Michael Schacht wrote:
>
> Joe made his allegations. He claimed his allegations are "documented
> history", yet did not actually supply the documents, at first. When
> prompted, he replied with a lot of paste from another list.

I stopped reading Rob Denney long ago Michael, on both lists, and
explained why. People like me who listen carefully will always find
conflict with those who aren't paying attention as closely, especially
when subtle issues and personal insults are involved.


> We on the proafile list do not have access to the original content
> of another list. We cannot go see for ourselves.

That is disingenuous; you certainly do! I cited all dates.
http://www.steamradio.com/pipermail/multihulls/


Start with these on the proa list; this one, cross-posted by Denney:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file/message/2663

1) The paragraph beginning with "Don't forget the "fundamentals" of many
crew running back and forth..." totally misrepresents the modern proa I
was discussing, as do many references to water ballast.

2) Next paragraph, speaking of Harry, is NOT TRUE:
"It does this better than any other boat either of us have sailed in,
read about or heard of."
BULLSHIT!!

3) "The reduced connecting structure required on a traditional proa is
nonsense.
NOT TRUE!

4) The paragraph describing JZERRO ("cruising downwind the main has to
be removed to stop the mast falling down in an accidental gybe") is full
of misrepresentations.

5) Refering to me, Denney said: "whose total experience of the type is
as a passenger on a day sail on SF bay plus some pretty pictures and
numbers on your web site"
A BALDFACED LIE!

6) "Joe increasingly desperately tried to prove that a Jzerro type proa
(which he has been unsuccessfully trying to sell, but hasn't the ???? to
build for himself) was superior to a Harry type. Thrilling stuff! As
you can imagine from his penchant for personal abuse (and mine for
stirring him up), it became heated."
INSULTING, partly FALSE (except for "mine for stirring him up"),
deliberately PROVOCATIVE on a personal level.

7) from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file/message/2841
"Why not lengthen the beams, or increase the weight in the windward
hull. BOA would scarecely change, may even reduce, weight overall would
certainly reduce. Achieves the same thing, but without all the drag,
weight and structural problems of a pod."
FALSE

8) "Pods on a cat would have almost none of the drawbacks that they do
on a proa, and would have a lot of advantages. If Jim thinks they are
such a good idea, why doesn't he use them on his cats? Same reason no
one else does, they don't work well enough."
BULLSHIT - A LIE

9) from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file/message/2872
a) "A weight to leeward proa with similar accommodation to harry will
weigh 10-15% more than a Harry type, built to the same standards, etc."
b) "Below this windspeed, with both hulls in the water, the wetted
surfaces of the 2 boats will be similar, so will their speeds."
c) "Pumping water and depowering will slow it down."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS, PRESENTED AS FACTS, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE

10) from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file/message/2873
About the leeward pod:
a) "The claimed extended range of the rm is purely hypothetical; it
works on the screen, not on a sailing proa."
b) "Pods are heavy, draggy, poorly situated warning systems at 30
degrees, lethal at 45."
TOTALLY FALSE, along with MANY other deliberate misrepresentations,
distortions and obstinate refusal to acknowledge what had been explained
in detail many times by Culp, myself and others.


I don't have any more time for this now; and don't enjoy reviewing his
writing anyway.


> I am sorry that it has come to this.

Me too. There will be no apology from me.

Joseph
--
http://www.shutterfly.com
work: (650) 610-3504
cell: (650) 996-4625
http://www.wingo.com