On May 5, 5:09=A0pm, BeeRich <beer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 5:06=A0pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter" <ndao...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:18510706-73ed-48e1-be19-df8f0cfedf8a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > Needless to say, your insurance company will either charge an arm
and
> > > a leg to endorse your your boat or will cancel entirely.
>
> > And, why do you think that is? Doesn't it tell you something about the
o=
dds
> > of success?
>
> > And even if one does succeed, is slogging 1200 miles (probably about
dou=
ble
> > that considering it's all a beat) to weather really sailing when one
can=
> > travel half again that far and do it comfortably and in a much shorter
t=
ime
> > via the sailors route I suggested? What has "sailing" come to these
days=
> > when people totally disregard the sailing routes? Do they rely that
much=
on
> > their oversized motors? It just shows they aren't interested in
sailing,=
> > have no concept of sailing and are uninformed dolts giving sailing a
bad=
> > name.
>
> > Wilbur Hubbard
>
> Wow you really are misguided. =A0How about this for an answer: =A0Their
> itinerary dictates that they have a destination first, THEN carry on
> with fun sailing. =A0And yes, today's boats allow for tacking, not
> worldwide adventure routes. =A0Sailing has come to whatever people want
> sailing to be. =A0And motorboats are a very valid way of boating.
=A0It's
> pompous boneheads like you that insult others that give sailing a bad
> name.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
