On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.

While Harry has the financial resources to own whatever he likes,
including a small fleet of boats, many of the people who are so
against medium size and larger boats adopt that position as a result
of poorly informed conclusions. People who own large boats are
stereotypically dismissed as folks with way too much money. (Large
boat = anything larger than the one the person complaining about large
boats happens to own). In reality, most of us with moderate or larger
size boats are juyst normal folks who have made different choices and
spent money with different priorities.

It amazes me how a guy driving down the freeway in a 40-foot, $350,000
motor home is perceived as a "retired working stiff, living the
America retirement dream while touring the country." Put the same guy
in a 40-foot, $150,000 boat and all of a sudden he's part of he
"wealthy elite, out of touch with the common man and wasting
resources."

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

Since you were talking about your lobster boat yesterday, what kind of
mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

Since you were talking about your lobster boat yesterday, what kind of
mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?


http://tinyurl.com/3dg

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at
26 mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

Since you were talking about your lobster boat yesterday, what kind of
mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?


http://tinyurl.com/3dg

Harry,
That was not polite, I am just trying to understand your position on
this issue. You can't say you don't like slow cruising, that you really
like to go fast so you can get to your destination quickly, no matter
what the fuel consumption is, and then chastise someone else for using
less fuel by cruising slowly.

So what kind of mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,
That was not polite, I am just trying to understand your position on
this issue. You can't say you don't like slow cruising, that you really
like to go fast so you can get to your destination quickly, no matter
what the fuel consumption is, and then chastise someone else for using
less fuel by cruising slowly.

So what kind of mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?





Once more, Reggie, don't offer me advice and don't ask me questions.
I allowed you more than a week to see if you could behave like a
gentlemen. Well, you couldn't. Drop dead. And please, no
rationalizations about how "innocent" your queries are.

http://tinyurl.com/3dg

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,
That was not polite, I am just trying to understand your position on
this issue. You can't say you don't like slow cruising, that you
really like to go fast so you can get to your destination quickly, no
matter what the fuel consumption is, and then chastise someone else
for using less fuel by cruising slowly.

So what kind of mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?





Once more, Reggie, don't offer me advice and don't ask me questions.
I allowed you more than a week to see if you could behave like a
gentlemen. Well, you couldn't. Drop dead. And please, no
rationalizations about how "innocent" your queries are.

http://tinyurl.com/3dg



I have been behaving like a gentlemen. You are the one who has been
calling me names, which I have ignored. Why did my question bother you?

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:17:05 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3dg


From another newsgroup:

Not sure if there's a connection but shortly after clicking that link this
AM Kaspersky caught, stopped and deleted this:
"detected: malware not-virus:Hoax.Win32.Renos.kd"


(just couldn't resist!)

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:17:05 -0400, HK wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3dg


From another newsgroup:

Not sure if there's a connection but shortly after clicking that link this
AM Kaspersky caught, stopped and deleted this:
"detected: malware not-virus:Hoax.Win32.Renos.kd"


(just couldn't resist!)

Of course!

"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
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'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour equals
about 2 mpg.

So what?

Eisboch