It sounds like you've calmed down a bit, at least. Let's try to keep the discussion friendly and rational, OK?

: What started as occasional OT posts deriding the popular designer's layup
: practices, has apparently turned into a deluge of unsubstantiated
: statements with the same underlying theme.

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but is see your point. However, I never made any such statements. I don't buy the "safety" argument others have made. There is no data to indicate that current methods produce any other than perfectly safe boats. My interest is is determining what would be the optimum contruction method for a given boat, that's all.

: If you say the same thing often enough, some people will actually start to : : believe it, whether true or not.

You're absolutely right, but such statements can go either way. Just ask Bill Clinton. He does it all the time. ;-)

: I would hope that my post will only stop and make people think about what you
: are actually saying, and the credentials you bring to the table.

In this case, I really don't see what my credentials have to do with it, since I'm simply making references to data from other reliable, experienced sources (glass and epoxy suppliers, other boat builders). Granted, if I was making this up off the top of my head, you'd be totally justified in shredding me for it, but that's not the case.

: I don't have all the answers by any means, but I also don't try to force feed
: my thoughts on what constitutes a proper layup to the others.

None of us have all the answers, that's pretty clear. Honestly, I don't see where I've been trying to "force feed" anyone anything. Sure, George has made some pretty harsh statements, but I don't agree with them. As I said before, I'm trying to look past the rhetoric and get to the underlying information, which does have merit.

: Back to building . . .

Enjoy!

Brian