Rob Denney has been staging an inquisition against myself, Russ Brown
and others for some time. It is time to rationally examine the
inquisitor.

In response to my post 20184 on April 2, Mr Denney (post 20218 April
8) not only repeated numerous misleading statements and falsehoods but
also added new misinformation with no basis in fact. I was preparing
a reply, but great length is required because Mr. Denney requested I
supply sources for the statements I attribute to him, echoed by
Charlie Magee (Message 20231 April 9). So that readers may see the
full actual references, I will include at least the relevant sections
in their entirety in future when debating particular assertions. I
apologize to participants if I have not followed protocol, but I was
not aware that sources were required for Mr Denney's comments that
have all come from this site or his own, all readily available to
anyone who wants to search either using key phrases such as Russell
(or Russ) Brown Rob Denney; Jzerro Denney; Newick Cheers Denney; and
similar. In addition, I saw no other posts that footnote their
material in any academic sense. Nor did Denney actually deny any of
my references to his comments, but in fact repeated most, some several
times. Also, I did provide brief notes on my background as a general
source to qualify me to make comment on proas and design. Finally,
Denney has not been asked to provide specific sources for much of the
claims he makes. Even when he generally uses my article, Starship to
Oceania from Cruising World, March 2001 issue, one of two chief
sources for his conclusions, he has not properly quoted it (more on
this in later posts when I will include the original context) and has
completely reframed the original context to alter its meaning in order
to criticize Brown et al and buttress his own claims, the latter of
which I still refute. I certainly feel qualified to make definitive
statements about my own views and writings, whereas evidently Denney
feels only he is qualified to interpret both, including a bizarre
logic that snippets of my previous writings are authoritative enough
to be one of two of his primary sources on Brown's boats, yet somehow
my clarifications and current views are not. All that said, I was
preparing a statement that played according to these lopsided rules
when I came upon the following post from Denney that is, simply, over
the top.

On 9 April, message 20233, Denney wrote:

"I had a series of emails to and from someone who knows Steve
suggesting he was drunk when he wrote his rant. I said it was more
likely he was looking for a job with Russ who, last i heard, was
working for an America's Cup syndicate. We then assumed it was Oracle
and it did not take much imagination to think that Ellison's 90' x 90'
challenger is a proa! And it has a pod! You heard it here first, folks."

SC (note: I will precede my comments with SC or SC replies, and
precede Denney's with R or Denney): Astoundingly, the above Denney
speculation was preceded by (post 20218 April 8):

R: "In the interest of civility, I have ignored the personal stuff and
refrained from reciprocating. Sorry if this makes it boring for those
who like a stoush. ;-)"

It also is followed by in same message 20233:

R: "It is good to know that Joe (who was banned from the group for bad
language and libel) is reading this and still following proas."

Message 20232 also on 9 April Denney writes: "Alanproa is not my
puppet, he is a real person, with a very real grudge against me and
harryproas. No idea why. Whether he should be banned or not is up to
you, but I think he should at least be given a warning first."

SC: Talk about double standards (or is it triple?)! Note first that
Denney supplies no named source for any of these statements, so it's
hard to know what libelous statements "knockers" might have made. His
statement that I must have been drunk because I had the temerity to
point out some of his many errors is nothing short of outrageous. Not
only is his supposition (a) completely false (like many sailors, I may
have had too much to drink on some occasions, but never, ever have
while on any passage, when working in my field, or under any
circumstance for many years–I may have bad habits, but ver-consumption
of alcohol is not one); (b) it is conveniently supported only by one
anonymous source, c) is literally libelous. In fact, publishers that
allow such statements to be disseminated open themselves to civil
suits, as do authors of such tripe. Also of note, I have never sought
a job with Brown, nor would. Brown has no knowledge of any Oracle proa
campaign, nor would it be practical on an AC course.

Message 20231 9 April, Charlie Magee writes in part: "I am continually
puzzled by the antagonism that Rob Denney often receives in this
forum. His posts, in my opinion, are clear, fair, well-informed, and
often humorous. Sure, he touts his boats, and I have no problem with
that, he's trying to advance the art/science of sailboat design and
make a living at it. He picked a difficult type of boat to sell to a
world that prefers monohulls.

His requests for Steve to provide references are fair and reasonable.
I'd be willing to bet that if we showed this discussion to a hundred
outsiders, they'd all want Steve to put up his references."

SC Replies: Charlie, I only ask you hold Denney to the same standard.
He routinely supplies no references, uses hearsay from unnamed
sources, relies on inference, etc. In fact, his arguments are
anything but fair or well informed. I carry on this debate not for
Denney, who is unlikely to alter his views or methods, but because
those with less technical training or experience with boats deserves
an alternative view on both. I believe a critical look at the years
of disinformation provided by Denney will, indeed, help readers to not
only discover alternatives in proa design but also become more
skeptical of accepting any information on face value, particularly
that on a web site that has no review process.

I can assure you that Denney's conclusions about Brown's boats; in
fact all his writings that I have seen on proas, and more importantly,
the methodology on which he bases these, would not pass basic academic
scrutiny at the naval architectural school where I once was lead
instructor; nor by any of the scores of boat designers I have known;
nor by the editorial review process of a major sailing magazine like
Cruising World where I was senior editor, nor by any newspaper editor
of merit. In my next post, I will address specific uses of Denney's
methodology, which has been employed also by tyrants, zealots,
charlatans, and witch hunters throughout the annals of human history.
If Denney is none of these, I believe it is up to him to cease
relying upon the following elements of his methodology. Briefly, it
includes: (1) Taking totally out of context not only full statements
but highly edited portions of statements, even sentences with
inconvenient words removed, and then completely altering that context
in order to buttress his views and tear down those who do not agree
with him or who provide more sound views based on better evidence; (2)
misusing technical information to mislead those without the background
to correctly analyze it; (3) stating outright untruths and using
repetition of them as if repetition makes them more true (and knowing
repetition does more deeply register in readers' minds regardless of
validity); (4) stating as fact conclusions drawn from mere inference,
as if the chosen inference is THE answer when it is only AN answer
(and in Denney's case, usually is wrong); (5) claiming superiority of
features and ideas based on speculation, and when forced to
acknowledge it is based on mere speculation (and even when it opposes
actual history and tested hypotheses of others) sites only how the
speculation could or would be ratified or gain supportive evidence if
only this or that (excuse); (6) relying on heresay, sometimes
third-hand, and without any confirming sources; and (7) when all else
fails, cast unwarranted aspersions with absolutely no merit on
opposing parties (as in his above accusation). He does this not to
promote knowledge about proas but only to promote his business at the
expense of others and without giving them recourse to the more
reliable channels of rigorous inquiry.

That Denney has misused me to abuse others whom I respect is
particularly irksome, especially when he has been corrected but
continues to attack. So there really is no mystery why he is a
lightning rod for dislike. One must wonder if it is all an attempt to
garner attention. I would not bother to give him any, except that the
disinformation he serves up does a disservice to me, my friends and
colleages, and all those interested in pursuing the truth. So
although the case I will be building may not be able to avoid being
somewhat personal because he has personal issues dead center into this
debate, my aim is to right the wealth of disinformation he has been
allowed to spew over many years using the poor methodology noted.

Things take a good deal longer to create than to destroy. For
example, it takes a good deal more time to repair a thru-hull hose
than it takes a single madman with a knife to clip one off, and that
also is part of Denney's technique--clip, clip, clip faster than one
can respond adequately. Even when corrected, he simply widens his
aspersions, which takes time to answer. Holding me to a different
standard than he holds himself also takes time. Therefore, I ask that
participants please be patient to allow me time to fill out this
debate and support my above conclusions over the next several months.
I also ask that Denney be required at the least to answer directly my
questions.

Question 1: Who actually supposedly made this statement about me being
drunk? You are not a journalist; there is no right to anonymity when
it comes to slander.

Question 2: Rob, by your own standards, as you stated above, should
not the moderator ban you from discussion on this site for making
unsubstantiated libelous and personal accusations against me?

Question 2: Should you not recuse yourself, in fact, on the same
grounds if you have any integrity?

Question 3: Should you not apologize to all readers for clouding
functional discussion about proas by this breach of etiquette?

Stay tuned. Steve