It's like this. We were talking about the military. In fact there have
been more posts about the military than sailing recently so I just
posted a "?" because the context was not clear. Was that wrong of me?
Now, I assumed they would be looking at your ass because you would be
point -being a hero and all. Perhaps I think too laterally for you. I
will try to limit myself to your level in future, I promise.

Cheers MC

Capt. Mooron wrote:

Nope... no soldiers as far as I know... and why would they be watching my
buttocks? [Marines?]

Now what pray tell has changed about my recent posts? Have I not always
sought to be equally obnoxious to all of you? Have I not tried to make
certain each of you is given their due attention?

Has it become so difficult for you to follow a simple thread that you find
it impossible to comprehend that when someone on a sailing group asks
"what's your point" and you answer 32 degree it might relate to the heading
of your vessel? You can't see the tie MC? Are you becoming so sensitive that
the slightest of jabs causes you to feel hurt?

...and since when have you allowed gentlemanly behaviour to interfere with a
good strike.

Go ahead MC..... point it out!! ;-)

Or is it that you can dish it out but you can't take it?

CM


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| I though you were talking about the angle of the fan of soldiers lined
| up behind you watching your buttocks -given your recent posts. being a
| gentleman I chose not to point this out.
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's
irrelevant!
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | ?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | What's your point?
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| | |
| | | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by
outside a
| | harbour
| | | with a fouled prop?
| | |
| | | CM
| | |
| | | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and
it's
| hard
| | to
| | | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The
flexability
| of
| | most
| | | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the
hull
| as
| | the
| | | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101).
Current
| rig
| | | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| | backstay
| | | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | | |
| | | | Cheers MC
| | | |
| | | | DSK wrote:
| | | |
| | | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | | |
| | | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | | I would have thought so.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a
one-off
| | | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the
boat
| | | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length
along a
| | | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | | |
| | | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the
rig,
| | | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen
any
| | | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats
but
| | | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and
up)
| | | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | | |
| | | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|