The Denney Inquisition by Steven Callahan

posts by Steven Callahan to proa_file forum:

Part 2(b): Jzerro, that miserable dog
"your logic defies logic", May 10

comments: May 24
a disservice to those really interested in proas, Stay tuned for more, stiffening of the beams, the hull flying, Jzerro did not fail as a boat, overtake waves when running, water ballast, solid water on the deck, anything but academic, "constantly" meaning regularly

Part 4: Those Islanders; What Where They Thinking? May 24

comments: May 25
did not have to shift ballast frequently on Jzerro, method of determining RM, adding to higher levels of normal stress on the beams, excess RM can be as much of a problem as too little, it is futile and is simply to reply to utter nonsense

repetitious and conscious deceptions
Sep 8, 2011

Rob, get real. 18 point reply Sep 8, 2011

beam loads Sep 10, 2011

freedom 20 masts Sep 26, 2011

so long ProaFile Sep 26, 2011

www.stevencallahan.net

Rob Denney has been staging an inquisition against myself, Russ Brown and others for some time. It is time to rationally examine the inquisitor.

In response to my post 20184 on April 2, Mr Denney (post 20218 April 8) not only repeated numerous misleading statements and falsehoods but also added new misinformation with no basis in fact. I was preparing a reply, but great length is required because Mr. Denney requested I supply sources for the statements I attribute to him, echoed by Charlie Magee (Message 20231 April 9). So that readers may see the full actual references, I will include at least the relevant sections in their entirety in future when debating particular assertions. I apologize to participants if I have not followed protocol, but I was not aware that sources were required for Mr Denney's comments that have all come from this site or his own, all readily available to anyone who wants to search either using key phrases such as Russell (or Russ) Brown Rob Denney; Jzerro Denney; Newick Cheers Denney; and similar. In addition, I saw no other posts that footnote their material in any academic sense. Nor did Denney actually deny any of my references to his comments, but in fact repeated most, some several times. Also, I did provide brief notes on my background as a general source to qualify me to make comment on proas and design. Finally, Denney has not been asked to provide specific sources for much of the claims he makes. Even when he generally uses my article, Starship to Oceania from Cruising World, March 2001 issue, one of two chief sources for his conclusions, he has not properly quoted it (more on this in later posts when I will include the original context) and has completely reframed the original context to alter its meaning in order to criticize Brown et al and buttress his own claims, the latter of which I still refute. I certainly feel qualified to make definitive statements about my own views and writings, whereas evidently Denney feels only he is qualified to interpret both, including a bizarre logic that snippets of my previous writings are authoritative enough to be one of two of his primary sources on Brown's boats, yet somehow my clarifications and current views are not. All that said, I was preparing a statement that played according to these lopsided rules when I came upon the following post from Denney that is, simply, over the top.

"I had a series of emails to and from someone who knows Steve suggesting he was drunk when he wrote his rant. I said it was more likely he was looking for a job with Russ who, last i heard, was working for an America's Cup syndicate. We then assumed it was Oracle and it did not take much imagination to think that Ellison's 90' x 90' challenger is a proa! And it has a pod! You heard it here first, folks."

SC (note: I will precede my comments with SC or SC replies, and precede Denney's with R or Denney): Astoundingly, the above Denney speculation was preceded by (post 20218 April 8):

R: "In the interest of civility, I have ignored the personal stuff and refrained from reciprocating. Sorry if this makes it boring for those who like a stoush. ;-)"

R: "It is good to know that Joe (who was banned from the group for bad language and libel) is reading this and still following proas."

Message 20232 also on 9 April Denney writes: "Alanproa is not my puppet, he is a real person, with a very real grudge against me and harryproas. No idea why. Whether he should be banned or not is up to you, but I think he should at least be given a warning first."

SC: Talk about double standards (or is it triple?)! Note first that Denney supplies no named source for any of these statements, so it's hard to know what libelous statements "knockers" might have made. His statement that I must have been drunk because I had the temerity to point out some of his many errors is nothing short of outrageous. Not only is his supposition (a) completely false (like many sailors, I may have had too much to drink on some occasions, but never, ever have while on any passage, when working in my field, or under any circumstance for many years–I may have bad habits, but ver-consumption of alcohol is not one); (b) it is conveniently supported only by one anonymous source, c) is literally libelous. In fact, publishers that allow such statements to be disseminated open themselves to civil suits, as do authors of such tripe. Also of note, I have never sought a job with Brown, nor would. Brown has no knowledge of any Oracle proa campaign, nor would it be practical on an AC course.

Message 20231 9 April, Charlie Magee writes in part: "I am continually puzzled by the antagonism that Rob Denney often receives in this forum. His posts, in my opinion, are clear, fair, well-informed, and often humorous. Sure, he touts his boats, and I have no problem with that, he's trying to advance the art/science of sailboat design and make a living at it. He picked a difficult type of boat to sell to a world that prefers monohulls.

His requests for Steve to provide references are fair and reasonable. I'd be willing to bet that if we showed this discussion to a hundred outsiders, they'd all want Steve to put up his references."

SC Replies: Charlie, I only ask you hold Denney to the same standard. He routinely supplies no references, uses hearsay from unnamed sources, relies on inference, etc. In fact, his arguments are anything but fair or well informed. I carry on this debate not for Denney, who is unlikely to alter his views or methods, but because those with less technical training or experience with boats deserves an alternative view on both. I believe a critical look at the years of disinformation provided by Denney will, indeed, help readers to not only discover alternatives in proa design but also become more skeptical of accepting any information on face value, particularly that on a web site that has no review process.

I can assure you that Denney's conclusions about Brown's boats; in fact all his writings that I have seen on proas, and more importantly, the methodology on which he bases these, would not pass basic academic scrutiny at the naval architectural school where I once was lead instructor; nor by any of the scores of boat designers I have known; nor by the editorial review process of a major sailing magazine like Cruising World where I was senior editor, nor by any newspaper editor of merit. In my next post, I will address specific uses of Denney's methodology, which has been employed also by tyrants, zealots, charlatans, and witch hunters throughout the annals of human history. If Denney is none of these, I believe it is up to him to cease relying upon the following elements of his methodology. Briefly, it includes: (1) Taking totally out of context not only full statements but highly edited portions of statements, even sentences with inconvenient words removed, and then completely altering that context in order to buttress his views and tear down those who do not agree with him or who provide more sound views based on better evidence; (2) misusing technical information to mislead those without the background to correctly analyze it; (3) stating outright untruths and using repetition of them as if repetition makes them more true (and knowing repetition does more deeply register in readers' minds regardless of validity); (4) stating as fact conclusions drawn from mere inference, as if the chosen inference is THE answer when it is only AN answer (and in Denney's case, usually is wrong); (5) claiming superiority of features and ideas based on speculation, and when forced to acknowledge it is based on mere speculation (and even when it opposes actual history and tested hypotheses of others) sites only how the speculation could or would be ratified or gain supportive evidence if only this or that (excuse); (6) relying on heresay, sometimes third-hand, and without any confirming sources; and (7) when all else fails, cast unwarranted aspersions with absolutely no merit on opposing parties (as in his above accusation). He does this not to promote knowledge about proas but only to promote his business at the expense of others and without giving them recourse to the more reliable channels of rigorous inquiry.

That Denney has misused me to abuse others whom I respect is particularly irksome, especially when he has been corrected but continues to attack. So there really is no mystery why he is a lightning rod for dislike. One must wonder if it is all an attempt to garner attention. I would not bother to give him any, except that the disinformation he serves up does a disservice to me, my friends and colleages, and all those interested in pursuing the truth. So although the case I will be building may not be able to avoid being somewhat personal because he has personal issues dead center into this debate, my aim is to right the wealth of disinformation he has been allowed to spew over many years using the poor methodology noted.

Things take a good deal longer to create than to destroy. For example, it takes a good deal more time to repair a thru-hull hose than it takes a single madman with a knife to clip one off, and that also is part of Denney's technique--clip, clip, clip faster than one can respond adequately. Even when corrected, he simply widens his aspersions, which takes time to answer. Holding me to a different standard than he holds himself also takes time. Therefore, I ask that participants please be patient to allow me time to fill out this debate and support my above conclusions over the next several months. I also ask that Denney be required at the least to answer directly my questions.

Question 1: Who actually supposedly made this statement about me being drunk? You are not a journalist; there is no right to anonymity when it comes to slander.

Question 2: Rob, by your own standards, as you stated above, should not the moderator ban you from discussion on this site for making unsubstantiated libelous and personal accusations against me?

Question 2: Should you not recuse yourself, in fact, on the same grounds if you have any integrity?

Question 3: Should you not apologize to all readers for clouding functional discussion about proas by this breach of etiquette?

The Denney Inquisition by Steven Callahan, Apr 13, 2008 - (#20256) posted to Proa File International (groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file)