| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
"NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? Pavlov would have had a field day with Kevin. ;-) |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? Again, you stupid homophobe, I said at the start that I'd bet you aren't bright enough to get an implication. You've proved yourself just that, thanks! |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
bassie and kevin sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g
first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes little kevin sitting in a baby carriage. (Probably high on second-hand pot smoke) "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? Again, you stupid homophobe, I said at the start that I'd bet you aren't bright enough to get an implication. You've proved yourself just that, thanks! |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: bassie and kevin sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes little kevin sitting in a baby carriage. (Probably high on second-hand pot smoke) What a child. Grow up. Still can't figure out what "implication" means, huh? Hint: it has nothing to do with one's sexuality, homophobe. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? Anybody in the mental health field would have a field day with JimH's monthly period bipolar rants!! |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect.. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Hehe!! I KNEW it was way over your head!!!!!! im·pli·ca·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mpl-kshn) n. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated. The act of implying or the condition of being implied. Something that is implied, especially: An indirect indication; a suggestion. An implied meaning; implicit significance. Root word: im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl) tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer. Obsolete. To entangle. (see the second meaning.) Now would you think that it was IMPLIED that he was meaning ME, after idiotically calling me Kevin at least a few thousand times???? Furthermore, do you only reply to posts that are 100% directed at YOU? If so, what are you doing in this thread? An inference. See Usage Note at infer. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Recreational Boating Message | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
