Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Whiner

About bigmarv

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    at sea
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1,015 profile views
  1. He's got a point though. Not sure about overweight, but they drag the stern, and can't sail well upwind/in the light.
  2. Can't be long before status symbols that burn tonnes of fossil fuels are points of embarrassment.
  3. you're right, there is some leeward support, but usually the staying angles are narrow enough that freestanding masts seem worth consideration. i don't care about all the history, just interested in the boats, and especially for long distance cruising where crash gybes happen. i'll go clean my nose now.
  4. People posting on this toxic misogynistic website call what he writes "abuse"? Lol. Having read a bit of the banter, my impression is that he stays on point and non-abusive, which cannot be said for a bunch of those who respond to him or describe him. His boats may or may not work well (no idea, me), but a bunch of what he says is obviously right and never answered except with rudeness or silence. Case in point is the risk of backing a stayed rig when it's basically unsupported on one side. the wind never backs suddenly and strongly when cruising a PC from your desk maybe, and probabl
  5. Yes, 97%, I was using shorthand. If you write off that degree of consensus as alarmist you should stop all medical care and start smoking 50 a day. I've read it and understand it. I don't read facebook. You are plainly the opposite and your "facts" are discredited conspiracy theories. You should get your scientific wife to read the full ipcc works and explain them to you. Maybe also show her your history of posting on this site. She might find you as insightful and hilarious as you and maybe four other lonely sad men do.
  6. I'm not sure even you know what point you are making, but consider that the biggest consensus of scientists on earth on any issue ever, having undertaken the biggest scientific study of any issue ever, all think you are wrong. I guess there's a chance they are wrong and you and and LB (who parrots a discredited conspiracy theory about the Greens being to blame) are right. Sort of funny that you two think you're the ones who aren't following fake news though.
  7. On your logic suggesting listening to your oncologist is alarmist. I've read the IPCC reports. If you have you haven't understood what it means. But if writing off the entire scientific community as 'alarmist' is the way you want to deal with Australia's heat and rainfall outlook then you're obviously not interested in facts and should stick to your sad internet posturing. Very brave and pioneering stuff.
  8. These fires arent a culmination, they are the beginning. If your solution to Australia's looming environmental and climate crises is to hate the greens and obsess about hazard reduction burning while ignoring emissions, then you don't understand the science. Or maybe you do but have vested interests.
  9. Big coal will cause far more casualties. Are you wanting them charged too?
  10. What's the construction? And can you say what a 'reasonable price' might be?
  11. What's the story with Crowded House? It's for sale?
  • Create New...