meeting the specs, then on the 22nd of last month
you stated in this NG that it takes a Nordhavn or equivalent
($400,000+), and now you modify that statement with the one above.

Most of the regular NG readers know you CAN find many vessels capable of
comfortable and safe topic cruising for $160,000 to $180,000. Your posit
that one MUST spend $400,000+ is ignorant misinformation.

Much like the Gulfstar 44's with full standup engine room.

http://tinyurl.com/9vf4m

And once again, Gould is without a clue.

I have a clue that a 44-foot Gulfstar doesn't meet your stated minimum
of 50-feet LOA.

Who said it did? The Gulfstar 44 is a great design and hard to find. And
once again, we find you twisting truth...50' was NEVER a minimum. You
know our original discussion in Seattle was for single powered trawler
OR sail, and that the 50' was a "target" because of cabin heights on
many *sailboats*.

--
Skipper


Only a total "POS" would start a thread with a title like this.

Our meeting, years ago, apparently was a highlight of your life. It's
an incidental detail, of almost no significance in mine. The fact that
you and I remember some minor details differently after several years
doesn't make either of us a "liar." That's the normal result of time
passing after a conversation.

What makes *you* a liar is the twisting, spinning, snipping,
misquoting, doctoring etc of my posted responses to your outrageous
name calling and flaming- which you do without a moment's hesitation
and with some screwed up attitude that it's still somehow all my fault.

What makes *you* a POS is your fantasy that the entire NG actually
gives a ratz arse about a conversation we had in 1999 or 2000- and your
insistence that every thread be hijacked so you can bitch and moan
about that "lying yacht broker" who couldn't sell you a boat you wanted
at the price you hoped to pay. (And which you have been unable to find,
at the price you wanted to pay, ever since).

So here it is Psuedo. I hereby surrender the field. What the hell point
is there trying to play some stupid game with a demented old fart who
is fixated on a conversation from 5-6 years ago and who expects
everybody to believe his "new" version of events that transpired then
rather than the comments he posted about those same events during and
immediately after they occured?

There comes a time when self defense becomes demeaning. I no longer
choose to listen to your outrageous crap, or dignify it with a
response. I no longer choose to look down the list of NG topics and see
my name suggested as a topic of discussion, and publicly defamed. I'd
need to be as sick as you apparently are to continue, and I'm not. Go
play with your psychological twins.

wrote:

Only a total "POS" would start a thread with a title like this.

Well, let's just say I didn't appreciate being called a "non-boater"
*years* after I'd left the NG. Further, I didn't appreciate your turning
our meetings in Seattle into the butt end of jokes over drinks with your
friends, nor did I appreciate the convenient lapses of memory and
outright lies. And if that's not enough, S***** didn't appreciate your
comments about her being "aquaphobic" and YOUR continual insults and
name calling.

The record of your obfuscations and general failures to address the
topic directly has been made. NG readers can come to their own
conclusions over who was shooting straight here. It serves no further
purpose to continue this, and after seeing your recent stonewalling of
that overdue apology to another NG contributor, I'll not be asking you
for one. The record has been made.

--
Skipper

On 1 Nov 2005 13:39:17 -0800, wrote:


Skipper wrote:
wrote:

Did say you won't find a 50-foot, full displacement fiberglass
trawler for $160k, though. And you won't, not in reasonable shape.

You really are a word twisting slimeball, Gould. You are munging the
original specs we discussed in Seattle, and you KNOW it.

I never said you couldn't "buy a boat" with your budget

That's total BS, Gould. You've taken three positions regarding price; a
few years ago in the NG AND in Seattle you stated $160,000 to $180,000
COULD get a good boat meeting the specs, then on the 22nd of last month
you stated in this NG that it takes a Nordhavn or equivalent
($400,000+), and now you modify that statement with the one above.

Most of the regular NG readers know you CAN find many vessels capable of
comfortable and safe topic cruising for $160,000 to $180,000. Your posit
that one MUST spend $400,000+ is ignorant misinformation.

Much like the Gulfstar 44's with full standup engine room.

http://tinyurl.com/9vf4m

And once again, Gould is without a clue.

I have a clue that a 44-foot Gulfstar doesn't meet your stated minimum
of 50-feet LOA.

Who said it did? The Gulfstar 44 is a great design and hard to find. And
once again, we find you twisting truth...50' was NEVER a minimum. You
know our original discussion in Seattle was for single powered trawler
OR sail, and that the 50' was a "target" because of cabin heights on
many *sailboats*.

--
Skipper


Only a total "POS" would start a thread with a title like this.

Our meeting, years ago, apparently was a highlight of your life. It's
an incidental detail, of almost no significance in mine. The fact that
you and I remember some minor details differently after several years
doesn't make either of us a "liar." That's the normal result of time
passing after a conversation.

What makes *you* a liar is the twisting, spinning, snipping,
misquoting, doctoring etc of my posted responses to your outrageous
name calling and flaming- which you do without a moment's hesitation
and with some screwed up attitude that it's still somehow all my fault.

What makes *you* a POS is your fantasy that the entire NG actually
gives a ratz arse about a conversation we had in 1999 or 2000- and your
insistence that every thread be hijacked so you can bitch and moan
about that "lying yacht broker" who couldn't sell you a boat you wanted
at the price you hoped to pay. (And which you have been unable to find,
at the price you wanted to pay, ever since).

So here it is Psuedo. I hereby surrender the field. What the hell point
is there trying to play some stupid game with a demented old fart who
is fixated on a conversation from 5-6 years ago and who expects
everybody to believe his "new" version of events that transpired then
rather than the comments he posted about those same events during and
immediately after they occured?

There comes a time when self defense becomes demeaning. I no longer
choose to listen to your outrageous crap, or dignify it with a
response. I no longer choose to look down the list of NG topics and see
my name suggested as a topic of discussion, and publicly defamed. I'd
need to be as sick as you apparently are to continue, and I'm not. Go
play with your psychological twins.

A move I recommended about a month ago. Glad you saw the light. I've played the
same silly game with Harry. Now you know what I mean.

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

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:17:27 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:41:57 -0600, Skipper wrote:

You have clearly crossed the bounds of decency and fair play. No
matter what Gould may or may not have done.....in the past... here and
now, in the present, you are just wrong...

You originally stated that Gould attacked you first. I can find no
evidence of that. Google the proof, if there is any....

You *have,* however, in retribution, committed the same foul that you
accuse him of.

I suspect that there is not one poster here that cares one whit
whether you and Gould had a personal falling-out nearly 10 years ago.
If you have a clear claim, take it to a small claims court.... or if
significantly wronged.. take it to a Superior Court.

We don't make judgments here. We don't award damages. We don't vote.
Therefore, if you want to get something out of this exchange of words
take it to the proper venue. Thus far, you have just exposed your
dirty laundry. You have made no compelling case. You have offered no
evidence, whatsoever. You have made yourself look vicious, petty, and
vulgar. You have harmed only yourself.

Please cease and desist.....

I concur.

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

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:41:57 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
(some snippage for brevity).....
You *have,* however, in retribution, committed the same foul that you
accuse him of.


And worse, IMHO.


We don't make judgments here.

Sure we do! Lots of the regulars here make judgements all the time! Some
render poor judgements, other pretty keen.

Personally, I try to avoid making judgements unless I have the facts. In
this particular case, I know enough about Chuck Gould to believe that he
is not at all deserving of this foul abuse & harassment. I don't know or
care if this guy is the "original Skipper, Bayliner owner & Kansas
resident" or not, but he's an irritating jackass & obviously has mental
problems.



Please cease and desist.....


My vote as well.

Regards
Doug King

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
The record has been made.

--
Skipper

I guess you're all done here, then, right? Bye bye.

if this guy is the "original Skipper, Bayliner owner & Kansas
resident" or not, but he's an irritating jackass & obviously has mental
problems.

Which certainly helps to qualify him as the "original". My hunch is
that Pseudo Skipper revived the Original. Pseudo just wasn't quite up
to displaying the proper zest for invective, and "Original" was worried
about defamation due to his reputation being mellowed.