On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:56:16 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:39:43 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


There's also the matter of self fulfilling prophecy. I think we have
one poster that has absolutely gone off the deep end... mostly because
he feels that he is expected to.....


There is that bit of truth, and it ain't Jim.

Very true.

Now, go do some kind if rain dance..... you are *really* going to need
some, if you expect to be boating down here, when you get moved....

We're now thinking of the New Bern area. Looks like water levels there may
not be as much of a problem as Falls Lake.

Do you know anything about the New Bern area?

Yeah.... that is a totally different area. I like the area. From a
boating perspective (actually every) it is a much better place to
settle.

There is no shortage of water in that area. There is a lot of area in
the sound to fish and boat.

One of the local best places is Oriental.
http://www.visitoriental.com/

You might, also, extend your wanderings down Route 70 as far as
Morehead City. There is much better access to the "outside" there and
they are a gazillion miles closer to the Gulf Stream than we are.

Thanks Gene. We will give that area a peak also.
--
John H

On Feb 10, 9:15�am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

It's worse than that:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html

Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red.

I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money
spent on it) �automatically implies"smartness" in people.
There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there
are many "smart" people with limited education.

Eisboch

I agree with you entirely.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and
(even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or
over, is almost a 12' beam.

One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC
that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for
tournaments over 75 miles from his home base in Bristol RI.

That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11'
wide. The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit
to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a
Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. All he needs to do is to call the
DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. He can
also do it online. When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done
online, quick and easy.

The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7"
which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think
is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. I could be wrong
though. I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought
his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer
that's not wider than the boat it'self.

The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10'
- 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a
special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often.

In California, you get an annual permit for the wide load boat. I think
$90/annum. The rules tell you when and where you can not tow. Bascially,
you can not tow in commute times on the highway.

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

The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out
the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet
behind me. Always gives me the willies.

pansy

Eisboch

Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat
trailer.

Chance of either is infinitely small. Unless Scott is towing his trailer
near you.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:39:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

No way to trailer that sort of boat, short of a tractor trailer and
(even worse) the oversize permits. I think the narrowest model, 33' or
over, is almost a 12' beam.

One of the captains I occasionally back up has a Hydra-Sports 330 CC
that he trailers to places when fishing is hot here or there and for
tournaments over 75 miles from his home base in Bristol RI.

That boat has a 10.5' beam and with the trailer, it's close to 11'
wide. The interesting thing is that he doesn't need a special permit
to haul the boat - he does need an oversize sign (he tows it with a
Ford F-450 dual) front and rear. All he needs to do is to call the
DOT in RI, pay a small fee (like $25) and he has his permit. He can
also do it online. When he goes to MA or NY, same thing - all done
online, quick and easy.

The Canyon 33 is almost a foot wider than the Hydra-Sports - 11'7"
which isn't too wide for a trailer - it's just under 12' which I think
is the total limit on non-special wide load permits. I could be wrong
though. I know that there are specialty trailer makers (Harry bought
his trailer from one that I know of) that can build a proper trailer
that's not wider than the boat it'self.

The nice thing about the Contender 31 I had was that it was under 10'
- 9'6" - and was a piece of cake to trailer around and I didn't need a
special permit for it when I did trailer it which wasn't often.

I got my trailer from the same folks Harry did and my boat hangs over
about 8 inches on both sides... and technically, should have an
oversize permit. (Apparently, it isn't really a safety issue, it is
all about revenue.) Trailer width on state highways is limited to 96
inches and 102 inches on the Interstates.

Your guy with the 33 footer likely would exceed the 60' overall
length.

This is an area not enforced by the DMV and there are several state
legislators now forming legislation (if not already introduced) that
would attempt to fix some of these outdated dimensions.

Bear in mind this is just NC.... YMMV....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080209-0, 02/09/2008
Tested on: 2/10/2008 9:46:47 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com




Oversized for your size boat is not a revenue generator. Then ar more
likely trying to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. So the permit requires
you to know when and where you can not tow.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to
increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose.
The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be
lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose.



Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms?
Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why
should your kids & grandkids pay?


Get a clue. Most of the overspending has not gone for overseas adventures.
About 25% of the last funding bill for overseas adventures was pork, sorry
earmarks, for both Dems and Repubs. It has been a spending frenzy by both
parties for the last 16 years. The only thing that make the Clinton years
look half way decent, is the revenue from the dot.bomb bust came in faster
than Congress could ramp up spending. Part of the debt in the last 7 years
is a carry over from Congress overspending in the previous 8 years. And
for a little enlightenment for the Canuck, the President / Executive Branch
can only spend money allocated by Congress.

Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to
increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose.
The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be
lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose.



Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms?
Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why
should your kids & grandkids pay?




1. Yes.
2. It's Reaganomics...spend like a drunken sailor and then...don't pay
for it.

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

The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out
the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet
behind me. Always gives me the willies.
pansy

Eisboch
Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat
trailer.

Chance of either is infinitely small. Unless Scott is towing his trailer
near you.



My wife sez if I can arrange a weekend at the NoTell Motel with Salma,
Penelope and Marion, it's ok with her. But I can't get any of them to
return my phone calls. Not even the motel! :-

On Feb 10, 1:35*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

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

The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out
the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet
behind me. *Always gives me the willies.

pansy

Eisboch

Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway boat
trailer.

Chance of either is infinitely small. *Unless Scott is towing his trailer
near you.

Hey, how did you know I look like Penelope Cruz??

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:07?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:54?pm, John H. wrote:





On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?

Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.

So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ding ding ding.... and we have a winner... If no child left behind
works, the dems lose their voter base...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh please. Straight off a Limbaugh script.

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

Educated and intelligent people arrive at differing conclusions. If
they didn't all of that education would be wasted. The truly educated
don't ultimately migrate to the "One True Fact", but learn to use
their mental resources to think in a critical manner. Some people will
posit: "Those who disagree with me do so because they aren't very
bright." That's a laugh. What isn't very bright in an expectation that
all quality thought will lead to the same, lock step, conclusion.

Some of the educated who feel the urge to support a political party
will support the R's. Others will support the D's. Others will pick
and choose candidates from both parties and make personal, rather than
party dictated, decisions regarding issues.

The uneducated will support the party they think will do the most for them.
The Democrats make their points by telling the uneducated what they'll be
given - higher pay, better jobs, free health care, free college, free this
and free that.

What is your 'comparison' of left vs red states in terms of education
supposed to mean. The 'NCLBA' applied to all states.

Again, you're paying too much attention to Limbaugh. If, in fact, Limbaugh
said that, then Limbaugh got it right (and correct).
--
John H