"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
I may have talked about this idea before.........

Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other
threads you started before starting yet another new thread?


Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question,

"For the rich????????"

Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical?

You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it
off?

Jeeeesh!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into
with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight.

Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing.

Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I
shall not repeat with every post you made to him.

My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is
not appreciated.

wrote:
30. JIMinFL




I think you could strip all the gelcoat entirely off a boat and it
would still float. If the fibers were adequately wetted out with resin,
the hull wouldn't even absorb water (or "wick" it around). That seems
to be where we disagree.




Now you are qualifing with "adequately wetted out with resin". Sure
some
better hulls will be more resistant to water penetration. The cheaper
hulls
still depend on the gel coat to keep the water out

******

:-)

When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate
and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if
one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to
so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate,
etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard
hull rather than a defective one.

No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the
bilge.


Gee Chuck I think that's a bit of a statement. Most fibreglass
laminates are pretty porous if there are no barriers.

I'm not saying water would "flow" as such, but certainly it will seep
into the glass & definitely damage it over time.

On the other side if anyone did actually wet the layup enough that it
was truly water "proof" then it would be a very weakened laminate,
overly heavy & expensive waste of resin.

The best fix thus far is a good outer barrier usually of vinyl ester
resins in conjunction with a tissue tie layer. Even inside you need
flowcoat or such to stop the laminate being too porous from that direction.

K

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:59:07 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...
I may have talked about this idea before.........

Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other
threads you started before starting yet another new thread?


Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question,

"For the rich????????"

Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical?

You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it
off?

Jeeeesh!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into
with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight.

Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing.

I don't comment on Harry's troll and arguing because that's what Harry *wants*.

Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I
shall not repeat with every post you made to him.

Yes, that's true. I apologized for it, and it has not been repeated.

My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is
not appreciated.

Understood.



--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JimH,
You can see that Harry will continue to troll all of us anytime he wants to
get a rise and start a good argument. We all need to just ignore his
trolls.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
I may have talked about this idea before.........
Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other
threads you started before starting yet another new thread?

Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question,

"For the rich????????"

Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical?

You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock
it off?

Jeeeesh!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get
into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight.

Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing.

Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I
shall not repeat with every post you made to him.

My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy
is not appreciated.


There he goes...again, the Rev. Netmommy Jim, shoveling it fast and
furious.

Sometimes it is best to take the advice of experts.Subject: 3.3 The
destructive Troll

In about the year 1999 a new breed of Troll appeared who
have the declared intention of destroying a specific Target
newsgroup. This is done by a variety of posts, (see
Section 4) intended to drive normal posters away from the
specific newsgroup.

When the percentage of Troll posts, including followups
exceeds about 75% of the total posts, most readers seem to
just give up and unsubscribe. Subject: 5.1 Ignore them and they will go
away.

This is the traditional usenet method of dealing with
Trolls, and is regularly suggested.It is similar to the method use to train
dogs, and very
young children, ignore bad behaviour and reward good
behaviour. Thus it is only likely to work if the, The Infant
or Attention Seeker theory, is true
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:59:07 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
I may have talked about this idea before.........
Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other
threads you started before starting yet another new thread?

Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question,

"For the rich????????"

Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical?

You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock
it off?

Jeeeesh!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes
BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get
into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies
straight.

Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing.

I don't comment on Harry's troll and arguing because that's what Harry
*wants*.
Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word
I shall not repeat with every post you made to him.

Yes, that's true. I apologized for it, and it has not been repeated.
My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy
is not appreciated.
Understood.


No offense, fellas, but, really, it's a bit too much of "do as I say," not
"do as I do." Hardly a day goes by here without both of you directly or
indirectly insulting others. Perhaps you need to stand and and say the
following here every day:


1. I am powerless over trolling-my life has become unmanageable.
2. I believe a power greater than myself has made me this way, and I
am not responsible for my behavior. Harry is responsible.
3. I have made a decision to turn my will and my life over to the
care of RepubliGod as I understood him.
4. I have made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and
discovered that I couldn't count...

And so on.

Stay tuned for the next installment of the The Reverands.





"Hi! My name is (Jim, John, whatever), and I am a newsgroup troller. I
have gone (one, two, 10, 30) days without insulting anyone."

wrote in message
oups.com...
:-)

When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate
and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if
one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to
so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate,
etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard
hull rather than a defective one.

No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the
bilge.

I can't argue this point with you. I don't know what the hell you are
talking about.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:58:13 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Stay tuned for the next installment of the The Reverands.

===========================

Better yet, why not put them in the KF and stop their fun?

JimH wrote:
snip...

My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is
not appreciated.


Oh my my!
'Do as I say, not as I do'!

Harry Krause wrote:


Read my post regarding an adaptation of a 12-step program for "reformed"
whine-aholics.

I got a kick of how the Rev kept butting in when you & John were
awkwardly starting negotiations on a boat deal.
He must think John just fell off a turnip truck. After all John is
probably one of the few here who has seen Yo Ho up close.

JIMinFL wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:-)

When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate
and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if
one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to
so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate,
etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard
hull rather than a defective one.

No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the
bilge.

I can't argue this point with you. I don't know what the hell you are
talking about.

I'm talking about your position that damaged gel coat will cause a
fiberglass hull to leak,
(based upon the premise that the function of gelcoat is to "waterproof"
the fiberglass).