: Don't be afraid of the word, philosophical, Kris. It's more than evident in
: your response that your emotion and your personal philosophy are being
: fully engaged.

Uh, duh! My passionate defense of the dispassionate was a bit of intentional irony. Stop wasting your time assuming you are brighter and more sensitive than everyone else and get up to speed already will ya?

: Explore your kinder, gentler side and you'll probably improve your efforts in a design context.

Ooh, thanks so much for the professional advice! What is it you do exactly? For someone posing as being so in touch with feelings, obviously you're not or you'd never post something like that to someone you've never met and whose works you are ignorant of.

The assumptions you make, and the conclusions you draw, about what I may or may not be in touch with - and to what degree the quality of my design work might be improved, would be insulting if they weren't so pathetic (and sounding as if they were plucked right out of some 80's self help book).

: Not all solutions emanate from technical pragmatism or
: "common sense" as you describe it.

Really? Do tell. Perhaps this has a LITTLE bit to do with why I pursued an ART major? Still, one need not buy into the artsy-fartsy nonsense 100% of the time to be a successful artist or designer - thought that sort of attitude does seem to come in handy for those trying to sell works that can't stand on their own merits and need backstory fluff to fly. But that's a different subject.

Get a grip here Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. Your going off on a side tangent that offers no revelations to anyone, and more importantly is not addressing my response you your claims.

This thread is about ONE design - one that I was (and still am) discussing in functional terms as I already explained in gross detail. I see others (save you) responding similarly. Sorry if this data doesn't fit your pet theory about kayakers and their reactions to motors and pontoons and such. Other posters might indeed feel their cherished notions of what kayaks are, and what kayaking is, to be threatened by such devices as you claim - but I still see no evidence to support you assertions in this particular case.

Exploring the softer side is fine, but using that to dodge simple logic is weak.

: As long as there are people
: involved, there will be emotional realities to face, as well as the
: philosophical understandings of the public at large.

Again, duh! That still doesn't make the comments in this thread into what you are claiming they are. Sometimes comments about things can just be about the things. To quote a bit of your own condescension: "You can't escape it, so why not acknowledge the reality?" The reality here being that posters seem to be simply pointing out functional issues, not emotional ones.