~name removed~ the liar
 

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


You can calculate whatever LPOS you think best, but if the boat rolls back up from a capsize then as far as I
(and the *real* world) am concerned, it might as well be 180.

This would seem a very importnt point, Doug -are you saying you have no
idea what LPS is?



Now, who do you want as an itermediary for the resolution of this bet?


I want you to either send me my money, in US funds, and quit your blather about things you don't know anything
about.


As I've said, I've got the name of at least one pocket cruiser, a design
of a boat with 180 LPS, my calculations and Bolger and Friends


Well, tell us all the name of your pocket cruiser and the specs.

How will you pay if I do? I want you to send the money to an
intermediary. What's so hard to understand about that? It's standard
practice for wagers! Come on answer the question, who do you want to act
as intermediary? Would you trust my barrister to execute the terms of
the wager?


DSK

Seaworthiness ?
 

Does that include antarctica?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

My Dilemma wrote in message
...


As an aside.
Air Services Australia, the body that controls and regulates Oz
airspace, is responsible for 14% of the Earths surface.



I understand! My opinion is revised, and now I am undecided on the issue.

I have an intrinsic hatred of government interference in sailing. Maybe
PDW's idea of special insurance for EPIRB owners would offer an acceptable
compromise.

Regards


Donal
--

~name removed~ the liar
 

The navigator© wrote:


-are you saying you have no
idea what LPS is?

How do you put such "translations" into what seems to everybody else to be quit plain English?

Your posts suggest that you have but a dim idea what factors affect boat stability, and that you keep changing the
subject is a poor way to hide it.


Well, tell us all the name of your pocket cruiser and the specs.

How will you pay if I do? I want you to send the money to an
intermediary.

I don't give durn what you want.

If you know of a boat in the same size range as the Bolger Micro which has better reserve stability and a higher
LPOS, then post it.

The fact that you have not posted any factual info, and suggested that you could design your own boat to fit the
criteria (and that, in itself, sounds like it could be amusing) suggests that you don't know of any.

The first two boats you posted were much bigger, and had a higher capsize screening ratio. If you have calculated
data for any boats LPOS then you can post it publicly for inspection.

So far you have failed in all counts and are the loser.

Would you trust my barrister to execute the terms of
the wager?

I suggest you show your barrister this thread, and when he gets done laughing at you, take his advice regarding
slander. He can also tell you what measures you can take to protect your boat from attachment.

Meanwhile, if you have not posted your answer and all pertinent data promptly, you will be confirmed as a loser and
a welsher. Either you know of such a boat or you don't. It's quite simple.

DSK

Wager finshed
 

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


-are you saying you have no
idea what LPS is?


How do you put such "translations" into what seems to everybody else to be quit plain English?


Well do you? You previous statements suggest that you think that any
baot that can recover from a capasize must have an LPS of 180... Stop
evading the issues.

Your posts suggest that you have but a dim idea what factors affect boat stability, and that you keep changing the
subject is a poor way to hide it.


Well, tell us all the name of your pocket cruiser and the specs.


How will you pay if I do? I want you to send the money to an
intermediary.


I don't give durn what you want.

If you know of a boat in the same size range as the Bolger Micro which has better reserve stability and a higher
LPOS, then post it.

So now you are trying to change the terms of the bet Doug. That won't
work because the bet is part of the public record.

You refusal to agree to the normal terms for resolution of a bet shows
me that you have no intention of honoring your bet. So have felt free to
call me a welsher and other things -for which I did not threaten you by
the way, you now try to bluster your way out. A gentleman would
apoloigise and ask that the bet be forgiven but you have demonstrated
what you are. You have lied and attempted to coerce me to send you money
by threats. I'm not going to pursue this now, because I think you've
shown everyone world wide what you are. I'm also heading off the weekend.

Take a bottle and tape a coin to the side of it to act as ballast. You
now have a vessel with a LPS of 180 degress. Try it! This principle has
been used many times in producing "capsize proof" boats measuring 8'
and up for ocean crossings and similar tasks -for example see the
Selway-Fisher Micro 8 mini yacht. The current enclosed ship rescue pods
also use this idea.

The bolger micro does not have an LPS of 180 degress because of it's box
sections -a bit like current container ships. As I said the form
stability of a box section drops badly at 45 degrees, and without the
keel would be stable on it's side (think of a wooden block). However
that initial good form stability ( 45 degrees) also means that when
inverted it will also be stable and and may only recover if it floods
down. Nevertheless, it has a good range of positive stability thanks to
form and the ballasted keel and my quick analysis suggests somewhere
between 115 and 130 degress -figures that I know Bolger and Friends will
confirm for you if you contact them yourself. Many boats have LPS's
greater than 140 degrees, even small Hunters can get up there! But the
Micro 8 design types go to about 170-175 degrees. Contact the designer
yourself if you don't believe me. Since you won't pay I'll not waste
their time getting them to confirm these figures.

For you information, I did stability calculations as an apprentice Naval
Architect at a major ship builder in the EU. I also worked from time to
time in a yacht design office during university holidays. So you see I
think I know a bit about this subject.

So there you are. You lost your wager and I'm not expecting you to honor
it. If you wish you can send me a gift to make amends but I'll not
expect that either.

MC






The fact that you have not posted any factual info, and suggested that you could design your own boat to fit the
criteria (and that, in itself, sounds like it could be amusing) suggests that you don't know of any.

The first two boats you posted were much bigger, and had a higher capsize screening ratio. If you have calculated
data for any boats LPOS then you can post it publicly for inspection.

So far you have failed in all counts and are the loser.


Would you trust my barrister to execute the terms of
the wager?


I suggest you show your barrister this thread, and when he gets done laughing at you, take his advice regarding
slander. He can also tell you what measures you can take to protect your boat from attachment.

Meanwhile, if you have not posted your answer and all pertinent data promptly, you will be confirmed as a loser and
a welsher. Either you know of such a boat or you don't. It's quite simple.

DSK

~name removed~ the liar
 

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.

Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW

~name removed~ the liar
 

Good lord. Are you saying that you can't always publish the truth????

Cheerrs MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.


Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW

Wager finshed
 

If you know of a boat in the same size range as the Bolger Micro which has better reserve stability and a higher
LPOS, then post it.


The navigator© wrote:
So now you are trying to change the terms of the bet Doug. That won't
work because the bet is part of the public record.

Those are the terms of the bet. You can try and twist the meaning around to suit yourself, but it's plain to everybody
else.



You refusal to agree to the normal terms for resolution of a bet shows
me that you have no intention of honoring your bet.

So send your money to a third party, then I'll collect it. You lost.

Pay up.

What is more worrisome is that you seem to like playing stupid hacker games at the same time (and you are losing them
too). That is definitely malicious mischief.

..... I'm not going to pursue this now, because I think you've
shown everyone world wide what you are.

Yes, somebody who knows about boats.


.....-for example see the
Selway-Fisher Micro 8 mini yacht. The current enclosed ship rescue pods
also use this idea.

Is an 8 meter LOA the same as 15' ??




For you information, I did stability calculations as an apprentice Naval
Architect at a major ship builder in the EU

That's a laugh. You have no clue what the math of stability involves or you would never have made the mistake of saying
that the capsize screen indicates 'initial stability.'


. I also worked from time to
time in a yacht design office during university holidays. So you see I
think I know a bit about this subject.

Well, you can say whatever you like, but it seems to me and anybody else who has followed this thread, and read the
references I linked to, that you don't have a clue and are lying yet again. And you have the brass to title your posts
with my name and brand me a liar.




... You lost your wager and I'm not expecting you to honor
it.

Does that mean that you don't intend to send my money? I will email you the address of my financial agent. Perhaps I will
donate my winnings to a NZ home for the psychologically disturbed, and you can benefit that way.



DSK

Seaworthiness ?
 

Don't take this as gospel but I think our area of responsibility
extends from approx 200NM west of Heard Island, north to Indonesia (in
the Indian Ocean) south to the ice and east to somewhere between us &
NZ. You NZ guys don't have much to send south excepting 'Tangaroa' far
as I know so I suspect we'd have to send something anyway if the
problem was in the high 50's or 60's. Those are not nice waters. We
sent the RV Franklin down into the 50's *once*. Got pinned over by
wind/water in a F12 gale and took an hour to finish coming about - had
to wait until the wind/wave combination moderated a bit. My friends
tell me they all had their lifejackets on. Never went that far south
again.

I've seen a 100m long ship do a 180 deg course change on the crest of a
single wave, and the same ship roll through 45 deg when the skipper
mistimed it. Taking yachts down there is fine as long as you're
prepared to die if you make a mistake, or if the odds catch up with
you. It's 12 days steaming at 14 knots to go from Hobart to the
westernmost Australian base on the Antarctic continent. I'm not
disparaging Great Britain, but your SAR zone is a tiny fraction of ours
and you have a lot more Naval resources than we do.

I don't like bureaucratic interference either. The US culture of 'blame
anyone but me' for acts of supreme stupidity is unfortunately
propogating and people take less & less responsibility for their own
safety/wellbeing, expecting other people to put their lives & money at
risk to save their useless necks. A few more dying wouldn't necessarily
be a bad thing if the message got across to the rest.

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

Does that include antarctica?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

My Dilemma wrote in message
...


As an aside.
Air Services Australia, the body that controls and regulates Oz
airspace, is responsible for 14% of the Earths surface.



I understand! My opinion is revised, and now I am undecided on the issue.

I have an intrinsic hatred of government interference in sailing. Maybe
PDW's idea of special insurance for EPIRB owners would offer an acceptable
compromise.

Regards


Donal
--

Doug S. KING the liar
 

NO I want my MONEY.

Cheers MC

Why? It's not like it's worth anything....

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

~name removed~ the liar
 

Correct. The test is truth *and* public interest. guess who defines
what's in the public interest?

Hell, you can be sued for libel here if some smart lawyer (using the
word loosely) can convince a jury that a mythical 'reasonable person'
could draw libellous imputations from what's written.

NSW (dunno about Tas) has some of the best libel laws that lawyers and
corrupt politicians can think of. Truth should be sufficient defence
but it's not.

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

Good lord. Are you saying that you can't always publish the truth????

Cheerrs MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.


Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW