"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.

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!

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.........

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!!

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!

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.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:09:05 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
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
hlink.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.


At least I can read, understand, and exhibit some integrity. If that's
'Kevinesque', then it's a good thing.

--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:09:38 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:23:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
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.

Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot
seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas.
Yes John you missed something.
You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though
they were stated by the OP.
No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?


Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension
problem.
Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)

Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different
things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most
certainly is *capable* of doing so.

Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools
also, especially at the 4th grade level.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
What's with these screwball school system references?

Many Maryland counties are having big problems achieving their desired
improvement levels. Perhaps you missed the news a couple weeks ago.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

So? Why would this be of any interest here?

One of your buds is suffering from the same problem. Perhaps he could get
some help from the school web site.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:09:05 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
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
thlink.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.


At least I can read, understand, and exhibit some integrity. If that's
'Kevinesque', then it's a good thing.

--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Read.........yeas.

Understand.....no.

Exhibit integrity.........no.

And the last few weeks of your posts here are proof. ;-)

Come on John..........You can do better than that.

Bye Jim. (following Eisboch's example)
--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day, Jim! *****
******************************************

John