Recommended Posts

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.

 

We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

me thinks this part of the linky is more newsworthy :

 

But Spithill, in Sydney recuperating from tendon surgery which could require up to 13 weeks of rehabilitation, believes a proactive move to reduce the multi-million dollar costs associated with campaigning for the Americas Cup could open the door for Australia; s return.I think there is a real chance, said Spithill,

Speaking of his surgery, and I guess about his physiology, what was that weird fact he revealed some time back? It was something like him having two left feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

me thinks this part of the linky is more newsworthy :

 

But Spithill, in Sydney recuperating from tendon surgery which could require up to 13 weeks of rehabilitation, believes a proactive move to reduce the multi-million dollar costs associated with campaigning for the Americas Cup could open the door for Australia; s return.I think there is a real chance, said Spithill,

Speaking of his surgery, and I guess about his physiology, what was that weird fact he revealed some time back? It was something like him having two left feet.

 

wow, maybe Ro is onto something with his continuous references to Pinot & you B) (chardonnay overhere tonite) or do you get all that swag and the vip tickets for being continuously the last poster ? :lol:

 

some people have to left hands, others have two left feet, and some might even have two left brain lobes ... just sayin' :wacko:

 

but would be nice to drag the Ozistanis back in the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, 'two left feet' was intended as a laugh. But there is something unusual, maybe it was one leg shorter than the other?

how many of these silly emoticons does one have to post to tell one is laughing too ?

since you're the guy with the ins and outs on all things Oracle, ask him what that was about ?

but an educated guess might go into the direction of a two left hands analogy ... a bit clumsy on his feet perhaps ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...no - congenital defect: one foot shorter than the other.

 

Perhaps partly why he's such a fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...no - congenital defect: one foot shorter than the other.

 

Perhaps partly why he's such a fighter.

Bingo. Turns to the left well, makes him especially good helming on starboard tacks into the finish line of AC finals.

 

Think he was born with two left eyes too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Porthos - if you have a sec, can you frame the visa application vs. employment contract issue for me so I can send it over to my immigration law buddy for some research?

I will just dump my thoughts here. I apologize if this should be sent somewhere else.

 

To understand what Spooner and his attorneys are trying to do with the visa argument, you need to understand just a bit about employment law. Employees are one of two types: (1) those who can be fired at will; and (2) those that can only be fired for cause. An employment agreement between the employer and employee typically spells out when and under what circumstances an employer may terminate an employee, but not always. Employee handbooks and other, similar employment documents can also determine what termination rights the employer has.

 

In any termination suit between an employee and employer, the employee always seeks to characterize himself or herself as one who could only be terminated for cause, and the employer always seeks to characterize the employee as terminable at-will. That characterization is crucial because if the employee is at will (i.e., one who can be fired by the employer at any time for any reason), then the employee has no right to expect future wages and the employee's wrongful termination claim evaporates. Conversely, if the court deems the employee as one who can only be fired for cause, then the employer will be on the hook for future wages if it terminated the employee without cause.

 

Spooner and his attorneys are trying like hell to characterize Spooner as an employee who could only be terminated for cause and that is where his visa argument comes in. Spooner's contract with Oracle contains pretty clear language that Oracle could terminate him at any time, which is pretty strong evidence that Spooner was an employee at-will. Indeed, it was that clear language that led the Court to deny Spooner's first request to arrest Boat 4, ruling that Spooner could have no wrongful termination claim against the boat where his contract permitted Oracle to fire him whenever it wished.

 

To counter that, Spooner filed an Amended Complaint containing the visa allegations. More specifically, Spooner alleged that he obtained his visa based on a representation to the INS that he had a contract for a fixed period of time. Spooner insinuates -- but does not allege directly -- that INS would not have granted him an O-1 visa if he did not have a contract for a fixed period of time. In other words, Spooner is essentially arguing that the Court must find that Spooner's contract was not at-will but rather was for-cause because the alternative, where he could be fired by Oracle at any time, would end up working a fraud on the INS. That, argues Spooner, violates public policy.

 

I suspect -- and this is what your immigration attorney friend might be able to confirm -- that the INS doesn't give a shit whether Oracle could terminate Spooner at will. As far as I can tell from the regulations governing O-1 visas, the INS only cares that the person seeking the O-1 visa is coming to the United States for an athletic or competitive event. That event has to conclude itself within four years, as the visa is good for three years and can be extended for one. In other words, the visa only places restrictions on how long a person can be here, and not how short a person can be here. In that regard, the INS may have been interested in the term of the contract (and wanted to see Spooner's contract) only to confirm whether the person applying for the visa was anticipating being in the United States for more than four years. If the contract term was for less than four years -- and Spooner's was -- then I suspect that is all the INS cared about. That Oracle could terminate Spooner before the end of the term likely was of little consequence to the INS. If the INS didn't care that Oracle could terminate Spooner before the end of the contract, there was no fraud worked on the INS, there was no violation of public policy, and Spooner can't use those arguments to turn his at-will contract into a just-cause contract.

 

Those are the questions I would ask an immigration attorney. I hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.

 

We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

 

Such a system would almost certainly have violated boat discharge rules here in San Francisco Bay

(and there's no way the AC would have gotten a pass on that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would that substance would 'have almost certainly have violated boat discharge rules in San Francisco Bay' ? Apparently you know a lot about DZ's anti-friction system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed it was psychological warfare only. It just seems ridiculous.

 

Like S&S in Fremantle with their "sharkskin" hull laminate. The only pictures I saw had it flaking off in sheets - that couldn't have been fast.

 

And neither of the above have exactly caught on ever again - color me skeptical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed it was psychological warfare only. It just seems ridiculous.

Like S&S in Fremantle with their "sharkskin" hull laminate. The only pictures I saw had it flaking off in sheets - that couldn't have been fast.

And neither of the above have exactly caught on ever again - color me skeptical...

 

FWIW, I was using Hydron Speed Coat successfully back in the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we're you faster, or just think so?

...these things seem to come and go.

 

It was faster, only a little, but measurable (dragging the hull through the water with a weight on a pulley and measuring the time it took to go a fixed distance, a poor man's towing tank). But the benefit wore off fairly quickly. The psychological value, of course, was much greater. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing has changed...___5366235.jpg

Spinbot....this is how we roll...excuse me I have to ping tom....

 

The rest of the world...that's how those motherfuckers roll...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.

 

We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

As I recall, the anti friction liquid was eventually determined as totally harmless and not in violation of any anti-pollution regs. I believe it was removed for weight consideration and nothing else, as it was legal an did improve friction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

As I recall, the anti friction liquid was eventually determined as totally harmless and not in violation of any anti-pollution regs. I believe it was removed for weight consideration and nothing else, as it was legal an did improve friction.

As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...

Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

As I recall, the anti friction liquid was eventually determined as totally harmless and not in violation of any anti-pollution regs. I believe it was removed for weight consideration and nothing else, as it was legal an did improve friction.

 

As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...

Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..

 

You apparently didn't have your MC helmet on when you ran into that big oak tree, several years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.

 

We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

Such a system would almost certainly have violated boat discharge rules here in San Francisco Bay

(and there's no way the AC would have gotten a pass on that).

 

Well your "almost certainty" in most every case is wrong. Hanging out with TC s wearing off on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks this part of the linky is more newsworthy :

 

But Spithill, in Sydney recuperating from tendon surgery which could require up to 13 weeks of rehabilitation, believes a proactive move to reduce the multi-million dollar costs associated with campaigning for the Americas Cup could open the door for Australia; s return.I think there is a real chance, said Spithill,

Please tell me what I'm missing: the Aussies had a beautiful chance of strong-arming a significat cost reduction (i.e. back to soft sails) and blew it - with the splendid result that the Oatleys got to be more associated with them doing an Onorato than with WOXI. And now that the ball is in the rich teams' court - which, despite piously mouthing platitudes, have no interest in widening the field - they're hoping for a "proactive <barf> move"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

me thinks this part of the linky is more newsworthy :

 

But Spithill, in Sydney recuperating from tendon surgery which could require up to 13 weeks of rehabilitation, believes a proactive move to reduce the multi-million dollar costs associated with campaigning for the Americas Cup could open the door for Australia; s return.I think there is a real chance, said Spithill,

Please tell me what I'm missing: the Aussies had a beautiful chance of strong-arming a significat cost reduction (i.e. back to soft sails) and blew it - with the splendid result that the Oatleys got to be more associated with them doing an Onorato than with WOXI. And now that the ball is in the rich teams' court - which, despite piously mouthing platitudes, have no interest in widening the field - they're hoping for a "proactive <barf> move"?

 

if you look at it from that -valid- angle, then Spithill was maybe not even "pleasing the interviewer" but rather sticking it to the Ozzies, right up their youknowwhat.

but that's the reason why I was thinking this part was more newsworthy than what Spinray was posting : the simple question why Spithill was saying this at this very moment, didn't make sense to me, or did serve a specific purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would that substance would 'have almost certainly have violated boat discharge rules in San Francisco Bay' ? Apparently you know a lot about DZ's anti-friction system?

At the time were speaking of a polymer injected under the hull, same stuff you have in your shampoo, good luck to make it accepted in SF.

SWS could put some in his morning coffee, it would perhaps calm him down :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

As I recall, the anti friction liquid was eventually determined as totally harmless and not in violation of any anti-pollution regs. I believe it was removed for weight consideration and nothing else, as it was legal an did improve friction.
As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..
You apparently didn't have your MC helmet on when you ran into that big oak tree, several years ago.

Riders who hit trees don't usually survive.....

but let's use it as a troll anyway....

14,400 posts of ear piss....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...

Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..

 

Get you facts right, it was the spotty bottom dotterals eggs. And its the helms left knee not his shoulder! Geez, this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...

Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..

 

Get you facts right, it was the spotty bottom dotterals eggs. And its the helms left knee not his shoulder! Geez, this place.

Opps....sorry..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

They were having technical issues with that anti-friction system and in the heat of the moment, with all the other pressure at the time like the effing wing getting dropped in Valencia, RC told them to strip the thing off the boat. As PH says, weight was a factor in it too.We got into the subject in great detail here at the time, but farther back someone (may even have been Woody) took a terrific photo of the system at work for the first time in San Diego.

As I recall, the anti friction liquid was eventually determined as totally harmless and not in violation of any anti-pollution regs. I believe it was removed for weight consideration and nothing else, as it was legal an did improve friction.

 

As I recall the anti friction fluid was a mixture of baby seal blubber, fresh larks egg yokes and baby terrapin hearts and as such was not considered a violation of the anti pollution act of 1871...Several gallons on this totally legal leftover fluid has now been used as injections in the recuperation of our lead helms ongoing shoulder problems..

 

You apparently didn't have your MC helmet on when you ran into that big oak tree, several years ago.

 

Riders who hit trees don't usually survive.....

but let's use it as a troll anyway....

14,400 posts of ear piss....

 

Those with really thick skulls do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video was uploaded today but is obviously dated to the original AC45 class boat. But it makes you wonder if the AC45F will be more, or less, safe than the original class was.

 

 

Despite the 45+ (!!!) knts reportedly attained by Slingsby on SF Bay recently, it also makes you (okay, maybe just me) wonder if the AC45F class might outperform even some of the AC45Turbo's that we have seen so far, given that none of the Turbo's appear to have any extra beam over what the AC45 specs are.

 

Some of the racing in Plymouth was crazy, maybe the foilers would be both safer and faster in conditions like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video was uploaded today but is obviously dated to the original AC45 class boat. But it makes you wonder if the AC45F will be more, or less, safe than the original class was.

 

Despite the 45+ (!!!) knts reportedly attained by Slingsby on SF Bay recently, it also makes you (okay, maybe just me) wonder if the AC45F class might outperform even some of the AC45Turbo's that we have seen so far, given that none of the Turbo's appear to have any extra beam over what the AC45 specs are.

 

Some of the racing in Plymouth was crazy, maybe the foilers would be both safer and faster in conditions like that?

 

 

Some numbers... LxWxH (m)

 

AC72: 22 x 14 x 40

AC62: 19 x 11.75 x 32+/-

AC45: 13.5 x 6.9 x 21.5

 

- 'scaled 62' based on a AC45: would be 13.5 x 8.35 x 22+/- so the original wing is a close equivalent

 

- '62 footprint' from 45 hulls?: Beams can naturally be further apart on the 62 than the 'standard' 45 - front of the main beam to the rear of the aft beam cannot exceed 10.5m. Penetrations for foils can be a maximum of 11m forward (of) the stern.

 

I think you'll find that the AR and OTUSA 45 testbeds are close to these numbers - with 8.35m beam. You can clearly see that the beams have been rebuilt, beefed up and made wider, not sure what you have been looking at.

 

LR now has wheels and one cockpit per hull, BAR has a 'bog standard foiling 45', both still using the original beams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yep, I've posted plenty, there's lots of video too - just cut and paste from this, or the AR, LR, BAR, new ac45, SF spotting, threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video was uploaded today but is obviously dated to the original AC45 class boat. But it makes you wonder if the AC45F will be more, or less, safe than the original class was.

 

https://vimeo.com/122826145

 

Despite the 45+ (!!!) knts reportedly attained by Slingsby on SF Bay recently, it also makes you (okay, maybe just me) wonder if the AC45F class might outperform even some of the AC45Turbo's that we have seen so far, given that none of the Turbo's appear to have any extra beam over what the AC45 specs are.

 

Some of the racing in Plymouth was crazy, maybe the foilers would be both safer and faster in conditions like that?

So yeah - I guess the reality is quite the opposite. Whereas the AC45T is truly a foiling phenomenon - the less beamy kit boat 45 is a complete unknown.

 

Two bad things: uptip L foils narrow effective beam still further. And they also induce drag in light air.

 

Flying the one design AC45 may have narrowed the effective wind range for good sailing.

 

But the really strange thing is this: We still don't know and racing is just around the corner. I guess the red bull FP kids get just two days to prep - so perhaps the "LeMans start" is the way of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realize that but do lean towards believing it. Got any good supporting photo evidence?

10960426_799649926738722_838111145164298

 

Couldn't find an object of known dimensions (wheel?) to compare with, but then I noticed the shrouds chainplates have been moved inboard - as opposed to the standard 45. You can do this if you've got width to spare, trying to remember why you'd do it. Oh, it goes without saying the same applies to AR's T - something fishy definitely going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

You speak as if AR,LR* and OTUSA haven't been sailing these things for years. ETNZ had the foiling Sl33's and know the non foiling AC45 and will also have no trouble switching.

Bar has something close already as well as sailing 2 man versions in Bermuda and although TF like ETNZ still need to assemble their ACWS boat, I heard they know something about foiling cats too.

 

* AC45F 001 and 002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

You speak as if AR,LR* and OTUSA haven't been sailing these things for years. ETNZ had the foiling Sl33's and know the non foiling AC45 and will also have no trouble switching.

Bar has something close already as well as sailing 2 man versions in Bermuda and although TF like ETNZ still need to assemble their ACWS boat, I heard they know something about foiling cats too.

 

* AC45F 001 and 002

 

It's not that simple. Getting to 80% is relatively easy. It's the last 20% that's long and hard (as the last Cup demonstrated).

OR has a huge lead. Only AR is within reasonable range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

You speak as if AR,LR* and OTUSA haven't been sailing these things for years. ETNZ had the foiling Sl33's and know the non foiling AC45 and will also have no trouble switching.

Bar has something close already as well as sailing 2 man versions in Bermuda and although TF like ETNZ still need to assemble their ACWS boat, I heard they know something about foiling cats too.

 

* AC45F 001 and 002

 

It's not that simple. Getting to 80% is relatively easy. It's the last 20% that's long and hard (as the last Cup demonstrated).

OR has a huge lead. Only AR is within reasonable range.

 

 

It's pretty simple - SR suggests that no one has experience of these ACWS boats.... the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari

 

and that we haven't yet seen the finished product.... here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

I addressed those misapprehensions

 

Your reply on the other hand seems to be concerned with the 45' test beds, if I'm understanding correctly, in which case I agree OTUSA and AR are ahead in the race to gather data to build an AC62

 

but... LR has the lead in actual AC45F experience, which is what SR was concerned about - more than twice that of any other team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

And it looks like LR will be the first team to have two Ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've probably missed it, but do we have a published AC Rule for flying AC45's yet? Or is OD now passé?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've probably missed it, but do we have a published AC Rule for flying AC45's yet? Or is OD now passé?

Checked yesterday, was still not on the web site.

 

It's possible they don't have much staff online yet; I think Murray gets to Bermuda starting in May, perhaps things will begin to go online better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACXX office has been open for 22 days

 

Claiming salary (real salary - no handle crankers) and housing allowance...... and producing? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long did LR say this next boat-modification interlude will last?

 

Max said they'll be back on the water by mid-April. Quite soon unless they've already got all the parts. Remember the big question of individual vs. commonality of design as seen on OR and AR

 

I think BAR has said their second will launch in June.

That would be a T, presumably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, AR did look a lot like the original OR foiler, they may even have asked for and received help back when they needed a foiler to practice with after the Big Red accident. But I suspect their T programs will evolve in different directions.

 

Yes, the next BAR boat will be a T2 and apparently a large step up from the current boat. Freddie Carr sounded very optimistic about it. Have not yet read about future upgrade, or leapfrog, plans for their current T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the next BAR boat will be a T2 and apparently a large step up from the current boat. Freddie Carr sounded very optimistic about it. Have not yet read about future upgrade, or leapfrog, plans for their current T.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, BAR's current T is an F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, the next BAR boat will be a T2 and apparently a large step up from the current boat. Freddie Carr sounded very optimistic about it. Have not yet read about future upgrade, or leapfrog, plans for their current T.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, BAR's current T is an F

 

 

1/ There are no specs for an F.

2/ Even if you knew what to look for, there is no telling what sort of 'illegal' systems they are running on the inside

3/ The thing is full of sensors and coms, for example

4/ 'T1'

 

But speculate away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

You speak as if AR,LR* and OTUSA haven't been sailing these things for years. ETNZ had the foiling Sl33's and know the non foiling AC45 and will also have no trouble switching.

Bar has something close already as well as sailing 2 man versions in Bermuda and although TF like ETNZ still need to assemble their ACWS boat, I heard they know something about foiling cats too.

 

* AC45F 001 and 002

It's not that simple. Getting to 80% is relatively easy. It's the last 20% that's long and hard (as the last Cup demonstrated).

OR has a huge lead. Only AR is within reasonable range.

It's pretty simple - SR suggests that no one has experience of these ACWS boats.... the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari

 

and that we haven't yet seen the finished product.... here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

I addressed those misapprehensions

 

Your reply on the other hand seems to be concerned with the 45' test beds, if I'm understanding correctly, in which case I agree OTUSA and AR are ahead in the race to gather data to build an AC62

 

but... LR has the lead in actual AC45F experience, which is what SR was concerned about - more than twice that of any other team!

..you seem to assume if it's got two hulls and flying foils fitted it's all the same.

 

I guess my observation - and surely Johns as well - is quite the opposite. These boats tend to vary in ability to a huge extent. But we can hope you are right about fitting foils to the 45, and it all goes well.

 

I do agree that LR should be considered heavy favorites going into this first ACWS event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

 

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly.

 

Porthos, you told us that you believe Spooner signed an at will contract and it that is "silly" to think that OTUSA breached its contract.

So why did they obliged them to settle, if for one of the two above reason. If OTUSA was that right they would already have rejected Spooner claims.

 

At the end I bet OTUSA will pay Spooner for his claim and for an NDA to protect the Oracle name

 

If that is the case they still pay more than they would have initially, damage their image, lose money, demotivate their team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At the end I bet OTUSA will pay Spooner for his claim and for an NDA to protect the Oracle name

 

If that is the case they still pay more than they would have initially, damage their image, lose money, demotivate their team.

 

 

How would that help anybody including you, besides just Spooner? Is that complete fantasy-speculation possibility a good thing for the coming AC35? Why do you wish-fantasize for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

At the end I bet OTUSA will pay Spooner for his claim and for an NDA to protect the Oracle name

 

If that is the case they still pay more than they would have initially, damage their image, lose money, demotivate their team.

 

 

How would that help anybody including you, besides just Spooner? Is that fantasy a good thing for the coming AC35?

 

Why do you want to defend RC/LE ? they use the Cup with total cynicism, they are right, why wouldn't they if nobody prevents them from doing it ?

 

I don't criticize them as much as GGYC members.

 

For me, I will most probably be in Bermudas and enjoy this AC as much as I did for the other ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am not defending either one of them. But I'm also not trying to take shots at them or trying to use the Spooner case for that effect. ETNZ is going through a far-higher profile employment-contract issue and I can see both sides of that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

 

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly.

 

Porthos, you told us that you believe Spooner signed an at will contract and it that is "silly" to think that OTUSA breached its contract.

So why did they obliged them to settle, if for one of the two above reason. If OTUSA was that right they would already have rejected Spooner claims.

 

At the end I bet OTUSA will pay Spooner for his claim and for an NDA to protect the Oracle name

 

If that is the case they still pay more than they would have initially, damage their image, lose money, demotivate their team.

 

No, what I said was "silly" was your assumption that because the judge ordered or requested the parties to discuss settlement, the court must therefore believe that Oracle breached the contract. I covered this in a previous post. The judge did not "oblige them to settle." The judge told them to discuss settlement in the next two weeks. Bear in mind, no judge can force a party to settle. If the party wants to refuse settlement and have their day in court, they are perfectly allowed to do that. Happens all the time.

 

In this particular case, there could be many reasons why the judge asked the parties to discuss settlement that have no relation to the strength of Oracle's claim. First, the parties themselves may have mentioned at the hearing that they were discussing settlement, in which case the judge may have told them to work on settlement over the next two weeks in order to move the case along. Ordering parties to get settlement discussions done in a certain time frame does not require or mean that the court is passing judgment on the strength or weakness of a claim.

 

Second, this judge may require all parties in every case before him to discuss settlement and report back. This is common in federal courts, such as the one where this case is. I have practiced before federal courts and they love requiring people to go to mediation and at least discuss settlement. These settlement conferences can be mandatory even if they have no chance of success. The court does not order settlement discussions out of a belief that one party has a bad position but simply because it orders settlement discussions as a matter of practice.

 

Finally, the court just finished ruling against Spooner on a significant motion. The arrest of Boat 4 was a big deal. Had the court upheld the arrest of Boat 4, Spooner would have been in a much stronger negotiating position. Often times, the resolution of a significant motion can provide the impetus for settlement negotiations. The court may have simply said, "now that the arrest issue is resolved, I want counsel for the parties to take a shot at settlement and let me know if you are successful." The court may not be taking a position on the strength or weakness of any party's case, but may simply be taking advantage of having resolved a significant issue to get the parties to talk settlement.

 

Those are three reasons why the court may have ordered the parties to discuss settlement without taking any position on the strength or weakness of any party's claims or defenses. In my experience, judges in general and federal judges in particular are very careful not to prejudge a case, particularly at the outset, which is where this case is.

 

Is it possible that, as you surmise, the judge ordered the parties to discuss settlement because he thinks Oracle breached the contract? Sure. But I highly doubt that is what is going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am not defending either one of them. But I'm also not trying to take shots at them or trying to use the Spooner case for that effect. ETNZ is going through a far-higher profile employment-contract issue and I can see both sides of that too.

Apples and oranges. No relationship between those issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes, and by the timing of it the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari, despite the (to my understanding anyway?) points-implications of winning the ACWS, heading into the Qualifiers.

 

Anyway, here's hoping it's a terrific boat (the original proved to be) and here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

You speak as if AR,LR* and OTUSA haven't been sailing these things for years. ETNZ had the foiling Sl33's and know the non foiling AC45 and will also have no trouble switching.

Bar has something close already as well as sailing 2 man versions in Bermuda and although TF like ETNZ still need to assemble their ACWS boat, I heard they know something about foiling cats too.

 

* AC45F 001 and 002

It's not that simple. Getting to 80% is relatively easy. It's the last 20% that's long and hard (as the last Cup demonstrated).

OR has a huge lead. Only AR is within reasonable range.

It's pretty simple - SR suggests that no one has experience of these ACWS boats.... the AC Teams will get very liitle experience on them before Cagliari

 

and that we haven't yet seen the finished product.... here's hoping they do more than just replacing the boards and casings if doing more is necessary for converting them into being efficient, first-class, flat-out foilers.

 

I addressed those misapprehensions

 

Your reply on the other hand seems to be concerned with the 45' test beds, if I'm understanding correctly, in which case I agree OTUSA and AR are ahead in the race to gather data to build an AC62

 

but... LR has the lead in actual AC45F experience, which is what SR was concerned about - more than twice that of any other team!

..you seem to assume if it's got two hulls and flying foils fitted it's all the same.

 

I guess my observation - and surely Johns as well - is quite the opposite. These boats tend to vary in ability to a huge extent. But we can hope you are right about fitting foils to the 45, and it all goes well.

 

I do agree that LR should be considered heavy favorites going into this first ACWS event.

 

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I am not defending either one of them. But I'm also not trying to take shots at them or trying to use the Spooner case for that effect. ETNZ is going through a far-higher profile employment-contract issue and I can see both sides of that too.

Apples and oranges. No relationship between those issues.

 

I don't think there is a lawsuit in the ETNZ case either. in fact I think it is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually, I am not defending either one of them. But I'm also not trying to take shots at them or trying to use the Spooner case for that effect. ETNZ is going through a far-higher profile employment-contract issue and I can see both sides of that too.

Apples and oranges. No relationship between those issues.

 

I don't think there is a lawsuit in the ETNZ case either. in fact I think it is over.

 

And anyone that can buy a cup of Starbucks coffee can file a law suit. Even you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly.

 

Porthos, you told us that you believe Spooner signed an at will contract and it that is "silly" to think that OTUSA breached its contract.

So why did they obliged them to settle, if for one of the two above reason. If OTUSA was that right they would already have rejected Spooner claims.

 

At the end I bet OTUSA will pay Spooner for his claim and for an NDA to protect the Oracle name

 

If that is the case they still pay more than they would have initially, damage their image, lose money, demotivate their team.

 

This could be the end of OTUSA. They will pay huge $$$ to Spooner, and everyone will quit. :) Just ask clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Well that is news to me. I had understood that the "kits" were in fact developed by LR. And that team are the only ones to sail them to date. Perhaps I misunderstand this detail, nevertheless only LR has trained on retrofit AC45's.

 

The OR and AR 45T's are nothing like the old 45 one design boat.

 

My first guess was that BAR was trialling the kit.

 

But you are the first to suggest OR has even lifted a finger in this regard. I do understand that they in fact did design the AC45. But designing the one-design boat didn't seem to give any natural advantage in the one design fleet (queue the jokes here...).

 

So I don't doubt you may be correct in design provenance - but only LR (or so I believe) - has actually sailed and trained on the boat. And they have been sailing cats, in general, more than the rest.

 

When they showed up for a GC32 event they schooled the fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Well that is news to me. I had understood that the "kits" were in fact developed by LR. And that team are the only ones to sail them to date. Perhaps I misunderstand this detail, nevertheless only LR has trained on retrofit AC45's.

 

The OR and AR 45T's are nothing like the old 45 one design boat.

 

My first guess was that BAR was trialling the kit.

 

But you are the first to suggest OR has even lifted a finger in this regard. I do understand that they in fact did design the AC45. But designing the one-design boat didn't seem to give any natural advantage in the one design fleet (queue the jokes here...).

 

So I don't doubt you may be correct in design provenance - but only LR (or so I believe) - has actually sailed and trained on the boat. And they have been sailing cats, in general, more than the rest.

 

When they showed up for a GC32 event they schooled the fleet.

 

I don't disagree LR can fly their AC45's and fly them well.

 

But you can bet your ballast OTUSA will be the ONLY team with compliant AC45's on foils - until their new Rule is published. At that point other teams will have to get their boats to rate. That puts OTUSA ahead in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or when parts become available for the "kit"

Assuming "the kit" is a component of the new Rule? Such a rule would also include specs and tolerances for fitting. These are still OD boats are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Well that is news to me. I had understood that the "kits" were in fact developed by LR. And that team are the only ones to sail them to date. Perhaps I misunderstand this detail, nevertheless only LR has trained on retrofit AC45's.

 

The OR and AR 45T's are nothing like the old 45 one design boat.

 

My first guess was that BAR was trialling the kit.

 

But you are the first to suggest OR has even lifted a finger in this regard. I do understand that they in fact did design the AC45. But designing the one-design boat didn't seem to give any natural advantage in the one design fleet (queue the jokes here...).

 

So I don't doubt you may be correct in design provenance - but only LR (or so I believe) - has actually sailed and trained on the boat. And they have been sailing cats, in general, more than the rest.

 

When they showed up for a GC32 event they schooled the fleet.

 

I don't disagree LR can fly their AC45's and fly them well.

 

But you can bet your ballast OTUSA will be the ONLY team with compliant AC45's on foils - until their new Rule is published. At that point other teams will have to get their boats to rate. That puts OTUSA ahead in my book.

 

 

Sigh....

 

The LR foiling AC45 are* the AC45F's, ok.

You can't seriously believe any of this is unknown to the teams at this late stage - they have to have race ready boats sailing in Sardinia before the end of May!

This was clearly stated by Cammas, CEO and helm(?) of one of the 6 teams - and about to retrofit AC45-0005.

Nothing to do with OTUSA other than possibly using 'their builders' to make the retrofit parts for old AC45s & build any new boats (Jack claimed about 7 had been ordered), but who will build what - is still unconfirmed.

 

Why would OTUSA get involved when LR had done all the work for them, or more correctly for ACXX. Just a matter of writing it all down. May not be your Grandad's idea of one design - but what of the AC now is 'sailing as we know it' anyway?

 

*were. They are now hybrids.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Well that is news to me. I had understood that the "kits" were in fact developed by LR. And that team are the only ones to sail them to date. Perhaps I misunderstand this detail, nevertheless only LR has trained on retrofit AC45's.

 

The OR and AR 45T's are nothing like the old 45 one design boat.

 

My first guess was that BAR was trialling the kit.

 

But you are the first to suggest OR has even lifted a finger in this regard. I do understand that they in fact did design the AC45. But designing the one-design boat didn't seem to give any natural advantage in the one design fleet (queue the jokes here...).

 

So I don't doubt you may be correct in design provenance - but only LR (or so I believe) - has actually sailed and trained on the boat. And they have been sailing cats, in general, more than the rest.

 

When they showed up for a GC32 event they schooled the fleet.

 

I don't disagree LR can fly their AC45's and fly them well.

 

But you can bet your ballast OTUSA will be the ONLY team with compliant AC45's on foils - until their new Rule is published. At that point other teams will have to get their boats to rate. That puts OTUSA ahead in my book.

 

 

Sigh....

 

The LR foiling AC45 are* the AC45F's, ok.

 

 

 

Wrong, according to at least one LR crew ten minutes ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good that you asked any question!

 

This bit is quite significant too though...... *were. They are now hybrids. Hope you asked the right question.

 

Doubt Cammas lied (not 100% up to speed?) - but tell us what is going on according to your source? We've only been asking for 4 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

or when parts become available for the "kit"

Assuming "the kit" is a component of the new Rule? Such a rule would also include specs and tolerances for fitting. These are still OD boats are they not?

 

well that's what I would assume, the Rule is well printed and the kits would be truly worthless to install unless they fit the OD spec. But for some reason no public disclosure of the new Rule or even discussion of the mods to the new OD by any team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good that you asked any question!

 

This bit is quite significant too though...... *were. They are now hybrids. Hope you asked the right question.

 

Doubt Cammas lied (not 100% up to speed?) - but tell us what is going on according to your source? We've only been asking for 4 months.

Agree: quite likely Clean asked the wrong question. At the same time, it was Mich' Desj' who stated AC45 standard > AC45F mods had been defined and kits produced by LR. I would not vouch for that being 100% accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Clean didn't post anything useful, apparently the only reason to post at all was to say he had communicated with "at least one LR crew ten minutes ago." Yawn..

 

Maybe that's a somehow-useful point to Clean to make, but why should it be to anyone else unless there's some actual point to be had from it? Sheesh

 

What would be fun to know is if LR will be running two F's and two T's, and maybe know if the two we already saw will be of one or the other type after their re-mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

LR will be running a single F (the converted ex-ET boat) in the ACWS, as stated by Max in the videoconference.

 

Piranha and Swordfish, the previous standard 45s, were brought to proto-F status last year, then further modified (wheel steering, hydraulic rudder rake, etc.), will presumably get the full T treatment by mid-April

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Never made any sense that P & S might ever revert that far back, they've had for example the wheels since December already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

LR will be running a single F (the converted ex-ET boat) in the ACWS, as stated by Max in the videoconference.

 

Piranha and Swordfish, the previous standard 45s, were brought to proto-F status last year, then further modified (wheel steering, hydraulic rudder rake, etc.), will presumably get the full T treatment by mid-April

 

My source told me the two boats that LR have been playing with have nothing to do with the AC45 one design foiler. I asked him because nav wrote above that they did and I remembered otherwise. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So, without a new published AC45 Rule, this is all idle speculation - as usual. Normal transmission resumes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Disagree. You'd have to consider OTUSA to be favourites. After all, they are writing (have written) the new AC45 Rule.

Well that is news to me. I had understood that the "kits" were in fact developed by LR. And that team are the only ones to sail them to date. Perhaps I misunderstand this detail, nevertheless only LR has trained on retrofit AC45's.

 

The OR and AR 45T's are nothing like the old 45 one design boat.

 

My first guess was that BAR was trialling the kit.

 

But you are the first to suggest OR has even lifted a finger in this regard. I do understand that they in fact did design the AC45. But designing the one-design boat didn't seem to give any natural advantage in the one design fleet (queue the jokes here...).

 

So I don't doubt you may be correct in design provenance - but only LR (or so I believe) - has actually sailed and trained on the boat. And they have been sailing cats, in general, more than the rest.

 

When they showed up for a GC32 event they schooled the fleet.

 

I don't disagree LR can fly their AC45's and fly them well.

 

But you can bet your ballast OTUSA will be the ONLY team with compliant AC45's on foils - until their new Rule is published. At that point other teams will have to get their boats to rate. That puts OTUSA ahead in my book.

 

 

Sigh....

 

The LR foiling AC45 are* the AC45F's, ok.

You can't seriously believe any of this is unknown to the teams at this late stage - they have to have race ready boats sailing in Sardinia before the end of May!

This was clearly stated by Cammas, CEO and helm(?) of one of the 6 teams - and about to retrofit AC45-0005.

Nothing to do with OTUSA other than possibly using 'their builders' to make the retrofit parts for old AC45s & build any new boats (Jack claimed about 7 had been ordered), but who will build what - is still unconfirmed.

 

Why would OTUSA get involved when LR had done all the work for them, or more correctly for ACXX. Just a matter of writing it all down. May not be your Grandad's idea of one design - but what of the AC now is 'sailing as we know it' anyway?

 

*were. They are now hybrids.

 

 

And why would you be thinking LR wrote the new AC45 Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why would anyone who is sane think that whoever-all collaborated and wrote the F specs are getting a conspiratorial, unfair advantage, in a series that is basically for just fun and visibility?

 

The rule will get published in good time, just like the Prot and Match venue selection eventually did.

 

Yes, slow days are a little frustrating but probably only to a few of us silly fools here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why would anyone who is sane think that whoever-all collaborated and wrote the F specs are getting a conspiratorial, unfair advantage, in a series that is basically for just fun and visibility?

 

The rule will get published in good time, just like the Prot and Match venue selection did.

 

Yes, slow days are a little frustrating but probably only to a few of us here.

Not sure anyone is thinking conspiracies.

 

I'm just wondering why there needs to be so much variation in F spec set-ups. Maybe if Team Australia hadn't fucked up, I wouldn't be wondering. On the other hand, OTUSA and their puppet COR wanted ACWS to be be sailed in standard AC45's, IIRC - so I guess that clusterfuck had a useful benefit.

 

I'm not too sure who is actually running the AC asylum these days, but I doubt it's LR. By the way, what is your definition of "in good time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And why would anyone who is sane think that whoever-all collaborated and wrote the F specs are getting a conspiratorial, unfair advantage, in a series that is basically for just fun and visibility?

 

The rule will get published in good time, just like the Prot and Match venue selection did.

 

Yes, slow days are a little frustrating but probably only to a few of us here.

Not sure anyone is thinking conspiracies.

 

I'm just wondering why there needs to be so much variation in F spec set-ups. Maybe if Team Australia hadn't fucked up, I wouldn't be wondering. On the other hand, OTUSA and their puppet COR wanted ACWS to be be sailed in standard AC45's, IIRC - so I guess that clusterfuck had a useful benefit.

 

I'm not too sure who is actually running the AC asylum these days, but I doubt it's LR. By the way, what is your definition of "in good time."

 

 

Hard to say, we're in in-between AC's silly-time still. Hopefully in time before the Cagliari kick-off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

 

If he flat out said he that did, why would you question it?

 

Ask a detail question if you must, see if he can prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

 

If he flat out said he that did, why would you question it?

 

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

If he flat out said he that did, why would you question it?

 

Ask a detail question if you must, see if he can prove it.

 

I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone, especially TC or clean for that matter.

 

clean was ready to pay $500.00 for a pic of the 45 chained down - he can afford the documents if he's interested in the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

If he flat out said he that did, why would you question it?

 

Ask a detail question if you must, see if he can prove it.

 

I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone, especially TC or clean for that matter.

 

No balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^^ It's not a slow day for SWS : "I've read all of Spooners correspondence sent to the court, 138 pages of documents and exhibits, which includes e-mails as well as his account of phone conversations with various OTUSA team members."

:lol:

If he flat out said he that did, why would you question it?

 

Ask a detail question if you must, see if he can prove it.

 

I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone, especially TC or clean for that matter.

 

No balls

 

You are the second to last person I need to prove anything to - a worthless troll on the outside looking in and spewing garbage. Go buy the docs yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites