JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:25 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
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. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers
are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and
fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small
craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim
platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be
well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly
to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing
sailboats
built with no transom at all........)

No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck.
You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat
will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer
is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that
was my point because in your review you never said anything about
these deficiencies. ;-)
The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these
"info-articles"
are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be
willing
to accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing
more
than an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly
engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open
water
and 5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating
discussion,
the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a
waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you
are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can
you let this one go.


I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him
up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like
adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start
a
fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself.

BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written.
;-)


32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of
large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or
the
North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating.


I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot
swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design
defect. ;-)


Again, reading comprehension...

'Not able to take' and 'not intended for' are two different things. Can
you
not see the difference, or do you feel you must put words in Chuck's mouth
to support whatever you're attempting to say?
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

You are beginning to act very 'Kevinesque' John.

Still on your monthly period bipolar rant, I see.........