Sail Aerodynamics
 

What rig geometery would favor a frac rig (remembering the issue of jib
head tip vortex)?

JAXAshby wrote:
in the context of jib tip vortices, a masthead rig would be better.

Well, that's still not the question I asked, but at least it's an answer. Now,
please explain why.



How about the head angle of each sail
respectively?

WTF are you talking about?

You don't know? It seems pretty simple and obvious to me, and probably to
everyone else too.

The head angle of a sail is the angle the leach forms with the luff at the head
of the sail. This is somewhat related to aspect ratio but is not at all fixed to
it. For example, a sprit or a gaff are low aspect but with large head angles. On
the opposite side, you find high aspect modern sloops with conventional battens
and rather pointy tops to their sails.

Now that you know what head angle is, can you make any statement about it's
effect on the interaction between the jib head vortex and the rest of the sail
plan?

(trying not to laugh, honestly)- Doug King

Sail Aerodynamics
 

JAXAshby wrote:

.. I also said you had read a single book or article written by a guy
who didn't even know that the plural of vortex is votices.

Wrong.

I have never read a single book about vortexes.

However, in many of my physics & engineering textbooks there are quite a few
chapters that talk about them. Of course, you're a LOT smarter than science &
engineering professors who just sit around writing books and teaching people,
aren't you Jax? The voices tell you so!

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

you dumb squat, dougies. I *did* explain why, several posts ago. too many big
words for you?

JAXAshby wrote:
in the context of jib tip vortices, a masthead rig would be better.

Well, that's still not the question I asked, but at least it's an answer.
Now,
please explain why.

Sail Aerodynamics
 

boy you are a dumb squat, dougies. Like I said, you don't know WTF you're
talking about.

you are _trying_ to deal with planform shape but aren't even close. The least
tip vortex formation comes with the highest aspect ratio. what you are
_trying_ to discuss but don't understand is spanwise loading, which also has an
effect on vortex generation but that is not the reason for eliptical planforms.

now, go read the same book again and again and again by three different
ill-informed writers all plagarizing from some other ill-informed writer.
Otherwise, go you a major university bookstore and pick up some 3rd or 4th year
aero eng textbooks. If that is too tough for you, try the EAA for pretty
decent books on the subject written for the uneducated.

How about the head angle of each sail
respectively?

WTF are you talking about?

You don't know? It seems pretty simple and obvious to me, and probably to
everyone else too.

The head angle of a sail is the angle the leach forms with the luff at the
head
of the sail. This is somewhat related to aspect ratio but is not at all fixed
to
it. For example, a sprit or a gaff are low aspect but with large head angles.
On
the opposite side, you find high aspect modern sloops with conventional
battens
and rather pointy tops to their sails.

Now that you know what head angle is, can you make any statement about it's
effect on the interaction between the jib head vortex and the rest of the
sail
plan?

(trying not to laugh, honestly)- Doug King

Sail Aerodynamics
 

dougies, the way you talk gibberish about science the only way you might come
in contact with a physics or engineering textbooks is by cleaning the college
bookstore floors at night.

btw, electrical, electronic, mechanical, chemical engineers -- none of them --
have any textbooks about vor-ti-SEEEEEEES.

I have never read a single book about vortexes.

However, in many of my physics & engineering textbooks there are quite a few
chapters that talk about them. Of course, you're a LOT smarter than science &
engineering professors who just sit around writing books and teaching people,
aren't you Jax? The voices tell you so!

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

JAXAshby wrote:

boy you are a dumb squat, dougies.

Still not an answer Jaxxie.

Like I said, you don't know WTF you're
talking about.

Wrong... you don't, I do.


you are _trying_ to deal with planform shape but aren't even close.

Closer, Jaxxie, closer... head angle is related to planform but the two are not at
all the same thing.


The least
tip vortex formation comes with the highest aspect ratio.

So, are you saying that head angle is always proportional to aspect ratio? Or are
you saying that aspect ratio affects tip vortex but head angle does not?

In any event, all sorts of things can affect tip vortex with the exact same aspect
ratio or even planform. This is basically the same thing I was trying to explain in
my last post. I'll keep on trying Jax, don't worry.


what you are
_trying_ to discuss but don't understand is spanwise loading, which also has an
effect on vortex generation but that is not the reason for eliptical planforms.

Funny, it seems that now we are hopping from aspect ratio to spanwise loading,
which is a result of pressure distribution, which I already mentioned... and you
seem to be groping for the answer that elliptical planforms aren't intended to
reduce tip vortex? How is that relevant?

Tell me something Jax... when was the last time you saw a sailboat with elliptical
planform sails?

Anyway, pressure distribution is one big reason for tip vortex formation....
getting this out of you is almost like pulling teeth, as you stumble through the
fog of all your half-memorized buzzwords. But it is not the whole story, or else
winglets wouldn't be as effective as they are.

Now, can we get back to the original question? We can change over and discuss hull
speed if you prefer.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

dougies, you read three books with three differenct titles from three different
authors, all of whom plagarized from yet another writer who really didn't know
from squat, and THAT makes you an expert?

dougies, I have repeatedly suggested you read a book by someone who knows.

the more you write, the more gullible you sound.

now, go learn something. and take your candle with you.

geesh, there was a reason the high school chemistry teacher wouldn't let
dougies anywhere near matches.


JAXAshby wrote:

boy you are a dumb squat, dougies.

Still not an answer Jaxxie.

Like I said, you don't know WTF you're
talking about.

Wrong... you don't, I do.


you are _trying_ to deal with planform shape but aren't even close.

Closer, Jaxxie, closer... head angle is related to planform but the two are
not at
all the same thing.


The least
tip vortex formation comes with the highest aspect ratio.

So, are you saying that head angle is always proportional to aspect ratio? Or
are
you saying that aspect ratio affects tip vortex but head angle does not?

In any event, all sorts of things can affect tip vortex with the exact same
aspect
ratio or even planform. This is basically the same thing I was trying to
explain in
my last post. I'll keep on trying Jax, don't worry.


what you are
_trying_ to discuss but don't understand is spanwise loading, which also
has an
effect on vortex generation but that is not the reason for eliptical
planforms.

Funny, it seems that now we are hopping from aspect ratio to spanwise
loading,
which is a result of pressure distribution, which I already mentioned... and
you
seem to be groping for the answer that elliptical planforms aren't intended
to
reduce tip vortex? How is that relevant?

Tell me something Jax... when was the last time you saw a sailboat with
elliptical
planform sails?

Anyway, pressure distribution is one big reason for tip vortex formation....
getting this out of you is almost like pulling teeth, as you stumble through
the
fog of all your half-memorized buzzwords. But it is not the whole story, or
else
winglets wouldn't be as effective as they are.

Now, can we get back to the original question? We can change over and discuss
hull
speed if you prefer.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

It are?

OzOn wrote in message ...
On 28 Jan 2004 13:15:16 GMT, (JAXAshby) scribbled
thusly:



but I did. I also said you had read a single book or article written by
a guy
who didn't even know that the plural of vortex is votices.


Oh oh, Jax has that paintbrush out again

vor·tex ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vôrtks)
n. pl. vor·tex·es or vor·ti·ces (-t-sz)
www.dictionary.com.

You could say you're sorry.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

What rig geometery would favor a frac rig (remembering the issue of jib
head tip vortex)?

JAXAshby wrote:
in the context of jib tip vortices, a masthead rig would be better.


Well, that's still not the question I asked, but at least it's an answer. Now,
please explain why.



How about the head angle of each sail
respectively?

WTF are you talking about?


You don't know? It seems pretty simple and obvious to me, and probably to
everyone else too.

The head angle of a sail is the angle the leach forms with the luff at the head
of the sail. This is somewhat related to aspect ratio but is not at all fixed to
it. For example, a sprit or a gaff are low aspect but with large head angles. On
the opposite side, you find high aspect modern sloops with conventional battens
and rather pointy tops to their sails.

Now that you know what head angle is, can you make any statement about it's
effect on the interaction between the jib head vortex and the rest of the sail
plan?


If he can you won't understand it.

Cheers
(trying not to laugh, honestly)- Doug King

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:


.. I also said you had read a single book or article written by a guy
who didn't even know that the plural of vortex is votices.


Wrong.

I have never read a single book about vortexes.

However, in many of my physics & engineering textbooks there are quite a few
chapters that talk about them.

Good lord. Next you'll be saying you understand mathematics.

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:


boy you are a dumb squat, dougies.


Still not an answer Jaxxie.


Like I said, you don't know WTF you're
talking about.


Wrong... you don't, I do.


C'mon then, tell us the boundary conditions for vortex shedding.



Closer, Jaxxie, closer... head angle is related to planform but the two are not at
all the same thing.


Are you saying the planaform cannot define the head angle?


Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

MC wrote:

So, now we know you have never ever sailed offshore in a big sea.


Sure, whatever you say. You're as right about this as you are about
aerodynamics... oh wait, you haven't said anything substantive about
aerodynamics, in fact you are vigorously dodging any & all questions...

..... Open transoms are not generally acceptable for really just one
reason Doug,


What you mean to say is that open transoms are not acceptable to _you_.
Oddly enough many others have sailed lots of sea miles with them. So
your comments about how terrible they are show your ownlack of
experience and comprehension.


Comprehension? what part of "generally not acceptable" do you not grasp?
What % offshore cruising vessels have open transoms? Now why is that?
C'mon explain it it should eb easy with your vast knowlege



This thread is following the classic pattern... MC bluffs, he blunders,
he dodges & prevaricates... then he starts with insults. It becomes
obvious that he can't answer the question. Does this pattern fulfill a
psychological need for you, Navvie? How many times will you be driven to
repeat it?


I'd say your response describes your behaviour better than mine.
Insults? I rarely insult or threaten -unlike you who always is reduced
to ad hominems. As for prevarication, you do nothing but. How about a
concrete reference to all the races you've claim to have won at national
level? Engineering -what qualifications do you have?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

OK then, what factors would affect which one is better?


MC wrote:

Rig geometry of course!



Now we are getting somewhere.


Good lord. What a pompus man.


What rig geometery would favor a frac rig (remembering the issue of jib
head tip vortex)? Would aspect ratio be significant (again, just a
reminder, jib head tip vortex)? How about the head angle of each sail
respectively?


So, you don't know? Why do you want to know, you don't cut sails or
design rigs? Isn't this yet more pomposity on your part?


... This reminds me of children who are too lazy/stupid to frame a
question properly and don't really want to know the answer but just
get attention. They just keep saying "But why..."


So, even your toddlers are asking you questions that you don't know the
answer to?


You really don't get it do you? In the previous para I count no less
than 3 questions.


Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

MC wrote:
Insults? I rarely insult or threaten -unlike you who always is reduced
to ad hominems.

Really? Quote a single post of mine where I have insulted you... other
than by saying that you babble, which is only the truth.

... As for prevarication, you do nothing but. How about a
concrete reference to all the races you've claim to have won at national
level?

Look it up. To qoute you, "use google, you lazy sod." Oh wait, that
wasn't an insult was it? I posted two links to regatta results, although
it was some years ago.

Engineering -what qualifications do you have?

Why do you care?

I like to discuss sailing and related technical issues. I don't like
double talk, and I don't like pretenders. You used to talk sailing here
in a fairly credible way, but for the past few years you have sunk
deeper and deeper into the role of pedantic buffoon. Do you like it?

Instead of declaring how stupid other people are, a clear explanation of
things that you do understand will go a long way to improve your
credibility. Right now you're about a half step above Jax... in fact you
seem to be relying on him to bolster your arguments.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

I like to discuss sailing and related technical issues.

but, doguies, you don't know anything but what you read on a usenet ng, and you
refuse to learn. And to make matters worse, you are a sophist.

I don't like
double talk,

yeah, you like straight-shooting bull****.

and I don't like pretenders.

dude, check the mirror and then try to say that with a straight face.

Instead of declaring how stupid other people are,

a lot of people, such as yourself, are purposely stupid. you work at it and
should be rewarded for your efforts.

a clear explanation of
things that you do understand will go a long way to improve your
credibility.

six times? eight times? 28 times? how many times, dougies, before the clear
explanation sinks into your thick skull?

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:


Engineering -what qualifications do you have?


Why do you care?


So you don't have any after all.

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

Why do you care?


MC wrote:
So you don't have any after all.

Maybe, maybe not. The only thing that matters is
1- when people hire me to solve a problem, my solution works
2- they pay me

and you already owe me money.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:



MC wrote:

Insults? I rarely insult or threaten -unlike you who always is reduced
to ad hominems.


Really? Quote a single post of mine where I have insulted you... other
than by saying that you babble, which is only the truth.

You want to apologise for "dickless" or shall I post some more?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:





... As for prevarication, you do nothing but. How about a concrete
reference to all the races you've claim to have won at national level?


Look it up. To qoute you, "use google, you lazy sod." Oh wait, that
wasn't an insult was it? I posted two links to regatta results, although
it was some years ago.

So post them, they don't seem to be in the archive...

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:



MC wrote:

You used to talk sailing here
in a fairly credible way, but for the past few years you have sunk
deeper and deeper into the role of pedantic buffoon. Do you like it?

Well,there's another surpise. Doug just resorted to another insulting ad
hominem. Perhaps what you mean to say was I was acceptable to you for
as long as I didn't openly challenge your bull****.


Instead of declaring how stupid other people are, a clear explanation of
things that you do understand will go a long way to improve your
credibility.

When a genuine question come up I always respond honestly. Furthermore
you may call me a buffoon if you wish (I really don't care) but it's
only you that is always self aggrandizing. I only disagree with you when
you post incorrect information -as I promised I would. So stop BSing and
you won't have to read my replies. It's that simple.

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

MC wrote:
You want to apologise for "dickless" or shall I post some more?

Apologize that you're dickless? It's certainly not my fault. It explains
a lot. Do you have penis envy?

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

MC wrote:
When a genuine question come up I always respond honestly. Furthermore
you may call me a buffoon if you wish (I really don't care) but it's
only you that is always self aggrandizing.

Such as?

... I only disagree with you when
you post incorrect information -as I promised I would.

The funny thing is, so far you have never once shown anything I have
posted to be incorrect, but you get caught in lies fairly often. Which
is why your constant whine of "look it up, you're too stupid, I'm not
going to explain," etc etc is the most common demoninator in your posts.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:


MC wrote:

You want to apologise for "dickless" or shall I post some more?


Apologize that you're dickless? It's certainly not my fault. It explains
a lot. Do you have penis envy?



Proven wrong again so he resorts to type. Good lord!

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:


MC wrote:

When a genuine question come up I always respond honestly. Furthermore
you may call me a buffoon if you wish (I really don't care) but it's
only you that is always self aggrandizing.


Such as?

Good lord.

... I only disagree with you when you post incorrect information -as I
promised I would.


The funny thing is, so far you have never once shown anything I have
posted to be incorrect, but you get caught in lies fairly often. Which
is why your constant whine of "look it up, you're too stupid, I'm not
going to explain," etc etc is the most common demoninator in your posts.


If you put quotes around a lie it doesn't make ut the truth Doug.

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

You used to talk sailing here in a fairly credible way, but for the
past few years you have sunk deeper and deeper into the role of
pedantic buffoon. Do you like it?

MC wrote:
Well,there's another surpise. Doug just resorted to another insulting ad
hominem.

Just stating a fact. Did you join in a discussion on Sail Aerodynamics
to 1- offer any interesting or useful info to others to learn or 2-
learn something yourself or 3- try to impress people with how smart you
think you are ?

If #1 or #2, please quote the post, I must have missed it.

I'd suggest that you tried for #3, failed, and are bitter about it.
Which is why you keep attacking me.



When a genuine question come up I always respond honestly. Furthermore
you may call me a buffoon if you wish (I really don't care) but it's
only you that is always self aggrandizing. I only disagree with you when
you post incorrect information -as I promised I would. So stop BSing and
you won't have to read my replies. It's that simple.

I have never posted BS, so that part is easy.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

You used to talk sailing here in a fairly credible way, but for the
past few years you have sunk deeper and deeper into the role of
pedantic buffoon. Do you like it?


MC wrote:
Well,there's another surpise. Doug just resorted to another insulting
ad hominem.


Just stating a fact. Did you join in a discussion on Sail Aerodynamics
to 1- offer any interesting or useful info to others to learn or 2-
learn something yourself or 3- try to impress people with how smart you
think you are ?

If #1 or #2, please quote the post, I must have missed it.




Actually I answered your first question and then wondered why an expert
on sail trim did not know something very basic like difference between
the position of max pressure on the main and headsail. Was that a bad
thing to do Doug?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

MC wrote:
Actually I answered your first question

No, you did not.

... and then wondered why an expert
on sail trim did not know something very basic like difference between
the position of max pressure on the main and headsail.

Who would that be?

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:

MC wrote:

Actually I answered your first question


No, you did not.


What does the answer "yes' mean?
... and then wondered why an expert on sail trim did not know
something very basic like difference between the position of max
pressure on the main and headsail.


Who would that be?


Good lord!

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

DSK wrote:


MC wrote:

When a genuine question come up I always respond honestly. Furthermore
you may call me a buffoon if you wish (I really don't care) but it's
only you that is always self aggrandizing.


Such as?

... I only disagree with you when you post incorrect information -as I
promised I would.


The funny thing is, so far you have never once shown anything I have
posted to be incorrect, but you get caught in lies fairly often.

You mean like pointing out the error in your last equation?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

MC wrote:
You mean like pointing out the error in your last equation?

You mean like *claiming* to point out the error?

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

OK you seem determined to make me rub you nose in your error but here it
is. You said and reaffimed that the equation was:

"
CSR==(Beam / Disp ) ^ 0.333
"

but it is really

Beam/(displacment)^0.333

Won't you agree that that's quite different? Now I tried to point it out
gently and even indicated that your parenthesis was in the wrong place
but you are the one who escaltes it again by not listening and thinking.

Sigh. Will you never learn?

Cheers


DSK wrote:

MC wrote:

You mean like pointing out the error in your last equation?


You mean like *claiming* to point out the error?

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics
 

OzOn wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:41:16 GMT,
scribbled thusly:



Notice how everytime DSK posts an ad hominem attack on someone, he brushes it
off as "a fact".

Doug was such a poor, incompetent sailor that he gave up sailing and bought a
diesel trawler.


Hey Bill, I've been saving this for you.
It certainly suits
http://www.squirtsplace.com/wav/StupidPeople.wav


Now why say that? Are there no grains of truth in his post?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics... oops back to CSR
 

MC wrote:
OK you seem determined to make me rub you nose in your error but here it
is. You said and reaffimed that the equation was:

"
CSR==(Beam / Disp ) ^ 0.333
"

but it is really

Beam/(displacment)^0.333

The second equation is right. Was the whole divisor included in the
parenthesis in my first post? If so, that was an error.

However, we now know for sure that this is indeed what you're talking
about, and it has nothing to do with initial stability (as you
repeatedly said) and it used to compare relative LPOS for similar
vessels when no more detailed measurements are available.

I posted several links explaining what this measure is intended for,
including at least one article by one of the members of the panel that
created it. But what does he know, he's a "professional naval
architect." I can post them again, just to show how ridiculously wrong
you have been about it all along.

Now, are you interested in backing up and restating all your bushwa
about your great credentials as a naval architect, and what CSR means?

You can back up even further, and post the details of this boat you
claim won our bet.

But I don't think you will. And I don't think you're going to email any
US sailing officials any more than you ever emailed Phil Bolger. You
have no more to contribute to this forum on sailing topics than Boobsie.

DSK

Sail Aerodynamics... oops back to CSR
 

DSK wrote:

MC wrote:

OK you seem determined to make me rub you nose in your error but here
it is. You said and reaffimed that the equation was:

"
CSR==(Beam / Disp ) ^ 0.333
"

but it is really

Beam/(displacment)^0.333


The second equation is right. Was the whole divisor included in the
parenthesis in my first post? If so, that was an error.

At last.


However, we now know for sure that this is indeed what you're talking
about, and it has nothing to do with initial stability (as you
repeatedly said) and it used to compare relative LPOS for similar
vessels when no more detailed measurements are available.

OK let me try to get you to see something else. If the beam of typical
vessels is the same inverted or the right way up would the capsise
screen be different?

Do you not agree that the underlying assumption of the screen is that
the inverted water plane width is directly proportional to the beam?

Now if you've got that, isn't the non-inverted water plane width also
likely to be directly proportional to the beam?

If that's so, could there be a connection between initial stability and
inverted stability as valid as the CSR formula itself?

Finally, the metacentric radius (BM) is the height of the metacenter
above the center of bouyancy. Clearly this is a very important figure
for initial stability as it determines the righting lever (If I remember
this is called Attwoods formula). Now BM can be shown to be the moment
of inertia of the water plane about an axis through the C of G divided
by the volume of displacement. The mathematical connection to the CSR
formula arises directly from the moment of an immersed wedge being
1/3y^3 theta where theta is the heel and y the waterline beam (of the
immersed wedge). The extension of this is exploited by Barnes method for
stability calculation -which you may know about.

OK?

Cheers

Sail Aerodynamics
 

I doubt that would help that much.

Oz wrote in message ...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:36:34 GMT,
scribbled thusly:

Clearly DSK cannot defend himself. He needs assistance from other,
similar
losers.

BB

Jeez Bill, the only help he'd need to defend himself from you is from
a translator.....to turn what he says into gibberish so you'd
understand it.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Sail Aerodynamics... oops back to CSR
 

Does it matter if this is from the real MC/Navvie

Navvie wrote:
OK let me try to get you to see something else. If the beam of typical
vessels is the same inverted or the right way up would the capsise
screen be different?

Hello? The CSR is a metric for the boat. If the boat is upside down,
it's the same. If the boat is standing on it's bow, CSR is the same. If
the boat has been propped up on jackstands for years, CSR is the same.

Seems a rather easy principle to grasp, there.


Do you not agree that the underlying assumption of the screen is that
the inverted water plane width is directly proportional to the beam?

Now if you've got that, isn't the non-inverted water plane width also
likely to be directly proportional to the beam?

You're trying to get fancy, aren't you? Why not work with simple
principles first, instead of leaping off the deep end.

1- the inverted waterline section of any given could be very very
different than the normal waterline section. Usually boats are double
ended at the water line, but very often they have wide transoms.

2- volume distribution is just (or more) important. A high sheer & and a
canoe stern will force the boat, when inverted, to try and float on two
points. Obviously this will affect it's inverted stability but not it's
normal stability.

3- CSR takes none of this into account



If that's so, could there be a connection between initial stability and
inverted stability as valid as the CSR formula itself?

Looking at what I've said above, WTF do you think?


Finally, the metacentric radius (BM)

Your whole argument is a lot of BM.

But to get serious for a moment... CSR is of some value comparing
vessels of similar size & form. It is simple & quick. It is not a
substitute for formal LPOS calculations, but there may not be data on
some boats to do this. Therein lies it's merit.

In addition, the LPOS (Limit of Positive Stability) figure has a lot of
weaknesses. It takes no account of sheer, as I mentioned above, and
deliberately does not account for deck camber or cabin trunk volume. And
it does not take any account of athwartship rotational inertia (or X-mmi
if you like jargon) which is a very large factor in how likely a given
boat is to be rolled over, or to stay inverted.

In short, I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion with
Navvie nor any sock puppet... although thanks for the gibberish, whoever
you are, it was a brief laugh and slightly brightened my morning. Maybe
later.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King
(on line since 1989 and still 100% sock-puppet-free)

Sail Aerodynamics
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
read it again, dougie. And again, if need be. And again. And again. And
again ...


Jax, only MC can make sense of your posts by reading them a second time.

The rest of us just get a headache.


Regards


Donal
--

Sail Aerodynamics
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...


dougies, I have repeatedly suggested you read a book by someone who knows.



You've written a definitive book about this, too???


Twit.


Regards


Donal
--

Sail Aerodynamics
 

are you suggesting that none of you but mc has anything approaching a 3 digit
IQ?


read it again, dougie. And again, if need be. And again. And again. And
again ...


Jax, only MC can make sense of your posts by reading them a second time.

The rest of us just get a headache.


Regards


Donal
--

Sail Aerodynamics
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
are you suggesting that none of you but mc has anything approaching a 3
digit
IQ?

No, quite the reverse, in fact!

Are you suggesting that you have a three digit IQ?



Regards


Donal
--