Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote

If you want to consider that '41 campaign a Allied Victory so be it?

You said "a victory" not a "campaign victory." Under that
assumption, you can't call D-Day a "victory" either -- the
Axis was still in control of all but a very small strip of France,
all the Low Countries, etc. Most people would still consider
D-Day a victory, IMO.

A major Russian city under siege, German occupation of most of European
Russia, the Romanian Oil industry in German control; I don't call that a
Victory.

Moscow wasn't under siege by Dec. 7th. The German
High Command had been trying to get Hitler to agree to
give up the attempt for about a month. But I guess you
don't call Gettysburg a victory either, right? They're
identical in scope -- both the "high tide" of the
respective invasions.

I guess you can keep score your way but the Bismarck was sunk alright
but tell that to the died on the "Hood"

I guess you don't consider Midway a victory either then.
Maybe you can tell that to the people who died on the
Yorktown someday.

Your right about the I-ties in North Africa but the Axis ( Rommel)
controlled North Africa not the Allies, the Allies didn't control North
Africa until Patton and Montgomery drove them out.

So there's at least one victory you acknowledge. Montgomery
and El Alamein was more responsible than Patton in North
Africa later, of course.

I'm had my say. The Allies, in my mind weren't winners until the Yanks
took command in Europe and Asia/Pacific.

In the Pacific War, that's probably true. The worst thing the
Japanese could do was attack the US -- they lost the moment
the first torpedo was dropped at Pearl. In Europe, it's because
you're centered on Western Europe and ignore what the USSR
did to Germany before the first "Yank" stepped out of a landing
craft on Italy -- or even met the Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass.

Like Gettysburg finished any real hopes for the Confederacy,
Stalingrad and the USSR had finished the Third Reich. It took
quite a while for both wars to end after the turning point but that
turning point in Europe and eventual victory had more to do with
the Merchant Marine and Murmansk convoys than Ike or
Patton.

Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Donut, it seemed to me as if Thom was answering ozzys' posts but
addressing
them to you. I believe the stupid ''Donnys Delimma'' handle is the
culprit.

What happened to Oz1, anyway?

I accidentally trolled him.


Did you know that he is fabulously wealthy?



Regards


Donal
--

Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

Yes, but apparently not wealthy enough to buy a clue.

Scotty


"Donal" wrote

What happened to Oz1, anyway?

I accidentally trolled him.


Did you know that he is fabulously wealthy?



Regards


Donal
--

Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

I noticed how Thom's been schooling you.

SV

Ozzys Enema wrote
Yes, but apparently not wealthy enough to buy a clue.

Scotty
Don't need to buy one Scootz,
I'm getting all I need here...free ;-)

Hey Doug, read this and think!
 

Your trouble is you don't know even what you don't know.

How long did you say that boat was again -didn't you say 8m? Bzzzt
How about your claim of a 180 LPS for a Bolger Micro? Bzzzt
Capsize screen not related to initial stability? Bzzzt

Initial stability is equal to the moment of inertia of the water plane
divided by the volume of displacement. The former is approximated by the
a beam the latter the displacement. Thus the stabilitry screen can at
best provide an estimate of initial stability -as I said.

You're a loser whatever way I look at it. The big issue is why do you
like posting misleading information?

Cheers MC


DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


I think you all have forgotten about my lost bet


Nobody has forgotten it, and everybody saw how little you really know about
stability and boat design too.

Hey Mark, read this and shut up!
 

The navigator© wrote:


How long did you say that boat was again -didn't you say 8m?

I didn't say, you did.


Bzzzt

Doing an imitation of a fly again? Given your diet, I'm not surprised.


.... Thus the stabilitry screen can at
best provide an estimate of initial stability -as I said.

First of all, do you even know what you are talking about? I was talking about
the Capsize Screening Ratio, devised by a number of naval architects to give a
rough comparison of inverted stability or LPOS with only the boats basic
dimensions.

I suppose the people who inveneted have no idea what they did it for, or how it
works.



You're a loser whatever way I look at it.

That's because you're looking in a mirror.



The big issue is why do you
like posting misleading information?

Because you don't know WTF I'm talking about, so to you it's misleading.

BTW they just discovered the Earth isn't flat. You don't have to be scared of
sailing off the edge any more.

DSK

Hey Doug, read this and LEARN
 

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


How long did you say that boat was again -didn't you say 8m?


I didn't say, you did.

No, I just gave the name of the boat, it was you who lied about the
length. Why not look her up in Google -you'll be astonished and embarrassed!

First of all, do you even know what you are talking about? I was talking about
the Capsize Screening Ratio, devised by a number of naval architects to give a
rough comparison of inverted stability or LPOS with only the boats basic
dimensions.

You mean the formula I just posted? Having given you it's theoretical
basis you must now surely accept that it is no more than a rough
nmeasure of the true initial stability. No matter what you say or think
the maths is simple and shows that I was correct.

Second, the LPS and inverted stability are two completely different
things. Such profound misconceptions on your part!

Doug, inverted stability is _not_ predicted by just the beam and
diplacement. If you accept that, then what does the capsize screen
really indicate?
(Hint: How about a rough indicator of stiffness?)

Have you heard of the metacentric radius and do you know how it might
related to beam and displacement?

Cheers MC

Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

Donny's Dilemma wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:51:44 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:


Did you know that he is fabulously wealthy?

Nah Donny, just comfortabl that's all, lucky me.


"Comfortable" is a relative term.

I suppose that Bill Gates, or the Sultan of Brunei, might have more than 3
yachts(althought I've never heard either of them boast about it).

The rest of us would consider anything more than one yacht to be a bit
excessive.

So, I stand by my claim that you are fabulously rich!


Regards


Donal
--

Remember Pearl Harbor!;
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Oh Bull**** Donal,

When a Gift is accepted the giver assumes it is needed. After accepting
the Gift that person shouldn't blame the giver because the giver
recognizes the need. To blame the giver for the need is ignorances when
it wasn't the giver fault. If you blame the giver you really are a loser

Are you saying that you want the British to have to eat humble pie because
you came to their assistance in WWII?

The rest of the world assumes that the term "allies" implies a partnership
of friends. If this is not the case then you should tell us.

If you didn't need any help in Iraq, then why am I paying tax to fund this
folly, this personal Bush crusade?




I feel that way about France, Germany. and Canada and their cry baby
attitude Now that there is $67,000,000,000 They want to forget all the
**** they screamed at the USA. Why pray tell, should we hire people that
don't like us. They deserve to be losers

Why, pray tell, are you asking these losers to help you in Iraq?




Screw them, and screw their so called sensitivity, and while I'm at it
screw you and your twisted sensitivity

You won't be dissappointed to learn that I think that Bush *has* screwed us.
We are having to spend huge amounts on security since our government signed
up to Bush's War on Terror. When we signed up, I supported Blair. I had
faith in Bush, and I do believe that terror needs to be dealt with.

However, the war in Iraq has only served to increase the threat of terror.



If yoy can't be correct I guess you have to fall back on sensitivity.
Loser do that a lot.


... Or on silly suppositions.


Regards


Donal
--

Hey Navvie©, read this if you can
 

The navigator© wrote:


...No matter what you say or think
the maths is simple and shows that I was correct.

You're nuttier than Bubbles. At least he knows he's full of crap. You seem to think
that others should take you seriously.


Doug, inverted stability is _not_ predicted by just the beam and
diplacement.

I never said it was. First, you need to learn to read. Did you bother to read any of
the links I gave you explaining stability and the Capsize Screen?

Now, pay me the bet you lost and go away.

DSK