Help, History of an obscure riveted runabout.

[sorefeet]

Howdy,

I'm very new here, just joined with the thought I might find some answers.

I'm trying to find any information on my latest new/old boat. It's titled as a 1954 "Heating Assurance Inc. 12SS." It was built in Spokane Washington and here’s the legend: they were built for Boeing Executives when Boeing had a presence in Spokane in the 50's.

I was given some information that there was a mention of "Heating Assurance Inc." and the "Nelson boats" in a book by Peter Hunn, the title escapes me right now.

The boat's own number seem to differ to the title as far as the year goes, the "Manufactures Placket" states it was made in 1958 as does the numbers stamped into the hull. That's not a worry, it's a "typo," and should be easy to get cleared up here in Montana.

The hull measures 11'6" long, 59 3/4" at the widest point/@firstcockpit, and 43 1/2" at the transom.
I’ll be looking forward to any information available.

Sincerely,

Troy

[gonzo]

Comparing illegal aliens and drug dealers in that way sounds like a typical bumper sticker. It also sounds like you are a bigot. Unless you are a native American, you are or descend from illegal aliens.

[sorefeet]

Thanks for the "personal attack."

Great forum, no free speech.

Sincerely,

Troy

[FMS]

Interested in the boat. (not much in illegal immigrant and drug dealer comparisons.)

I can't find any reference to "Heating Assurance" in the usual sources. No MIC or recall reference - too early.

There hasn't been much on this site about small double cockpit aluminum boats of this era, but it appears a number are coming out of barns and back into circulation this year. Good!

The unknown 1955 Lonestar inboard

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...elp-38812.html

[gonzo]

Sorefeet: there is free speech. That is why we can both post. If you include a bigoted note at the foot of all your post, don't be offended if we call you on it. There are political forums for that kind of diatribe.

[gonzo]

I got your insulting email. Defend your position publicly and stop being a baby

[FMS]

Go here
http://www.google.com/search?q=illeg...igration+forum
for that

[sorefeet]

Howdy,

Coments about the sig are irrelevant.

Imtadation won't do it either, defending one's position is may be futile here, big bullys with lots of posts, pushing & pulling a new commer.

Sig stays. Kick me off for free speach in a sig file, just delete my posts like I have yours.

If anyone is interested in the runabout's history and can see past this type of domanance of "Our forum, & this new guy/scum" then please post if not I know already finding out who who to avoid.

Sincerely, new guy,
Troy

[gonzo]

This is a forum open to the public, but there is no free speech as defined by the constitution, if that is what you mean. Any member has the right to comment on another member's posts, within the rules. If you want to keep a bigoted sig, then accept the comments it creates. Also, the self-pity won't get you sympathy. No one called you "scum". Jeff, the moderator, is the only one that can delete posts.

[Boat Design Net Moderator]

Guys, it seems this topic is going badly off topic sparked by the signature in the first post. The forum is about boats. The suggestion to tone down and take the political arguments/slogans somewhere else was a good one.
(P.S. once you have 5 posts, you can edit or delete your own posts within the 7-day edit window)
Let's keep the discussions here friendly and about boats please. Thanks.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by gonzo

This is a forum open to the public, but there is no free speech as defined by the constitution, if that is what you mean. Any member has the right to comment on another member's posts, within the rules. If you want to keep a bigoted sig, then accept the comments it creates. Also, the self-pity won't get you sympathy. No one called you "scum". Jeff, the moderator, is the only one that can delete posts.

Being against illegal immigration doesn't automatically make someone a bigot, any more than being against affirmative-action quotas automatically makes them a racist. There are rational arguments on either side of both those topics -- I've known Mexican-Americans who want the borders closed, and blacks who think quotas are an insult.

But that isn't the subject of the thread, Gonzo. If you have a problem with the man's signature, take it private -- and let the rest of us talk about the subject he posted on. You're hijacking an interesting-sounding discussion.

[Wynand N]

I personally think if you read the signature with an open mind, it sure makes sense and rings true....

Sorry, I cannot help about your boat, but it seems to be an interesting story behind it. Hopefully someone will pitch up and enlighten us all.

[daiquiri]

Sorefeet, hope you won't be offended if I remind you just few things:

1. The immigration (both legal and illegal) is often a necessity created by bad, and often inhuman, living conditions of people born (against their will) in poor and hopeless countries, while drug production and dealing is a criminal business motivated by greed of ruthless individuals (who are exploiting the extra-cheap indigent workforce). Hence, putting the two social and legal issues on the same level is unfair and unjust, and imho even unethical.
2. None of us have choosen where we'd like to be born, it's a matter of case. You and I have no merits in having been born in prosperous parts of the world, just as other less lucky people cannot be blamed in no way for having been born in poverty.
3. We (you, I, Gonzo, Wynand, a guy from Afganistan or Ethiopia) all want to ensure survival and a better life for ourselves and for our families, it is a natural fact which no law or brute force can change. That's an instinct we all have inside, it's life fighting for the continuation of the species. That's why laws and force have and will always fail in the immigration control, unless they are made with a focus on improving the existential and economic conditions in the immigrant's native countries.

Please think of it.


About your boat - are you interested about finding more info of it's history, or would you like to know something more technical?
I like the simplicity of that hull, much less the zero deadrise at the transom, which makes it unsuitable for riding in anything but a very small chop. The flat aft bottom gives very little contribution to the directional stability, which will thus depend on the outboard's steering authority. Could be pretty difficult to use in following seas (or lakes ).
Don't overpower it. You can use this USCG guideline to determine the maximum safe power for that hull: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/educati...atbuilders.pdf

Cheers

P.S.
Sorry for going off-topic in the first part of the post, but the fact is - the signature in the OP was calling for an off-topic ethical consideration.

[gonzo]

If a signature is part of the post, should we ignore it if we find it offensive? Members choose to add them to their posts. If they want a thread to stay on topic, they should not incorporate political statements in the thread.

[Nick.K]

If you use a public forum to promote your politics you invite discussion.
The signature is a slur which many are likley to find offensive.
I log on to read about boats not politics, I agree with Gonzo.
Nick.