Re: I think therefore it is . . .
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hector" <bruce_hector@h...>
wrote:
Nels:-)
wrote:
>Wow! Did if offer any suggestions like perhaps, rowing?
> Mind you, Phil has said to me several times "exercise creativity
> ABOVE the waterline".
>
> Bruce Hector
Nels:-)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
I'm merely encouraging caution and skepticism when anything
terribly 'innovative' is suggested by any but the Master Himself (and
even then, I'd take it with a tiny pinch of salt if it's utterly
groundbreaking - with apologies to Himself!)."
Mind you, Phil has said to me several times "exercise creativity
ABOVE the waterline".
Bruce Hector
Bruce Wrote
Some Bolger fans unfortunately think that because PCB (a time-served naval architect) comes up with something unlikely, but innovative and that works, then any of us can. WRONG.
As Chuck Merrell has said many a time, the big trouble with many amateur boatbuilders is a tendency to go along with the "I think, therefore it IS" philosophy. What works for Bolger doesn't often work for the rest of us; and let's face it, even Bolger admits freely to designs that were failures.
I'd go even further, and suggest that in a few cases "I WISH therefore it IS" seems to be the reasoning behind certain disastrous choices - often motivated by misguided attempts to save money.
For example, a few years ago (like the 60s) a fair number of people made boats with hardboard (masonite). Not many of them survived their first couple of trips in water. LOTS of people were caught up in this mass self-delusion that masonite was pretty much as good as Lloyds-approved marine ply. The trouble was that they encouraged each other, and lists like this are a wonderful way to accelerate this kind of process of dissemination of disinformation, despite the cautious advice of the more experienced members.
Anyway - I'm merely encouraging caution and skepticism when anything terribly 'innovative' is suggested by any but the Master Himself (and even then, I'd take it with a tiny pinch of salt if it's utterly groundbreaking - with apologies to Himself!).
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I meant to add that Mr. Bolger encourages innovation so long as thereThis is something I agree with 100% - and it's VERY important:
> is a sensible functionality behind it.
Some Bolger fans unfortunately think that because PCB (a time-served naval architect) comes up with something unlikely, but innovative and that works, then any of us can. WRONG.
As Chuck Merrell has said many a time, the big trouble with many amateur boatbuilders is a tendency to go along with the "I think, therefore it IS" philosophy. What works for Bolger doesn't often work for the rest of us; and let's face it, even Bolger admits freely to designs that were failures.
I'd go even further, and suggest that in a few cases "I WISH therefore it IS" seems to be the reasoning behind certain disastrous choices - often motivated by misguided attempts to save money.
For example, a few years ago (like the 60s) a fair number of people made boats with hardboard (masonite). Not many of them survived their first couple of trips in water. LOTS of people were caught up in this mass self-delusion that masonite was pretty much as good as Lloyds-approved marine ply. The trouble was that they encouraged each other, and lists like this are a wonderful way to accelerate this kind of process of dissemination of disinformation, despite the cautious advice of the more experienced members.
Anyway - I'm merely encouraging caution and skepticism when anything terribly 'innovative' is suggested by any but the Master Himself (and even then, I'd take it with a tiny pinch of salt if it's utterly groundbreaking - with apologies to Himself!).
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]