Free Enterprise works

Rocna, Suncoast and the other impacted vendors are hardly flush enough to pay a bunch of lawyers to clean up the mess.*It would appear it is a bit of a hollow victory. I saw a Rocna 180+ pounder on a Nordhavn in Anacortes*the other day. It was well used and not bent. The vessel owner did not seem in a panic.

*

Ther'es plenty of anchors to choose from with or without the*Rocna. I see on one of Marks links the Ultra anchor. I'd rather have one of those any day. That anchor is at the top of my revised list of the most beautiful anchor. What a foxy looking thing. Interestingly they included a feature I had incorporated into my first XYZ. The "non chain-four bar" was put there for the same reason I put my bar/strut on the XYZ. I hired a local welder to put it on. I see the Ultra has a lead weighted tip and no roll bar. Looks like the way to go to me. I can't remember if the Manson Boss has a weighted tip. I think not. I did lay my Manson Supreme on my cabin sole today and I do think it would roll right side up but the roll bar is in the way so I'd have to cut it off to find out for sure. Do'nt think I want to know $200 bad right now.*


*

Marin wrote:
That's the dilema facing Canada Metals right now.* How to rebuild the reputation of the product?* I personally remain convinced that*Peter Smith's anchor design is superior on an all-round basis to everything else that's out there right now.

*

Click to expand...

All third generation anchors provide pretty impressive performance. *Once you shake out the kind of b.s. interpretation of test results Rocna promoted on its website, it is hard to tell the difference between a Rocna and a Supreme. *The Fortress generally performs better than both of those, so absolute performance doesn't appear to be the driving factor for many anchor purchasers. *Smith's design is essentially a rip off of the Bugel and the Spade, so I don't credit him, or Manson with novelty. *

My objection to Rocna and Suncoast is purely on the basis that I don't think that manufacturers should overtly lie to their customers, nor should their distributors pretend that when they are a party to deceit it doesn't matter, or can be neutralized just by keeping mum or pretending they are "shocked, shocked to find out that there is gambling in this establishment". *

Delfin wrote:*Smith's design is essentially a rip off of the Bugel and the Spade, so I don't credit him, or Manson with novelty. *

Click to expand...

Neither did Smith.* When researching a Bruce replacement a number of years ago we read several articles by Peter about his anchor.* He readily stated that in his search for an anchor design that would hold his boat more reliably that what was available in his part of the world at the time, he combined ideas from several other anchors.* The rollbar he credited to the Bugel.* He described his Rocna design as a combination and refinement of existing anchor elements*rather than as a*new, from-scratch design.

Whether he changed his tune later I have no idea.* But it's the way he described his anchor back when we were shopping for something better than a Bruce some seven years ago or so.


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 18th of November 2011 10:33:18 PM

Seems to me I read something like that too Marin. It would seem stupid to throw out several hundred years of anchor developement and strike out on your own. It's interesting to note that the Bugel had such a low shank the roll bar was actually needed or it would just sit up side down on the bottom if it wound down that way. I think if I cut the roll bar off the Supreme it would right itself to laying on it's side and set well but the holding power would go south for lack of the roll bar. I think it depends on the interference drag for holding power. A roll bar is'nt the best thing to be relying on for holding power. A near perfectly shaped fluke seems far better. All the roll bar anchors I know of are good but I see no justification to elevate them to religious heights.*


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 19th of November 2011 12:07:13 AM

nomadwilly wrote:
All the roll bar anchors I know of are good but I see no justification to elevate them to religious heights.*

Click to expand...

I don't either.* We're talking about an anchor here, about as rude and crude a device as one can have. It's not an artificial heart or an airplane wing.* But after becoming convinced through our own and others' experiences that the Bruce*had to go*we went looking for something better.* As I have said before, we started this search with no preconcieved notions about what would be better, only that there had to be something out there that was.

When we learned of the so-called "new generation" anchors we started looking into them.* And in the dozens*and*dozens*of articles, reviews, independent testimonials we read,*the Rocna consistently came out on top for fast setting*and deep burial, and almost*total reliability in terms of holding.* This from the Dashews down*to Joe Boater.* We read about other anchors, too--- I'd never even heard of the Rocna before this and it looked really weird to the point where we weren't*convinced that it would even work despite all the testimonials to the contrary.

And all the reviews and articles and testimonials*about other anchors were, for the most part. favorable, too.* Like I said, they aren't artificial hearts, just lumps of metal that are supposed to hold your boat in place.* And most of them will do that very well under "normal" conditions even the piss-poor Bruce.*

But..... every one of them, after talking about what they liked about this or that anchor, then had a "but......" which led into* a description about the*features they didn't like.* So we became a lot more interested in the "buts" than in the other stuff.

And it didn't take us long to notice that there were far fewer "buts" in the articles and reviews and testimonials about the Rocna than there were in the writeups about the the other anchors.* In fact the most common "but" was the one that started the sentence about the price.

My wife and I put a lot more stock in what users say about something, be it a car, camera, toaster, or anchor, than what the manufacturers say.* The manufacturer's gonna say it's great no matter what.

So in the end, given the almost universal praise for the Rocna's performance and reliabilty, plus things like the videos and anchor tests--- which we took with a grain of salt but they still give you some useful information--- we decided on the Rocna.

Seven or eight years later, whichever it is, we have no regrets at all about our decision.* The anchor has held in situations where we know the Bruce would have failed, so we have definitely succeeded in meeting our primary objective, which was to find something more reliable than the Bruce.*

The*Rocna*does everything all the independent user testimonials we read talked about.* So at this point, we still maintain that of all the designs currently out there, the Rocna is still*the best*for*the*broadest*range of applications.* The Manson is close but has some design features that we--- and the reviews we read--- feel make it a bit less effective than the Rocna.*

The Sarca*was an unknown as at the time it was not even mentioned in the*material about the "new generation" anchors.* However now that we're aware of them and have seen them*the Sarca has some basic design features*we don't care for compared to the Rocna.* Nevertheless it gets high marks all around and users like PeterB in Australia have had excellent results with it.* So if we were in the market for a new anchor today, the Sarca is probably what we would get, not because we think the design is better than the Rocna but because of the still uncertain quality of the Rocnas made*today.

Everybody has their favorite anchor design.* The Rocna is ours.* Does it matter t us*if other people prefer something else?* Nope.* Will we ever change anchor types?* Nope, unless the Rocna starts letting us down the way the Bruce did.* If it does, it's history.* But so far we've been given no reason to think we made a bad choice.

Do I think*there's a better anchor than a Rocna?* Absolutely.* A D10 Cat block would hold us just swell I think.* But it would be a bitch to stow on the pulpit and I doubt our windlass would be able to retrieve it.


-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 19th of November 2011 01:02:25 AM

Do I think there's a better anchor than a Rocna?

With every anchor what the assemblers wont tell is,

SIZE COUNTS!

Frequently a "better" anchor is simply double or triple the weight in any brand , as long as its not cast scrap iron.

Today I re-installed my serviced and working again Nilson winch, and then the Super Sarca. (So named now because they also now have the Excel). I looked at it and I thought, "you absolutely ugly but agricultural beauty". You set a benchmark and seeing you back on there just looks right - for my boat, because it's no beauty either. They are a great team. However, if I was buying an anchor new now, and I owned a later model, with molded & slotted bowsprit etc, then, no question, I would definitely go for the Sarca Excel. It works as well - or even a bit better, the maker claims, but also looks more...well...modern and cool. It does not have the roll bar, but the fluke shape, weight distribution, and the winglets, make it just as quick-setting, and with slightly higher holding power, apparently. And guess what - true to form, and as Delfin said at the beginning of this thread - the new Manson Boss looks just like it - apart from the concave fluke insteadof convex - funny that.

Check them out and see if you also agree....

http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/11/article/id/7476

http://www.anchorright.com.au/products/sarca-excel-anchor

So if anyyone there is thinking of getting a new anchor* - c'mon Eric, (Nomadwilly deserves a really good anchor - finally) - and if Marin is correct that you can now get them in the US & Canada, if you got hold of the (correctly weighted for your boat) Sarce Excel you would never regret it.* Just sayin', and I have no shares in the company - wish I did...

Oh, sorry, PS...no slot in the shank because even compared to the Boss, the shank is curve-shaped so as to fit bow assemblies with slots nicely, so the slot had to be sacrificed.* Unlike the Manson Boss, which still incorporates it, (suggesting they still feel it is a good idea, and it makes it look more different), however, I agree, theirs does tend to look like shank strength might be a bit compromised when placed how it is in a curved shank - but probably doesn't.* And having said that, I do think it is probably a damn good anchor as well, but I prefer a convex fluke that 'sheds the bed' - seabed that is...


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 19th of November 2011 06:47:40 AM

Have to chuckle...I only agree with those that have found an anchor, ground tackle system, and technique plus the confidence in all*to hold them securely in whatever situation they feel comfortable.

I have never believed in any of the comparison tests as they are all a little different and produce different results.

Take any anchor and practice enough...adjust (even if it requires buying up a size or two...and I'm sure you will be happy...because of that confidence factor.* If it doesn't come...try a different anchor...but my bet is you haven't varied your technique enough.

Will I change to one of the newer style anchors over my delta?...probably as the one I have is too small for extended cruising anyway...unless I try some tandem techniques and find them suitable.

So to all... good luck and good night....enjoy your anchor wars!

Peter B wrote:if Marin is correct that you can now get them in the US & Canada,

Click to expand...

I have no idea if the Sarca is available in the US and Canada.* I said I can get one if I wanted because I have a way of getting it to Seattle at no cost.* Has to do with our Flight Test organization.

Peter,

Dragged my XYZ some when setting it on a rather uneven bottom. Must have been quite rocky as there were plenty of scrape marks on the top of the anchor. I finally backed down on it hard and in the morning there was a lot of weed on the anchor. May not have gotten anchored at all w a lesser anchor. haha I think it was very rocky. I may actually have a "really good anchor". Only time will tell. I'm anxious to see good pics of the Boss and better yet anchor test copy. May not be worth much but I like to read both the facts and opinions and that always includes yours. I think the Boss's holding power may be in the bag but setting power could go any direction. Most anchors have some feature that reduces performance to insure setting. Weighted tips, roll bars, side skids or pads like on Danforths, floats, extended arms and articulated shanks are some of these features and if the anchor could perform well without them more performance would almost be insured. If the weighted tip anchors could do fine w/o the weight in the tip and the roll bar anchors could set dependably w/o the roll bar and the XYZ could do w/o the extended arm ect ect we may find the mother of all anchors. Interestingly there IS such an anchor. Marin's favorite. I see no feature of the claw anchor that looks like a setting aid. And since almost 100% of the anchors weight is on the flukes presented to the bottom setting should be assured and field experience bears that out as well. So what could be done to increase holding power? Or/and why is holding power low? Could the mother of all anchors be hidden in the claw?

Eric, I can't answer that, but I think the Claw/Bruce, whatever similar knock-offs all have inherently the design flaw Marin has mentioned may times - not heavy enough to make it work properly until over a weight normally more than most of our boat ideally need. So when it all comes down to it - what one wants is an anchor that sets quickly and well in the majority of bottoms and holds damn well. I think the Sarca Excel (and maybe the Manson Boss) will fit that bill well, and probably better than the Delta/Ultras etc than came before them, and definitely better than the Bruce/CQR species before them. Progress happens. I suggest you all PM Marin, and work out some shipping details re his contacts, for which he in turn should charge a modest fee for his trouble. There you go Marin - another business opportunity. Anchor importer. Rex is looking for a good one in North America as we speak, I believe. Yes, sorry, I know you are too busy...pity that....

Peter B wrote:
I suggest you all PM Marin, and work out some shipping details re his contacts, for which he in turn should charge a modest fee for his trouble. There you go Marin - another business opportunity. Anchor importer.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately my "arrangement" should I want to acquire a Sarca is not something I can take advantage of except for my personal use, and I could probably only do it once.* It woule be on a "space and willingness available" basis on a flight test airplane.

Aw shucks...sorry for getting your hopes up guys....

nomadwilly wrote:
Peter,

Dragged my XYZ some when setting it on a rather uneven bottom. Must have been quite rocky as there were plenty of scrape marks on the top of the anchor. I finally backed down on it hard and in the morning there was a lot of weed on the anchor. May not have gotten anchored at all w a lesser anchor. haha I think it was very rocky. I may actually have a "really good anchor". Only time will tell. I'm anxious to see good pics of the Boss and better yet anchor test copy. May not be worth much but I like to read both the facts and opinions and that always includes yours. I think the Boss's holding power may be in the bag but setting power could go any direction. Most anchors have some feature that reduces performance to insure setting. Weighted tips, roll bars, side skids or pads like on Danforths, floats, extended arms and articulated shanks are some of these features and if the anchor could perform well without them more performance would almost be insured. If the weighted tip anchors could do fine w/o the weight in the tip and the roll bar anchors could set dependably w/o the roll bar and the XYZ could do w/o the extended arm ect ect we may find the mother of all anchors. Interestingly there IS such an anchor. Marin's favorite. I see no feature of the claw anchor that looks like a setting aid. And since almost 100% of the anchors weight is on the flukes presented to the bottom setting should be assured and field experience bears that out as well. So what could be done to increase holding power? Or/and why is holding power low? Could the mother of all anchors be hidden in the claw?

Click to expand...

Once a Bruce/Claw weight gets over some threshold, gravity takes over and it digs in. *Once an anchor is set, holding power becomes a matter of the drag surface, which is highest on the Bruce type. *It's for that reason that I think Evans Starzinger's test of heavier Supreme, Rocna and Ray anchors had the Ray on top. *What the threshold is, I'm not sure, but the ones Evans tested were 125#, from memory. *I think one of the problems with lighter Bruces is one of the strengths of heavier ones, and that is the fact that they always present the center fluke and a wing to the seabed. *This distributes the load across two bearing surfaces, effectively making a 44# Bruce act like a lighter anchor until it is dug in. *However, once they get heavy, gravity makes both center fluke and tip start to grab, then the pull of the vessel simply accelerates the burying. *Or at least that's my theory......

Carl,

I'm still having trouble seeing how bigger and smaller anchors should act differently. Manson apparently seems to think there is something to it. X weight on small fluke. 2X weight on anchor twice as big. Do'nt see a difference. But really big differences in size like a model and a 40' boat the reynolds number obviously applies. That anchor test w the Ray in it was an oddball. I do'nt recall any anchor being buried. They just seemed to drag them through the gravel. And like most all tests there was a heavy commercial presence and by only one company. That's one place where commercial fishermen and yachtsmen agree. The claw is still most popular. I do'nt know why the Bruce has such fat tips. One could grind them sharp and have the anchor re-galvanized but I could'nt do that in Alaska. I could just let it rust though. And the anchor starts to set fine it just dos'nt stay or continue to set. Very frequently the claws are reported to have good short scope performance so I keep coming back to thinking about them. Wrote this last night but had at least 7 power outages and I kept copying it and there it was this morning. I'm not sure I understand your theory about the claw but the claw seems to be more mysterious in function than most of the anchors.

nomadwilly wrote:
I'm still having trouble seeing how bigger and smaller anchors should act differently.

Click to expand...

*As I've said before, it's all in the relative scale.* You can scale an anchor design up and down, but you can't scale the bottom up and down with it.**Take*a small anchor that can't dig into a particular bottom and double or triple or quadruple the size (and thus the*weight) of the same design and the chances are it will dig right in and bury itself very nicely. Why? Because the size of the sand grains or gravel or whatever, or the consistency of the mud which resists the small anchor does not change when you drop a big anchor on it.* So what was hard or impossible with the small anchor is easier for the big anchor of the same design.*

It's sort of like the difference between trying to dig a trench in your yard with a little garden trowel and digging the same trench in the same yard with a full-size shovel that's the exact same design as the garden trowel.* The yard stays the same but it offers a lot less resistance to the shovel.


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 21st of November 2011 06:33:50 PM

Marin, I understood that several years ago and each time you've said that since. But to understand it and to*conceive*how it happens are quite different. The difference in what you think and what I think centers around the range of the scaling. No need to tell me that*scaling*and*Reynolds*numbers exist and have an effect on our lives but how much is the question. I do'nt think you're going to find a difference worth talking about between a 14lb anchor and a 44lb anchor. Put another way you won't find a boat anchor that wo'nt work for your boat and it would work fine for my boat. If a Rocna works fine for your boat it will work fine for my boat or my 16' skiff. For all practical purposes a 14lb anchor should work just as well as a 100lb anchor. We all know that there will be a difference but I think the difference is so small it's not worth talking about. When you ask a salesman what anchor you need for a*certain*size boat he will always point to a size you need. He will never say you need a certain*style or design of anchor for your size of boat. It's because it sos'nt matter.*

"Put another way you won't find a boat anchor that wo'nt work for your boat and it would work fine for my boat. If a Rocna works fine for your boat it will work fine for my boat or my 16' skiff. For all practical purposes a 14lb anchor should work just as well as a 100lb anchor."

An anchor that works for my boat will work the same*for your boat ONLY if your boat is a similar size and windage to our boat, and if you use the same setup I use on my boat.* In other words, same kind of rode, same anchoring scope, etc. Because anchor-x that works fine for me on all-chain and a 7:1 scope may not work at all for you (or me) on a lightweight combination rode with almost no chain on a 2:1 scope. There's more to anchor performance than just the anchor, as you well know.

And if you are basing all your anchoring theories on your belief there is no difference in performance between a 14# anchor and 100# anchor of the same design, I suspect your are doomed to never find a solution to your anchoring challenges because you're basing it all on a flawed premise. If there was no performance difference between a 14# anchor and a 100# anchor then we'd all have 14# anchors because they're lighter and a hell of a lot cheaper

But a 14# anchor of x-design might skip across a bottom with a hard, crusty surface because it's not big enough-- which means it's not heavy enough--- to penetrate that surface. But take a 100# anchor of exactly the same design and drop it down there and it will most likely punch down through that surface and set. The size of the boat is irrelevant in this case--- you can drag the two anchors across the bottom on the end of a long chain or line attached to a winch on shore and you will get this same disparity of results.

This is why I believe the Bruce, which works great in huge sizes attached to oil rigs, works poorly in sizes like 33#, 44#, etc. I've related that people with the same boat as us but with a 44# Bruce instead of a 33# Bruce have had just as much trouble with it as we had with our 33# Bruce. An eleven pound weight difference--- which translates into a very small size difference--- doesn't make any actual difference to the anchor's reliability or holding power. But..... step up to the size Carl (Delfin) has or go even larger (and heavier), and the Bruce starts beoming a lot more dependable.

So size matters when comparing anchors of the same design, like a little Bruce and a great big Bruce. The same would be true of a little Rocna and a great big Rocna, or a little Spade and a great big Spade. I find it rather baffling that this isn't glaringly obvious.


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 21st of November 2011 08:21:44 PM

What's all this talk about chain and scope?????? Why would I even make the comparison without assuming all the other variables would be scaled to fit?? And a 100lb anchor has a big fat fluke and a 14lb anchor has a small fluke. Big fluke - big pressure from big weight*

*

I give up

But you're the one who keeps saying that anchor size shouldn't matter to anchor performance.* Here are your sentences.* I do'nt think you're going to find a difference worth talking about between a 14lb anchor and a 44lb anchor.**And* For all practical purposes a 14lb anchor should work just as well as a 100lb anchor.**

Am I missing something here?* Aren't you saying that for a given anchor design the size and weight makes no difference in performance?* That, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.* I can't even fathom the logic behind those statements.* Or did I misinterpret your meaning?

You also said* Put another way you won't find a boat anchor that wo'nt work for your boat and it would work fine for my boat.**Double negative aside, I assume*what you're saying is that an anchor that works for my boat will work for your boat.* Well, it might, and it might not.* It will depend on how we each rig the anchor, the scope we each use, and so on.* You didn't state you were assuming the same rode, scope, etc in your post*and my crystal ball is in the shop right now.

So I could only go by the words you wrote, hence my comments on the rode and scope.* First rule of writing--- never assume the reader knows what's in your head if you don't put it down on the paper.

If I have misinterpreted your statements I'm sorry.* Perhaps there is a way to phrase your theory in a manner that's more clear to me.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 21st of November 2011 09:56:34 PM

Marin quotes me **
<table class="forumline borderline" style="font-size:12px;background-color:#0053a2;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:10px;width:100%;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="tr tr-first tr-odd"><td class="row1 borderline comment-content" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#eff2f9;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;padding:4px;" valign="top"><table style="font-size:12px;width:1125px;padding:0px;margin:0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:1121px;" colspan="2">
I do'nt think you're going to find a difference worth talking about between a 14lb anchor and a 44lb anchor.**And**For all practical purposes a 14lb anchor should work just as well as a 100lb anchor.**

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Then he asks "am I missing something here?"*

Yes. You just do'nt get it. What were we talking about? The difference size has on the performance of an anchor. You do'nt understand that I'm not talking about a 14lb anchor holding a boat in a storm like a 100lb anchor would hold that same boat. What I'm saying is that if you had a 10lb anchor and it had 1X performance and if you made a 100lb anchor exactly like the 10lb anchor except it was 100lbs the 100lb anchor would have 10X performance. Now I know it wo'nt be exactly 10X performance but it will be close enough that we as boaters need not be concerned about the unnoticable difference.

Okay, that I understand.* So since you seem to*understand that a larger anchor will have better performance than a smaller anchor of the same design, your 1X vs 10X example, why did you ask this in the first place?

I'm still having trouble seeing how bigger and smaller anchors should act differently.

Which is what started this exchange in the first place.

OK Perhaps my choice of words missed the mark.*

Just noticed your choice of words in this last post was even worse. Looks like you were just typing too fast. Wish I could do that

What's wrong with my choice in my previous post? When you write as part of your job you get to the point where you can type as fast as you can think.

*
<table class="forumline borderline" style="font-size:12px;background-color:#0053a2;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:10px;width:100%;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="tr tr-odd"><td class="row1 borderline comment-content" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#eff2f9;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;padding:4px;" valign="top"><table style="font-size:12px;width:1138px;padding:0px;margin:0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:1134px;" colspan="2">
So since you seem to*understand that a larger anchor will have better performance than a smaller anchor of the same design, your 1X vs 10X example, why did you ask this in the first place?

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
The word "this" should apply to something you said before "this". so I was looking for some part of that sentence to refer to. And when you say I "SEEM" to understand something extremely elementary it's not very flattering but perhaps that's how you meant it. "Do" rather than "seem". And you should have said "as" your ...example or "re" your ...example. Just dos'nt flow right but not being an English teacher I can't say what actually is wrong with it. But if you had'nt said this....
<table class="forumline borderline" style="font-size:12px;background-color:#0053a2;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:10px;width:100%;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="tr tr-first tr-odd"><td class="row1 borderline comment-content" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#eff2f9;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;padding:4px;" valign="top"><table style="font-size:12px;width:1138px;padding:0px;margin:0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:1134px;" colspan="2"><table class="forumline borderline" style="font-size:12px;background-color:#0053a2;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:10px;width:100%;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="tr tr-first tr-odd"><td class="row1 borderline comment-content" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#eff2f9;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;padding:4px;" valign="top"><table style="font-size:12px;width:1138px;padding:0px;margin:0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:1134px;" colspan="2">When you write as part of your job you get to the point where you can type as fast as you can think.*
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
I never would have mentioned the imperfections. But Marin lets not argue about this as I have the desire for you to think well of me unlike 3 or 4 years ago when I really did'nt care. I'm smoking the peace pipe now Marin and it's bad for me to smoke so I hope I won't need to smoke for long.

nomadwilly wrote:<table class="forumline borderline" style="font-size:12px;background-color:#0053a2;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:10px;width:100%;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="tr tr-odd"><td class="row1 borderline comment-content" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#eff2f9;border-width:1px;border-color:#0053a2;border-style:solid;padding:4px;" valign="top"><table style="font-size:12px;width:1138px;padding:0px;margin:0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:1134px;" colspan="2">*</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
The word "this" should apply to something you said before "this". so I was looking for some part of that sentence to refer to.

And when you say I "SEEM" to understand something extremely elementary it's not very flattering but perhaps that's how you meant it. "Do" rather than "seem".

Click to expand...

Regarding your first statement, you are correct gramatically but you are describing a very old fashioned style of writing.* I write like people talk, not the way the grammar books say to write. In this case the "this" refers to the following sentence of yours that I quoted.* "Why did you ask this?" And then I gave you the "this" by quoting your sentence.

Things like partial sentences have become the norm, at least among contemporary writers.* As are things that are technically incorrect gramatically.* It actually makes things more readable if a book or article is written the way people talk rather than following the letter of the rules.

Critics who have reviewed my books have actually gone on at some length to praise my writing style as have individual readers who have contacted me to tell me how they liked a book.* And my publishers and editors love it.* So I'd be a fool to change it even if I could.* Writing is like editing film.* You learn all the rules first.* Then you learn how to break them to make the writing or the film that much more effective.

BTW, I use "seems" not to insult the person I'm writing about but as a way of saying that this is my interpretation of what that person said.* "It seems (to me) that he meant this, that, or the other thing."* It leaves the door open to the fact that I might have misinterpreted what he said.

Well I'm flattered you should explain it so completely but now I understand it completely too. See those boxes around my quotes * ....seems like they must be a setting on TF that causes that. I hate it and need to know how to correct it. Dos'nt happen on Boat Design so I assume it's TF but I think I'm the only one w the boxes. Help.

nomadwilly wrote:
See those boxes around my quotes * ....seems like they must be a setting on TF that causes that. I hate it and need to know how to correct it. Dos'nt happen on Boat Design so I assume it's TF but I think I'm the only one w the boxes. Help.

Click to expand...

*Well, I'm a computer user but I don't pretend to be computer-literate.* My guess is that it's a setting you've selected (or your computer has selected), perhaps inadvertently, either in TF as your computer sees it or in your computer itself.* Since you say this does not happen on Boat Design my guess it's the way your computer is interpretting TF.* I don't recall that your ealier posts had the boxes, just the "so and so wrote" and the lines above and below the quoted text. I could not find an obvious setting choice in the TF menus, but perhaps there is one somewhere.

Have you by chance changed browsers or operating systems?

Marin wrote:*

Click to expand...

Things like partial sentences have become the norm, at least among contemporary writers.* As are things that are technically incorrect gramatically.* It actually makes things more readable if a book or article is written the way people talk rather than following the letter of the rules.

Critics who have reviewed my books have actually gone on at some length to praise my writing style as have individual readers who have contacted me to tell me how they liked a book.* And my publishers and editors love it.* So I'd be a fool to change it even if I could.* Writing is like editing film.* You learn all the rules first.* Then you learn how to break them to make the writing or the film that much more effective.

*Yes.* It depends upon your audience.* For writing an audit report, taking an English proficiency test, etcetera, that style won't work.* It works here, but I wish posters would keep their paragraphs shorter than*ten lines*lines (five is better).