Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment.

Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS?

Cheers MC

And you think we have a 'facist state? Poor you!

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:37:32 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:

To reinstall the other halyards!

Hmmm, you need afew fit Aussies as crew.
One of my crew could easily shin up a mast at the dock, tie off a
block, run a chair line then come back down, haul himself back up and
drop a mouse thru the mast.


This is Europe! We have Health and Safety laws. I'd have to do a written
risk assessment, a method statement, a training course for the crew, etc,
etc.

Actually, I've just realised that we have a new law that says that we need a
passage plan before we go sea!!! It must include a weather forecast, and
(I think) a risk assessment. AAARRRRRGGGGGG!




Nobody wore pantyhose!

Thermals?


Possibly. I didn't check.

Panties and garter belts I'd suspect...any of them public school boys?


Only one!

Regards


Donal
--

Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top
- are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support
as provided by a full keel.

Thought that was obvious.

Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance.

In article , Donals Dilemma
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:37 +1100, Peter Wiley
wrote:


On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On
boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well
supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into?

PDW

Huh?



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:54:53 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:

This is Europe! We have Health and Safety laws. I'd have to do a
written
risk assessment, a method statement, a training course for the crew, etc,
etc.

Ahhh bunch of facists!

Bloody right! George Orwell was out by 20 years - otherwise he got it all
absolutely correct.


Actually, I've just realised that we have a new law that says that we
need a
passage plan before we go sea!!! It must include a weather forecast,
and
(I think) a risk assessment. AAARRRRRGGGGGG!


Panties and garter belts I'd suspect...any of them public school boys?

Only one!

Token gay?

Definitely not. You have my personal guarantee on that!


Regards


Donal
--

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
And you think we have a 'facist state? Poor you!


Why do you think that these things upset me so much?


IMHO, the state exists for two reasons.
1. To provide defence against foreign domination.
2. To ensure that law and order is maintained.


Regards


Donal
--

I can see an enginnering basis for that asserion but is it really true?
The rudders with top and bottom support should have a thinner stock
which would break more easily if the boat fell back from a breaking
wave??? Of course impact damage to spades is different problem...

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top
- are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support
as provided by a full keel.

Thought that was obvious.

Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance.

In article , Donals Dilemma
wrote:


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:37 +1100, Peter Wiley
wrote:


On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On
boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well
supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into?

PDW

Huh?



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:40:28 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:
Has your boat been inspected?


Certainly NOT! Are you taking the ****? **I** decide if my boat is
seaworthy. I do *NOT* pass the buck to some incompetent, uneducated,
idiot
who has failed to meet his parents expectations!

Always worthwhile to have someone else inspect your boat.

I agree with you.
I do *not* think that it has anything to do with the government.

He may just find something that you haven't seen,not because you're
ignorant but because you may just overlook things you live with every
day.

Yup! I agree. However, I'd like to have an inspection because I *choose*
to.

I did the Yachtmaster before I took my yacht out to sea - because *I* wanted
to - and not because of any law.


Most people seem to think that they have no responsibility at all for their
actions, or their misfortunes. They feel that the State should guarantee
their safety. They demand that the boat should meet some "government
specification". They demand that *other* sailors should be Qualified to
sail.

I feel that every human being deserves a little bit of space where he can
exist without regulation. I go sailing to escape from the "well
intentioned" politicians, policemen and other idiots who feel that they know
how I should behave.


Regards


Donal
--


Regards


Donal
--

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment.

Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS?

I think that both you, and Doug, have a lot to offer.

Doug does seem to know quite a bit about boats. That shouldn't provoke an
emotional response.



Regards


Donal
--

Well, you know all about crap. Why don't you tell us.

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment.

Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS?

Cheers MC

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:15:15 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:
Token gay?

Definitely not. You have my personal guarantee on that!

And you know this how?

How predictable? Don't you agree?



Regards



Donal
--