Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 8:02?am, HK wrote:
Off Solomons Island. Hope it's not the boat of anyone we know:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat1-1.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat2-1.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat3.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat4.jpg

Occupants rescued.

Can't see enough of the superstructure to be definitive, but it looks
more like a motoryacht than a trawler to me. Obviously doesn't have a
proper boat deck and running from the lower helm (if even equipped) is
a low priority.



Seen one oversized barge, you've seen them all.

On Oct 10, 9:57?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 8:02?am, HK wrote:
Off Solomons Island. Hope it's not the boat of anyone we know:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat1-1.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat2-1.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat3.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat4.jpg

Occupants rescued.

Can't see enough of the superstructure to be definitive, but it looks
more like a motoryacht than a trawler to me. Obviously doesn't have a
proper boat deck and running from the lower helm (if even equipped) is
a low priority.

Seen one oversized barge, you've seen them all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:57?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 8:02?am, HK wrote:
Off Solomons Island. Hope it's not the boat of anyone we know:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat1-1.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../rvboat2-1.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat3.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ng/rvboat4.jpg
Occupants rescued.
Can't see enough of the superstructure to be definitive, but it looks
more like a motoryacht than a trawler to me. Obviously doesn't have a
proper boat deck and running from the lower helm (if even equipped) is
a low priority.
Seen one oversized barge, you've seen them all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)



Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+
prices at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny
the impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's
energy consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax
or energy surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private
planes, et cetera.

"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)



Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)


Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

When we lived in Italy, we were rationed 400 liters of gas for our cars a
month.
If we wanted or needed more, we paid through the nose.

It worked.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:59:50 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

When we lived in Italy, we were rationed 400 liters of gas for our cars a
month.
If we wanted or needed more, we paid through the nose.

It worked.

Eisboch


The big advantage of having a wife who worked for the government and had a
car registered in her name. We got 800 liters! Didn't use it because most
of our travel was by motorcycle.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)


Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+
prices at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to
deny the impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to
downsize one's energy consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a
substantial luxury tax or energy surtax on oversized pleasure
vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

Why, shoudn't they be coerced into living within walking distance of
their work?

BAR wrote:



No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or
in connection with their jobs.

Why, shoudn't they be coerced into living within walking distance of
their work?

Harry believes the only fair tax are those that don't effect him. Since
he only owns a little low transom Parker, everyone who owns something
bigger should pay his (Harry's) portion of the tax. Since Harry lives
in the woods, he shouldn't have to pay for the gas he drives to get to
the city.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)



Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch


Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?