Adapting to a New Board

[cosmicharlie]

Although the conditions were quite out of the ordinary for me,
yesterday, I had some trouble adjusting to sailing a new fatboy. I
remember a thread on the Iwindsurf forum which was posted by a guy who
claimed that the new boards had re-invented the catapult. I have to
agree. It was just in one direction that I had trouble when I tried
broadening my reach and getting on a plane. The exceptional currents
due to a full moon had combined with the wind to produce medium broken
waves which I was catching with my nose. I experienced three terrible
catapults. One ripped a panel in my sail and another bruised my elbow,
wrenched my knee and jammed my toes after I had to switched to a
smaller sail. I was told by the Bic rep that the new boards are much
more sensitive to mast track position. A few centimeters can change
things radically. Perhaps I could have moved mine forward, and this
would have helped my keeping my nose clean. Any thoughts.

[Jrobb]

Hook line and sinker...

but anyway, you should move the mast back farther if you're haveing
trouble with the nose perling.

J

[cosmicharlie]

Sorry, I don't get the hook, line and sinker slur. Thanks for the use
of the fancy term >>perling<<. Actually, though, you didn't add
anything either instructive or constructive. I was hoping for a
comment about attitude i.e. I had no trouble when pointing the board
into the waves and sailing up wind.

[Tom - Chicago]

Well, if you are on a wide board, you are most likely on a much bigger fin -
and these sail differently - very differently.

You really have to have the geometry right (footstraps, boom height, mast
track and harness length) but I have had it locked in for so long that I
don't remember what is different. I do know that small changes in attitude
can really "unsettle" things. If you were in lots of wind, you may have
experienced the danger of letting off. When OP'd on fat gear, you have to
keep the hammer down. It is like driving a Porsche 911 - if you "lift" when
you are in trouble - your trouble multiplies.

I have footstraps all the way out. Boom at shoulder height, short harness
lines, mast track centered.

I know one thing - when on a fat board I am really sailing the fin. This
is not true on my smaller boards.

Tom - Chicago

On
"cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1155295194.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Jrobb]

cosmicharlie wrote:
> Sorry, I don't get the hook, line and sinker slur. Thanks for the use
> of the fancy term >>perling<<. Actually, though, you didn't add
> anything either instructive or constructive. I was hoping for a
> comment about attitude i.e. I had no trouble when pointing the board
> into the waves and sailing up wind.

> >
> > J

Wellllll...let me spell it out for you then..(Sinbad).

The hook line an dso on bit was a reference to your posting manerisms.

I.E. you ask a genuine question which has some obvious possible
answers and then you rip the following posters for providing you with
exactly what you asked for...or for providing correct solutions to your
issue...hence you are trolling...one who trolls is
a...class...class...anyone yes lamplight...a troll.

Now moving on, you're welcome I thought you'd like the perling bit as
well. Fancy schmancy is my middle name.

I actually did add something constructive evident in the fact that I
suggested you move the mast foot BACK in stead of forwards. You are
burying the nose (happy? I dumbed it down a bit for ya) into the chop
because 1)You have too much weight up front (you're either trying to
sail with a keg on the nose...no wait, that can't be it) 2) There is
too much force pushing the nose into the water. 3) The attitude of the
board was not being trimmed properly (attitude is a reference to the
nose of the board being in a certain position along a vertical
axis...ie. nose up nose down)

You perled/dug in the nose because you had 1, 2 not properly accounted
for... and 3 was not in alignment because of issues 1 and 2.
I basically backed up what the Bic rep told you insomuch as boards are
more particular to mast track movements than prevoius. Just look at
track length. Now only 10" or so where before they were close to 3ft.

The reason you didn't have such an issue while pointing into the waves
is you essentially were going faster what with the waves and you moving
in opposition thus creating a greater relative motion between your
board and the water.

Lastly, you only really asked for "any thoughts"...next time just ask
for what you want to hear and I'll gladly blow wind up your...

respectfully yours
J

[Alan]

"cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net> wrote in

> The exceptional currents
> due to a full moon had combined with the wind to produce medium broken
> waves which I was catching with my nose. I experienced three terrible
> catapults.

Sheet in and look back.

Alan

[Steven Slaby]

"cosmicharlie" (bes...@verizon.net) writes:
> things radically. Perhaps I could have moved mine forward, and this
> would have helped my keeping my nose clean. Any thoughts.
>

Brings back fond memories of the exact same result when I first tried a
wide (and short!!) board and I've heard the same thing from others the
first time as well with some people doing serious damage to the nose of
the board.

Mast track may help a bit but what you really need to do is Try google and
read up on Roger's reccomendations on sailing wide boards, specifically
about the rocker and how you need to stay more towards the back otherwise
you push the rocker of the board into the water, which effectively puts on
the brakes and over the handlebars you go!

Read up and combine that with TOW to get accostomed to the board (take it
easy) and you will be fine.

Or take Alan's advice, sheet in and look over your back shoulder ;-)

Steve.

[Dan Weiss]

Cosmic: What specific board are you using? Moving the mastfoot back
1cm will dramatically change the performance of a board when in the
intended wind speeds. Generally, moving the mastfoot back will allow
the nose to ride higher, but this is not always the case on very wide
boards. Sometimes a combination of moving the track forward paired
with raising the booms is what is necessary to keep the nose unwetted
and prevent it from sticking. A sticky board is terrible to sail
downwind, b/c it is much more prone to rapid acceleration/deceleration
cycles that create huge apparent wind shifts which lift you off your
feet.

Whatever you end up doing, be sure to use an adjustable outhaul.
Dumping the outhaul is critical to going downwind as it opens up the
lower leach to allow more twist and less of a jaring, yanking sort of
experience.

-Dan

[Jerry McEwen]

On 11 Aug 2006 05:26:49 -0700, "cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Sorry, I don't get the hook, line and sinker slur. Thanks for the use
>of the fancy term >>perling<<. Actually, though, you didn't add
>anything either instructive or constructive. I was hoping for a
>comment about attitude i.e. I had no trouble when pointing the board
>into the waves and sailing up wind.

He taught you a sailing term which is familiar to many a sailor. That
would be both instructive and constructive.

[cosmicharlie]

Thanks Tom, that was a good post. I am going to go over it with my
comments and questions. First, though, let me add that it is spelled
PURLING and can be found spelled pearling, but it is never spelled
perling according to two rather reputable dictionaries.

Tom - Chicago wrote:
I do know that small changes in attitude
> can really "unsettle" things. If you were in lots of wind, you may have
> experienced the danger of letting off. When OP'd on fat gear, you have to
> keep the hammer down. It is like driving a Porsche 911 - if you "lift" when

> you are in trouble - your trouble multiplies.<< O.K. I see your point, although I don't get the allusion or jargon. I don't remember driving a Porsche 911, although I may have as I was a parking valet in a large Marriot Hotel. However, to the point, I have had some experience with this board and understand what you are stating.

> I know one thing - when on a fat board I am really sailing the fin. This

> is not true on my smaller boards.<< Is that the same as sailing off the fin.

[cosmicharlie]

First of all it looks like the same thing happened with my last post as
it did with the one I put up on the sanding batten's post. However I'm
rather determined to find the way to avoid this confusion so I'm going
to cut and paste from now on. Second, purling isn't a sailing term.
It is a hydraulic term taken over by surfers. Now, I'm using an Angulo
Sumo. This post of yours, Dan, is quite erudite, and I'll keep it all
in mind. I was not using the adjustable outhaul and see how it may be
an effective tool.

[cosmicharlie]

Finally, the moon was in perigee
Aug 10 18:29 359754 km Full Moon +1d 7h
this conjuction was the reason the tidal currents were so strong.
Consequently, being one of those rare occurances of cosmic preportions,
I doubt if I'll see this particular trouble again. However, it once
again reminds me how vulnerable we are to the tremendous forces of
nature.

[Jrobb]

cosmicharlie wrote:
. First, though, let me add that it is spelled
> PURLING and can be found spelled pearling, but it is never spelled
> perling according to two rather reputable dictionaries.
>

Re:Perling

Perl- Perl
A common term describing when a person buries the nose of their
surfboard and goes "over the falls". Often referred to by the actual
surfer as @#%%@#@!!

as taken from this site : http://www.surfing-waves.com/surf_talk.htm#P

and Pearl-
Pearl (dive)
Another kind of wipeout in which the nose of the board gets buried in
the wave after dropping in. The result is the board stops abruptly
whilst the surfer continues at speed!

as taken from this site:
http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/surfing/dictionary.htm

As you can see it's not th espelling that counts, the message is still
clear. Try as I might I have yet to find it in any reference under
sailing.

And Purling is a term used to describe a specific stitch when knitting
; or to murmur see here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/purling

Do you knit perhaps?

J

[cosmicharlie]

Does anyone read this guy Jrobb's messages? I certainly won't after
this one.

[Juan]

My only complain is that he's a bottom poster :-)

++*Juan--

[Craig Goudie]

Well, his comment about moving the mast further back in the track has merit,
but it also
makes your board a little more skittish. If your board is flat, then you
are going to pearl
from time to time in big chop, swell, and waves. A board with a lot of nose
kick
really helps in these cases. I quite riding slalom boards in the Gorge for
this very reason.

But, when I did ride slalom boards there, I pearled less , riding with the
mast track farther back.
You will find your foot control needs to be more precise with the track
back. If pearling
is your only issue, then by all means move the track back, but if you're
having control
problems (which can also cause you to pearl), you might just want to move
your straps a
little more in board, and see if you like that better.

-Craig

"cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:1155468757....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

[sail...@mindspring.com]

So, Cosmic Charlie, What's a "Fatboy".
Is that a wider board than you normally sail?
In this case I think it's probably not the phase of the moon, nor the
strength
of the current, nor the size of the waves that is causing you to
"catapault'.
May not even be the placement of the mast foot, however if your
"fatboy"
(whatever that is.....?) has a modern rockerline (like virtually ALL
boards
75 cm and wider) you simply have not adapted to sailing the wider board
with a "flat at the back" rockerlne.
With the modern "flat at the back" rockerline, if you do not move back
on
the board progressively, as your speed increases, the board will get
very "sticky"
(perhaps even causing you to catapault in extreme cases) because the
board is basically "tripping" over the rocker transition just ahead of
the planing
surface (s) because your weight is not far enough back to lift the nose
enough
for the board to plane off efficiently.
Move your weight back a little, get the nose up where it needs to be,
and the
board will practically accelerate out from under you (hmmmm the reverse
of a
catapault :-)).
If you give us the pertinent information here (What board, what size,
brand and
type of sail, fin size, how much windspeed, your weight, and the actual
size of the
wind (not current or moon phase) driven chop and swell) we could
provide you
with many suggestions that would most likely solve your issues and
allow you to
discover the quick acceleration, speed, upwind and downwind ability of
a wider
board with a larger fin and rig.
I think the "hook line and sinker" comment was about the fact that you
listened to the
guy on I windsurf, and the Bic rep and "swallowed" alot of the wide
board
"mystique" (technique) that may or may not be applicable to the "fat
boy" board
you are trying to sail.
If you only use the skills you have that worked on a more traditional
rockerline board
you will for sure have some major problems.
When you stretch a string along the bottom of your "fatboy" and figure
out that the back of the board is pretty flat (from the tail to under
the front footstraps) but that everything forward of that flat planing
surface curves progressively more upward (the rocker transition and the
scoop rocker from the rocker transition to the nose) you will
understand why it's so important to move your weight back on the board,
progressively, as your speed increases, to get the nose up (probably
alot more than you think it should) and begin to get the planing
surface at the back of your board trimmed (pitch angle here) out to
where the board can plane off.
Once you learn to move your weight to "unstick" the modern rockerline,
there will be no more tendancy to "pearl" (originally from surfing,
derived from sticking the nose of the board at the bottom of the wave
face and going "pearl diving") and that there is no real
tendancy for a "fatboy" (wider board with modern rockerline) to stick,
pearl, or catapault
you.
Take your "fatboy" board out again, follow some of the advice that
people here on this newsgroup are giving you (hey, maybe at least some
of them have sailed a "fatboy" at some point and figured out there's a
difference, which they are "sharing" with you)
and you may find that the board sails quite nicely, planes early, goes
upwind and down
higher/lower than you've ever been able to sail before, jibes pretty
nicely too (but with
some very different technique).
Why jump down everyone's throat? All of us on the newgroup only wish to
make things
easier for you. Your attitude often seems to "invite" the abuse you
seem to perceive you
are getting.

[cosmicharlie]

That's an excellent post, Craig. In this case I didn't move my mast
back and in actuality wondered if I should have at least considered it.
I glanced at this line from a JRobb post >>you only really asked for

"any thoughts"...next time just ask

for what you want to hear and I'll gladly blow wind up your... << and
realized what a flamboyant flamer this guy must be. First of all, he
didn't reply with anything that was original. I thought of moving the
mast track back, he seconded my idea. Wading in with slurs and terms
one doesn't truly understand seems rather worth ignoring.

[cosmicharlie]

Sorry, but I won't wade through such a post. I attempted it, but was
distracted trying to picture the gorilla composing it while sputtering
and spitting in front of the keyboard.

[Dan Weiss]

Your loss, Cosmic. And what's with the vitriol directed to Roger? Do you
even know him? Roger is a wealth of wisdom. I can't recall the last time
he posted something that wasn't directly on point and full of golden
nuggets.

What's the point in answering your question if anyone who posts runs the
risk of getting slammed because you don't like, appreciate, understand, or
want to bother with the content, style or length?

On the other hand, if your apparent postings on other forums including those
related to skiing are any example, you might enjoy calling people names and
dishing out internet abuse. We're not so uptight as some other forums but
please keep your ad hominem comments to yourself.

-Dan

"cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:1155549606.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[AD.]

cosmicharlie wrote:
> Sorry, but I won't wade through such a post. I attempted it, but was
> distracted trying to picture the gorilla composing it while sputtering
> and spitting in front of the keyboard.

You have just proven beyond doubt yourself to be a total idiot. Others
might have already thought so but still tried to help you anyway.

I left out any windsurfing stuff just in case it confused you.

[Tom - Chicago]

Charlie:

If you trash sailquik here you will lose what little goodwill you have
left - and quickly!

Tom - Chicago

"cosmicharlie" <bes...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1155549606.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[cosmicharlie]

Oh, did I offend your guru somehow? I'm sorry but I seek the truth and
am not looking to win popularity contests. Futhermore, being a vetran
of searching for information on forums, as soon as I recognize those
stuck in their little circle jerk of >>experts<<, I know who might be

[Steven Slaby]

"cosmicharlie" (bes...@verizon.net) writes:
> Oh, did I offend your guru somehow? I'm sorry but I seek the truth and
> am not looking to win popularity contests. Futhermore, being a vetran
> of searching for information on forums, as soon as I recognize those
> stuck in their little circle jerk of >>experts<<, I know who might be
> questionable sources.

Did you spend 10 minutes and read all the great stuff that Roger has
posted in rec.ws in the past about adapting your technique to wider boards or
were you too busy flaming everyone who tried to help ?

[nikita]

With this attitude, I am sure you will get a lot of useful responses
going forward... Good job!

[sailquik (Roger Jackson)]

Steven Slaby wrote:

Hi Steve,
This guy is really kinda funny.
He arrives on rec.WS and soon he's posting stuff like he's an expert.
Probably "researched" right here and used that "research" to become an
instant "expert".
No telling who he plagiarized to "cut and paste" anything about
windsurfing that makes any sense.
After this little "incident" I'm beginning to wonder if he even knows
how to read.
Anything slightly technical (like the physics and dynamics of sailing
a wider (I still don't know what a "Fatboy" is) board leaves him
completely clueless.
We've been doing this wide board stuff since 1999 or so, right?
I remember going over some of the same things with you when you got
your first F-155.
I guess we just have to assume that cosmicharlie would rather start
little flame wars, then back out as soon as the content has anything
more advanced or technical than falling off some really old longboard or
maybe a late 80's early 90's 3 meter 150 liter shortboard.
And, of course, all of his "issues" have to do with poor design, the
phase of the moon, the phase of the moon's affect on the current,
abnormal wave action due to the phase of the moon and it's affect on
the current.
Anything but admit that he's a complete poser who knows virtually
nothing about the sport, the techniques involved nor the physics
that make it the unique sport that it is.
And to think that I actually wanted to be helpful.....what was I thinking?

[Craig Goudie]

The same thing you're always thinking Roger, and we love ya for it!

-Craig

"sailquik (Roger Jackson)" <sail...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:osmEg.9120$0e5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steven Slaby wrote:
>
[snip]

[Steven Slaby]

Hey Roger!

"sailquik " (sail...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Hi Steve,
> This guy is really kinda funny.
> He arrives on rec.WS and soon he's posting stuff like he's an expert.
> Probably "researched" right here and used that "research" to become an
> instant "expert".
> No telling who he plagiarized to "cut and paste" anything about
> windsurfing that makes any sense.
> After this little "incident" I'm beginning to wonder if he even knows
> how to read.
> Anything slightly technical (like the physics and dynamics of sailing
> a wider (I still don't know what a "Fatboy" is) board leaves him
> completely clueless.
> We've been doing this wide board stuff since 1999 or so, right?
> I remember going over some of the same things with you when you got
> your first F-155.

Yup! Brought back lots of fond memories and thanks again for speeding up the
learning curve way back when... I haven't looked back. By the way I
ended up buying the F-158 Wood instead of the smaller version; absolutely LOVE
IT!!!!. It was an eye opener while recently blasting past one of the top local
racers on the new RSX gear who was slogging while I was wooping it up
doing a deep downwinder. Nice to see that a recreational board will plane
up sooner than the latest/greatest racing equipment!

> And to think that I actually wanted to be helpful.....what was I thinking?

You just can't help yourself! You'll try and help everyone even if they
are a lost cause ;-)

Steve.

[Jerry McEwen]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:17:24 GMT, "sailquik (Roger Jackson)"
<sail...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>We've been doing this wide board stuff since 1999 or so, right?

I never would have guessed you are a newbie, Roger. The Windsurfer
Star started the Fatboy revolution. :)

[sailquik (Roger Jackson)]

Yeah, right Jerry.
The Windsurfer "Star" was a wide board all right, weighed a ton and was
quite slow.
It, of course, was a poly log, and had no real "rockerline" to speak of.
The Star was a wide board that didn't really give you much beyond
additional stability and weight.
I raced against one about 8-10 years ago and basically "cleaned his
clock" with an F2 Lightning Race or a Mistral Superlite (the original
one, that was considered "wide and stable" when it came out in the early
1980's) at the Vintage Races at Barton Decker's in Hatteras.

F-155 was the first wide "production" board to really give 2x windspeed
performance, excellent upwind/downwind, and is still a "classic" in my
book as it really kinda started the Formula and wide board revolution.
It was one of the first boards to get the rockerline right to unwet
completely back to the front footstraps.
It's this "rockerline revolution" that makes the wide boards work and
causes the problems for sailors who either don't want to change old
habits, or do not understand the different "physics" involved.
Nope, I'm not a newbie, I started back in the very early 1980's.
Wide boards with modern rockerlines are fairly new. Starboard F-155
showed up in the USA at the Trade Show in late 2000. I had one of the
first F-155's (Maybe the first as the serial number was something like
007). I figured it out pretty quickly and if I remember correctly Steve
from Canada bought that actual board. Maybe he still has it and knows
the S/N.
Old wide boards like the Windsurfer Star belong in museums or dumpsters.
If you can't find a museum that want's it, the dumpster is pretty much
the only option.
Just my opinion. I'm sure yours differs some.

[Jerry McEwen]

Roger, surely you knew I was joking!

The Star was everything you said, although it could actually be railed
in a good blow, not that it was anywhere near as fun as railing a
Superlight. I can't imagine a Star trying to compete against that or a
Lightning.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:52:49 GMT, "sailquik (Roger Jackson)"

[Jrobb]

Juan wrote:
> My only complain is that he's a bottom poster :-)
>
> ++*Juan--
>

Hey Juan,

I've been rackin my brain to figure that one out. What do you mean
"bottom poster"?

J

[Juan]

LOL! Nothing to be offended about... only that you post at the bottom
:-) There have been holly wars about the topic. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting.

++*Juan--

[Jrobb]

Ok, I get it. I figured it was something like that. I guess that just
means I am concerned about the topic I am posting to as opposed to top
posters who could care less.:)

Question, how do i get the "show hidden text" deal to come up. My
posts are as long as the ones I reply to and more. I post off of
Google Groups, is there different quote methods I have yet to learn?

J

[Jerry McEwen]

On 15 Aug 2006 23:53:23 -0700, "Jrobb" <robbi...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Ok, I get it. I figured it was something like that. I guess that just
>means I am concerned about the topic I am posting to as opposed to top
>posters who could care less.:)

Hi, JRobb, some newsgroups are militant about posting either top or
bottom. Usenet old school was strongly in favor of bottom-posting,
while many people including myself prefer top-posting. rec.windsurfing
doesn't have such rules.

To your statement that top posters don't care about the subject (yes,
I saw the smilie), I have my newsreader sort all messages by thread,
so the original post is almost always at the top of the thread.

[Jrobb]

Jerry McEwen wrote:

> To your statement that top posters don't care about the subject (yes,
> I saw the smilie), I have my newsreader sort all messages by thread,
> so the original post is almost always at the top of the thread.

The wikipedia link Juan sent described the two posting styles and the
jist was top posters cared more about what they were saying because in
a lengthy exchange, what with web pages being able to display only so
much info at a time, some of the previous responses and origional
messages may not get read. While bottom posters appeared less concerned
with how important their posting was. I don't care how peeps post one
way or another but I chose to bottom post...it's more intuitive for me.
WHether wikipedia has a lge to stand on, well that we'll never know.

SO what of the show hidden text bit?

J

[Jerry McEwen]

On 16 Aug 2006 16:01:04 -0700, "Jrobb" <robbi...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The wikipedia link Juan sent described the two posting styles ... <snip>
Oops, I missed that, I guess Wikipedia already gave you some info.

>
>SO what of the show hidden text bit?
>
>J

Dunno, but if you want to quote part of a post and Google isn't doing
it for you, you could always copy & paste; or, do what a lot of us do
and use a newsreader, which should do it for you. Personally, I like
viewing news much better in a newsreader than a browser.

[Jrobb]

Jerry McEwen wrote:

> Dunno, but if you want to quote part of a post and Google isn't doing
> it for you, you could always copy & paste; or, do what a lot of us do
> and use a newsreader, which should do it for you. Personally, I like
> viewing news much better in a newsreader than a browser.

Yeah, I've been cut and pasting but I like the cleaner look of the
hidden quote. I may try to read this via Outlook or something else.

J

[Jerry McEwen]

On 16 Aug 2006 19:52:15 -0700, "Jrobb" <robbi...@comcast.net>
wrote:

You might be checking out a new group and run across someone with
great posts. With a good newsreader, you can sort of author and read
all of this person's posts. Or, you may see a troublemaker and not
care to read him from now on, so you can filter him. With Agent, I can
even filter for x number of days with the hope that he shapes up. Sort
by author, by thread, by date, by subject, it's all good stuff.

[Ellen Faller]

Well spoken. I was just thinking the same thing. Give someone a chance,
and they'll prove themselves in short order. He's done just that. Altho,
we have been blessedly free of such stuff for a short while.
Ellen

[cosmicharlie]

Funny, it wasn't spoken at all. No wonder I have no idea what it was.

[Ellen]

Oh, you are soooo amusing!

[cosmicharlie]

. . . and you're so snide.

[Tom - Chicago]

Bottom Posting bugs me because as I go thru a topic - I have to keep
scrolling down.

I can actually keep track of what is going on without re-reading it in each
subsequent message . . .

Tom - Chicago

"Jerry McEwen" <homeydontpl@ythat> wrote in message
news:lvb6e2hfqdkuqf57h...@4ax.com...

[Dan Weiss]

Funny, I'm no longer able to access anything bes...@verizon.net
(that's Cosmic) has posted. I appear to have been replying to a vapor.
Silly me.

-Dan

[Jerry McEwen]

I agree with you 110%, Tom, but I read a number of groups daily and
some of them get militant when you top-post.

[Jerry McEwen]

On 21 Aug 2006 14:21:28 -0700, "Dan Weiss" <dwu...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Funny, I'm no longer able to access anything bes...@verizon.net
>(that's Cosmic) has posted. I appear to have been replying to a vapor.
> Silly me.
>
>-Dan

Dan, is that a joke or are you serious? If it's the latter, it sounds
like you have filtered the cosmic one.

[cosmicharlie]

What's top posting? Past posting is a cab driver's term for telling
the dispatcher over the air where you have been rather than where you
are. In other words, if you drop a passenger off somewhere that the
dispatcher knows you were, drive off and the dispatcher calls for a
driver in the area you have just left, when you give your past drop off
location, you are past posting. Some companies have monitors who can
spot you. It also get's sticky if you do this after you have taken a
street fare when you are the only cab at a stand. When you leave the
stand and your passenger isn't going far, you can call in top at the
stand when the dispatcher inquires >>Who's top?<< and pick up a second
job in the area. However, if another driver parks at the stand out of
sight of your rear view mirror, he will dispute your claim. If he is a
monitor, you're stuck. Now, I'm curious as to why you can't access my
posts as you have been replying to them.

[Jrobb]

cosmicharlie wrote:
> What's top posting? Past posting is a cab driver's term for telling
> the dispatcher over the air where you have been rather than where you
> are. In other words, if you drop a passenger off somewhere that the
> dispatcher knows you were, drive off and the dispatcher calls for a
> driver in the area you have just left, when you give your past drop off
> location, you are past posting. Some companies have monitors who can
> spot you. It also get's sticky if you do this after you have taken a
> street fare when you are the only cab at a stand. When you leave the
> stand and your passenger isn't going far, you can call in top at the
> stand when the dispatcher inquires >>Who's top?<< and pick up a second
> job in the area. However, if another driver parks at the stand out of
> sight of your rear view mirror, he will dispute your claim. If he is a
> monitor, you're stuck. Now, I'm curious as to why you can't access my
> posts as you have been replying to them.

I LIKE SPAGHETTI

J

[cosmicharlie]

Ya, but you shouldn't be wearing it all over your face like you do.

[Jerry McEwen]

On 22 Aug 2006 04:05:54 -0700, "Jrobb" <robbi...@comcast.net>
wrote:

YOU *ARE* SPAGHETTI. :)

[cosmicharlie]

Yes, as every organic veggie knows, you are what you eat.

[Jrobb]

Golf balls have dimples. That makes them fly far. :?

J

[Jerry McEwen]

On 23 Aug 2006 06:32:40 -0700, "Jrobb" <robbi...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>Golf balls have dimples. That makes them fly far. :?
>
>J

I remember those. Seatrend, right?

[M. Gunn]

in article v5rpe2hscnsnjtu32...@4ax.com, Jerry McEwen at
homeydontpl@ythat wrote on 8/23/06 5:03 PM:

>> Golf balls have dimples. That makes them fly far. :?
>>
>> J
> I remember those. Seatrend, right?

IIRC those were Angulo *phasers.* Bob Miller (ASD Bay Area) painted them on
some of his bottoms and called them *fakers* until someone got pretty bent
out of shape about it. It was all in good fun of course. ;-)

mo
--
Team Coyote
http://www.teamcoyote.net

[Jrobb]

that's what those guys wer talking about. I overheard someone say he
was pissed there were no more "gaylords" anymore. Good hearing is a
curse sometimes. Although it will make up for blown jibes.

J

[cosmicharlie]

Golf balls have dimples to help them spin faster, not fly futher. The
number and pattern of the dimples do effect the spin and distance, I
believe. However, this is yet another overly engineeric aspect of
sport. The average golfer can't draw or fade his golf shots with any
kind of control. The same goes for stopping the ball on greens with
backspin. It's like the difference between you and Pedro Martinez
throwing a baseball. It does amaze me how closely nit you Bay area
WSing Beach Bums are, though. Is that why they used the term, gaylord?