Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

No, I don't.

"Bobigator" wrote ...
Maybe, but you must admit it was a good informative troll...

Cheers



Scott Vernon wrote:

Navsprit?

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
What's the matter Doug, upset that she doesn't have a motor for you to
play with?

Not at all, but you seem to be upset that the U.S.S. Constitution is in
fact sound & sailing. I am rather proud of her, and have learned quite a
bit about this great ship. You seem to have avoided learning anything.
Tell us why, in your ever so humble opinion, Pride of Baltimore was lost
due to "poor seamanship."

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!

Cheers

Scott Vernon wrote:

No, I don't.

"Bobigator" wrote ...

Maybe, but you must admit it was a good informative troll...

Cheers



Scott Vernon wrote:


Navsprit?

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Read about it, I won't discuss things with you.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

What's the matter Doug, upset that she doesn't have a motor for you to
play with?


Not at all, but you seem to be upset that the U.S.S. Constitution is in
fact sound & sailing. I am rather proud of her, and have learned quite a
bit about this great ship. You seem to have avoided learning anything.
Tell us why, in your ever so humble opinion, Pride of Baltimore was lost
due to "poor seamanship."

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
Read about it, I won't discuss things with you.

Of course not, you look too much like an ignorant fool when you do.

I already know a good bit about the loss of the Pride of Baltimore, and
"poor seamanship" was not one of the factors in her sinking.

Your statement is an insult to her designer, builders, captain, and most
of all to the people who died when she went down.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Read about it, I won't discuss things with you.


Of course not, you look too much like an ignorant fool when you do.

I already know a good bit about the loss of the Pride of Baltimore, and
"poor seamanship" was not one of the factors in her sinking.


OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.

"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some official
findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of seamanship
were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of God." In some
instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were planted years
before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig modifications, and
"mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."

I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.

Or maybe parrot Read?


"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some official
findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of seamanship
were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of God."

Is he talking specifically about the Pride of Baltimore? Sounds like
he's referring to several incidents, not one specifically. Is this guy a
favorite of yours because he too has a grudge and an emotional need to
insult others. "Ignorance at all of age-old practices of seamanship" is
nonsense, the designer, builder, & captain all were very highly regarded
scholars of maritime history as well as consummate professionals.


... In some
instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were planted years
before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig modifications, and
"mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."

I'd be interested to know specifically what structural changes, and rig
modifications he's talking about.

Mission creep may have some basis in fact, the first Pride was not built
with the intention of crossing oceans. She was deliberately built with
more historical accuracy and less regard for modern safety
considerations, and all concerned knew this well.


I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...

I wonder if he actually knows of what he's talking about, unlike you.

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.


Or maybe parrot Read?


"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some
official findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of
seamanship were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of
God."


Is he talking specifically about the Pride of Baltimore? Sounds like
he's referring to several incidents, not one specifically. Is this guy a
favorite of yours because he too has a grudge and an emotional need to
insult others. "Ignorance at all of age-old practices of seamanship" is
nonsense, the designer, builder, & captain all were very highly regarded
scholars of maritime history as well as consummate professionals.


... In some instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were
planted years before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig
modifications, and "mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."


I'd be interested to know specifically what structural changes, and rig
modifications he's talking about.

Mission creep may have some basis in fact, the first Pride was not built
with the intention of crossing oceans. She was deliberately built with
more historical accuracy and less regard for modern safety
considerations, and all concerned knew this well.


I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...


I wonder if he actually knows of what he's talking about, unlike you.


Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship. Hey it's OK
just insult him too 'cos you are always right! But do us all a favor and
read his book, you'll really learn something about seamanship and tall
ships.

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!



What utter drivel. First you post that the Constitution was motoring, then when it is pointed out that she has no motor, you backpedal and claim that
she was being towed, next it becomes apparent that the tow vessel was not in fact towing. Finally you lack the spine to say 'oops', but instead resort
to the tried and true Bobsprit cry, "It was a troll!", implying that you knew the facts all along and were merely trying to spark nautical discussion.
Hogwash. Shame on you Nav!

Cheers
Marty

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship.

Unlike yourself.

... Hey it's OK
just insult him too 'cos you are always right!

Actually, I have never insulted the man, only pointed out that you (and
he, in your specific quote for which you give no details and no context)
were quite insulting to others.

.. But do us all a favor and
read his book

How do you know I haven't? I'd also suggest you read Villiers, Lever,
Chappelle, and a few others. Actually, Thomas Gilmer, the designer of
Pride of Baltimore I and II, has written quite a lot about naval
architecture (of which he was a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy),
and naval & maritime history, as well as designing a lot of excellent
boats. But you already knew that I bet ;)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

There is an article in the new Soundings about the first Pride of Baltimore and
the causes of the disaster. It is written by Melbourne Smith, her first captain
and designer of classic ships such as Spirit of Massachusetts.

While Smith does not cite "poor seamanship" directly, he does say that the top
hamper should have been lowered for the voyage. With the topmasts and yards
rigged, he claims the knockdown was inevitable. This was the common practice
for ships of this type, and he claims it was also the cause of her grounding
several years earlier, when three captains refused to take her around Hatteras
in April with the topmasts rigged.

The actual sinking was caused by leaving the companionway hatch open. Since it
was positioned on the port side, a knockdown to port would result in rapid
flooding.

BTW, my wife did a brief cruise on the Pride shortly before the sinking.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Navigator wrote:
Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship.

Unlike yourself.

... Hey it's OK
just insult him too 'cos you are always right!

Actually, I have never insulted the man, only pointed out that you (and
he, in your specific quote for which you give no details and no context)
were quite insulting to others.

.. But do us all a favor and
read his book

How do you know I haven't? I'd also suggest you read Villiers, Lever,
Chappelle, and a few others. Actually, Thomas Gilmer, the designer of
Pride of Baltimore I and II, has written quite a lot about naval
architecture (of which he was a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy),
and naval & maritime history, as well as designing a lot of excellent
boats. But you already knew that I bet ;)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
There is an article in the new Soundings about the first Pride of Baltimore and
the causes of the disaster.

Okay, I'll definitely read that as soon as we get it.

.. It is written by Melbourne Smith, her first captain
and designer of classic ships such as Spirit of Massachusetts.

While Smith does not cite "poor seamanship" directly, he does say that the top
hamper should have been lowered for the voyage. With the topmasts and yards
rigged, he claims the knockdown was inevitable. This was the common practice
for ships of this type, and he claims it was also the cause of her grounding
several years earlier, when three captains refused to take her around Hatteras
in April with the topmasts rigged.

Saying that a knockdown is inevitable is a bit hyperbole, don't you
think? No doubt at all the boat would have had better reserve stability
with the topmasts & yards unshipped & stowed, but she also would have
been notably slower & possibly much less maneuverable. And in a white
squall with 70+ knot winds, would she have fared significantly better?


The actual sinking was caused by leaving the companionway hatch open. Since it
was positioned on the port side, a knockdown to port would result in rapid
flooding.

I thought it was the main deck hatch which was the culprit. If it had
been sized for safety, instead of historical accuracy, it also would
have been easier to secure. Ironic. IIRC there was some discussion about
it when the Pride 1 was new. In fact, at many places along the line
during designing & building, there were conscious choices made between
safety & historical accuracy.

Leaving the hatch unbattened while on the open sea was sloppy. However,
again it was an issue of history versus modern safety standards... if it
had been a modern hatch it wouldn't have been such a PITA to open &
secure, and there would have been no reason to leave it unsecured.

A point to remember is that white squalls have sunk a lot of good boats
with good captains. The weather was clear and fine, then approx four
minutes later the ship was foundering.

It's possible that Pride 1 would have sunk even with topmasts struck and
hatches secured. If she got knocked on her beam ends and stayed that
way, how long would it take for the same flooding to occur? Longer, it's
true, but how much? In short, it was a tragedy that was exacerbated by a
bit of sloppiness by the captain, but it was hardly gross incompetence
as some have charged.



BTW, my wife did a brief cruise on the Pride shortly before the sinking.

I took a brief daysail out of Beaufort NC on her, and have sailed on
Pride 2 a couple of times. I've also sailed on Shenandoah, another
vessel where historical accuracy took precedence. It's truly a different
world.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship.


Unlike yourself.

... Hey it's OK just insult him too 'cos you are always right!


Actually, I have never insulted the man, only pointed out that you (and
he, in your specific quote for which you give no details and no context)
were quite insulting to others.

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me). But then
all you ever really do is insult others who know more than you don't you
Doug?
But then again, you are always right -right?

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

No, I'm being dead honest about my saying she's motoring was a troll. I
knew I could get the Dogs barking if I said she was motoring. I know her
better than probably anyone else here -lived very close to her and
walked past her nearly every day when I worked in Baltimore.

Cheers

Martin Baxter wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!



What utter drivel. First you post that the Constitution was motoring,
then when it is pointed out that she has no motor, you backpedal and
claim that she was being towed, next it becomes apparent that the tow
vessel was not in fact towing. Finally you lack the spine to say 'oops',
but instead resort to the tried and true Bobsprit cry, "It was a
troll!", implying that you knew the facts all along and were merely
trying to spark nautical discussion. Hogwash. Shame on you Nav!

Cheers
Marty

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby plays
the "I was trolling all along" ploy.



"Navigator" wrote in message
...
No, I'm being dead honest about my saying she's motoring was a troll. I
knew I could get the Dogs barking if I said she was motoring. I know her
better than probably anyone else here -lived very close to her and
walked past her nearly every day when I worked in Baltimore.

Cheers

Martin Baxter wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!



What utter drivel. First you post that the Constitution was motoring,
then when it is pointed out that she has no motor, you backpedal and
claim that she was being towed, next it becomes apparent that the tow
vessel was not in fact towing. Finally you lack the spine to say 'oops',
but instead resort to the tried and true Bobsprit cry, "It was a
troll!", implying that you knew the facts all along and were merely
trying to spark nautical discussion. Hogwash. Shame on you Nav!

Cheers
Marty

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).

No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book. You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby. No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.

... But then
all you ever really do is insult others who know more than you don't you
Doug?

Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them don't I?

If you're a good boy and eat all your vegetables, tomorrow I'll explain
the discussion between Jeff and I on the subject. Oh wait, he just
constantly insults you too, doesn't he? Acting all superior knowing
about tides and stuff? It's a big conspiracy, Navvie!

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).


No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book. You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby. No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.

... But then all you ever really do is insult others who know more
than you don't you Doug?


Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them
don't I?

If you're a good boy and eat all your vegetables, tomorrow I'll explain
the discussion between Jeff and I on the subject.

Of course you are always right! Which is the largest harmonic term in US
tidal prediction? The smallest?


Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby plays
the "I was trolling all along" ploy.


Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me. Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here? Did you know I was a 'friend' of
the Constitution? But believe what you wish -it's all in your perception
anyway.

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).


No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book.

Was it from the book or a review of the book?

You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby.

Good lord. My insults are very few and only ever in kind. It's you that
is insulting.

No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.


But if you knew the author and his work as you claimed then you would
know that the question of seamanship was most germain. In anycase, he
knows more about that subject and the Pride than you can possibly
imagine and you would do well to read his book before you spout off
again about tall ships in sqaulls.

... But then all you ever really do is insult others who know more
than you don't you Doug?


Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them
don't I?


No you only 'harp' at anyone who shows up your BS but you often get away
with it because of ignorance.

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
... Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?

Now *that* is funny.

Navvie, you have shown you know little to nothing about tall ships,
tides, spinnakers, and that's just in the past two days. Apparently your
ego needs a good washing, shrink it to fit.

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby
plays
the "I was trolling all along" ploy.


Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me.

What does it say about me? You're the one claiming you were lying before, but
now you're telling the truth. What does that say about you?

Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?

Why? You seem to know very little about it. I kept my last boat within a few
hundred yards of the ship for 8 years; I've lived within 5 miles of her most of
my life. I've been aboard her many times; gotten tri ps on her; and special
tours. However, my brother knows more, since he's been building a detail model
of her for the last 5 years or so.


Did you know I was a 'friend' of
the Constitution?

No that's probably another troll. The navy is not permitted to solicit
donations, and the museum doesn't have a "Friend" membership. But even if its
true, what's the point? Does making a donation make you an expert?

But believe what you wish -it's all in your perception
anyway.

And the perception of everyone else. Way to go, Navsprit!

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby

plays

the "I was trolling all along" ploy.


Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me.


What does it say about me? You're the one claiming you were lying before, but
now you're telling the truth. What does that say about you?


Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?


Why? You seem to know very little about it. I kept my last boat within a few
hundred yards of the ship for 8 years; I've lived within 5 miles of her most of
my life. I've been aboard her many times; gotten tri ps on her; and special
tours. However, my brother knows more, since he's been building a detail model
of her for the last 5 years or so.


I had no idea we lived so close together. I may even have walked past
you on the street several times in the past few years! Is you boat at
the 'new' marina off Key St? Talking of model building you should see my
Victory!

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby

plays

the "I was trolling all along" ploy.


Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me.


What does it say about me? You're the one claiming you were lying before, but
now you're telling the truth. What does that say about you?

Is the cheeky 'she's motoring you know' such a lie?



Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?


Why? You seem to know very little about it. I kept my last boat within a few
hundred yards of the ship for 8 years; I've lived within 5 miles of her most of
my life. I've been aboard her many times; gotten tri ps on her;

You got trips on the Constitution? When was that exactly? I really lived
within 0.5 miles of her for 5 years!

and special
tours. However, my brother knows more, since he's been building a detail model
of her for the last 5 years or so.


Did you know I was a 'friend' of
the Constitution?


No that's probably another troll. The navy is not permitted to solicit
donations, and the museum doesn't have a "Friend" membership. But even if its
true, what's the point? Does making a donation make you an expert?

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were certainly
no naval personnel there in my day. Just because she had not been
decommissioned did not mean that the Navy had any interest in her
upkeep. Given what happened to her and the desperate attempts of private
citizens (and I include myself in a very small way there) to raise
awareness of what was happening I think it was more a sense of shame
brought down on the 'powers that be' that got her to the standard she is
in now. Believe me, at one point she was only months away from bursting
open like a rotten apple -it was a terrible sight for a sailor to see!
She was closed to the public becuase she was so weak and unsafe!


But believe what you wish -it's all in your perception
anyway.


And the perception of everyone else. Way to go, Navsprit!


Jeff, I would have expected more from you than that cheap shot. Oh well.

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

I didn't know they were hiding. Are you trying to replace Booby? You seem to
be adopting his style.


I'll be honest. I think the NG had become really boring and I was not
going to post here. But I was encouraged not to abondon you all so I
though I'd try to get you all going a bit and it worked! Can you not see
how the level of interest has climbed again and how much more sailing
related chat is going on? If you do not want that then just tell me to
leave and I will -I can respect your judgement on this.

Cheers






"Navigator" wrote in message
...

Maybe but I got the facts out into the open didn't I?

Cheers

Jeff Morris wrote:


Wow! That's a 12,000 mile backpedal! Don't hurt yourself, Nav.

You're the one who said "You do know she's motoring?" Are you claiming

that

because there's a tow boat a mile or so away she's actually motoring?

Nav,

You're Nutz!




"Navigator" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:



"Navigator" wrote in message
...



DSK wrote:




Navigator wrote:




You do know she's motoring?


You're showing your ignorance yet again, Navvie.

The USS Constitution does not have an engine.


No kidding? I guess that means they won't need your 'sailing' expertise.
But the engine is on another boat that always shadows her.



Dead wrong, nav. I was there. She was free of her tow lines.

Admittedly, it


was the first time in over 100 years, and may be the last, but she was

sailing


on here own, without a tow, for about an hour.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../sailsked.html

http://www.ecnnews.com/const/ironside.htm


Sorry jeff I don't see how anything I posted was wrong -unless you are
denying the motor boat -her primary source of propulsion was not in
attendence.

Cheers

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:
I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were certainly
no naval personnel there in my day.

When was this?

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

83-88.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were certainly
no naval personnel there in my day.


When was this?

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Sorry, but you're full of baloney. The Constitution had a major refit in
the 1970s so she would not have been in such condition. I know for a
fact that she had a Navy crew throughout the 1980s because that's when I
was in the U.S. Navy.

Now, why should anybody here believe anything you say, when you tell
such lies?

DSK

Navigator wrote:

83-88.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were
certainly no naval personnel there in my day.



When was this?

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Say what you like but I was there and you weren't. I don't know about a
refit more than a decade before that (how extensive was it I wonder?)
but I _was_ there when she was chained up opposite Phillips in the then
new inner harbor. Initially she was in good shape but no maintence was
done as far as I could see. Over the next 15 years (or so) she decayed
to the point where she had to be dismsted and steel bands placed around
her to ship her splitting open across the middle -which was also partly
due to the change in hogging stress when the masts were removed. As she
was splitting opoen serious fire pumps were put on to try to stop her
sinking and still the State and Government argued about who should pay.
Now, I can't remember any Navy crew on board -just a civilian
shop/museum. The people taking tourists around were dressed like
civilians. These are FACTS. She was described as a 'Corpse' and everyone
who knew her was appalled at the way the buck was being passed around
for her massive repair bill. If only they had maintained her...

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Sorry, but you're full of baloney. The Constitution had a major refit in
the 1970s so she would not have been in such condition. I know for a
fact that she had a Navy crew throughout the 1980s because that's when I
was in the U.S. Navy.

Now, why should anybody here believe anything you say, when you tell
such lies?

DSK

Boobsie, share your meds with Navvie OK?
 

Navigator wrote:
Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.

Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).

According to the Navy and several maritime historical societies, none of
what you've said is true. Anybody can verify it by simply emailing any
of the above web sites.

Navvie, did you think we were stupid enough to fall for this? A pack of
lies from start to finish.... or were you "just trolling" again?


but I _was_ there

Oh yeah, sure. And you gave the Pope advice on millinery, too.

DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

Navigator wrote:



Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me. Sorry.

When did Bob move to NZ?

Cheers
Marty

NZ Bob
 

Navsprit wrote:


Can you not see
how the level of interest has climbed again and how much more sailing
related chat is going on? If you do not want that then just tell me to
leave and I will -I can respect your judgement on this.

Two good posts, whether two good posts alone or two good posts buried amid two hundred pieces of drivel is still just two good posts.

Quality far outweighs quantity.

Cheers
Marty

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

I had no idea we lived so close together. I may even have walked past
you on the street several times in the past few years! Is you boat at
the 'new' marina off Key St? Talking of model building you should see my
Victory!



I don't know which marina you consider "new" - and there isn't a "Key St." in
Charlestown now. I was at Shipyard Quarters Marina (piers 6 and 8 -
Constitution is pier 1) and at Constitution Marina, which is at the old Hoosac
Pier on the other side of pier 1. Now I'm across the Mystic River in Chelsea.
SQM was built in the late 80's, I think. Constitution Marina was somewhat
earlier.

Boobsie, share your meds with Navvie OK?
 

DSK wrote in message .. .
Navigator wrote:
Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.

Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

Thanks for all the great links Doug!
It clearly shows that Nav is a liar and will do everything he can to
try to put down the USA and it history.

he has become like the French and several other brainwashed morons
that are extremly jelious of the USA. They sit around a whin about how
bad we are and totally dis-regard the truth in an effort to build up
his national pride.

It's a pitiful shame. Counties so bad off that the only way they can
make themselfs look good is by lying about others. He should be a
politician.



In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

yelp... RedCloud made her madien voyage to NY from Jolly ol just to
be a part of the parade.



You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).

Because he is a habitual liar.


According to the Navy and several maritime historical societies, none of
what you've said is true. Anybody can verify it by simply emailing any
of the above web sites.

Navvie, did you think we were stupid enough to fall for this? A pack of
lies from start to finish.... or were you "just trolling" again?


Navie is stupid enough to fall for his own lies, so he thinks we will
fall for them as well.


but I _was_ there

In his wet dreams Doug.

Joe





Oh yeah, sure. And you gave the Pope advice on millinery, too.


DSK

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

Is the cheeky 'she's motoring you know' such a lie?


Sailing under her own power without a tow was the biggest nautical event around
here in many years; it was even talked about here a few times. To deny it
repeatedly makes you look foolish.




Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?


Why? You seem to know very little about it. I kept my last boat within a
few
hundred yards of the ship for 8 years; I've lived within 5 miles of her most
of
my life. I've been aboard her many times; gotten tri ps on her;

You got trips on the Constitution? When was that exactly? I really lived
within 0.5 miles of her for 5 years!

After the refit they started doing about 12 "turn arounds" a year - rides got
easier to get.


and special
tours. However, my brother knows more, since he's been building a detail
model
of her for the last 5 years or so.


Did you know I was a 'friend' of
the Constitution?


No that's probably another troll. The navy is not permitted to solicit
donations, and the museum doesn't have a "Friend" membership. But even if
its
true, what's the point? Does making a donation make you an expert?

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were certainly
no naval personnel there in my day. Just because she had not been
decommissioned did not mean that the Navy had any interest in her
upkeep. Given what happened to her and the desperate attempts of private
citizens (and I include myself in a very small way there) to raise
awareness of what was happening I think it was more a sense of shame
brought down on the 'powers that be' that got her to the standard she is
in now. Believe me, at one point she was only months away from bursting
open like a rotten apple -it was a terrible sight for a sailor to see!
She was closed to the public becuase she was so weak and unsafe!


But believe what you wish -it's all in your perception
anyway.


And the perception of everyone else. Way to go, Navsprit!


Jeff, I would have expected more from you than that cheap shot. Oh well.

Why? Am I not entitled to cheap shots?

The constitution was rotten
 

DSK wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.


Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).


Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976. I
also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988! You are soooo
desperate to discredit me you must be wetting yourself. The fact is that
the defects in her structure manifest by hogging and opening amidships
were started in her earlier repairs and were not addressed in the refit
you talked about. I spotted the problems quite early on -I could see
seams starting to open that were just painted over.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn8.htm#H2

"In 1994 the Navy surveyed Constellation and found her to be in very
poor condition. One officer reported that he could easily plunge his
finger through some of her major beams, due to the advanced state of
decay. Among other problems, she was leaking 1200 gallons a day and had
suffered 35 inches of hog. She was promptly closed to the public, and
all rigging and guns were removed. The frail hull was temporarily
supported by a network of steel cables and slings to hold her in her
proper shape until she could be drydocked."

Note the pumps and steel cables and hogging problems -as I said! And I
also petitioned for her proper repair earlier than that!

An apology from you would be in order.

Cheers

Nav's Big Blunder
 

So I'm sitting in the dentist's chair this afternoon trying to will my mind as
far as possible from my body and I start contemplating Nav's old comments. They
just don't fit in with my recollections of the Constitution.

I don't recall any metal bands around her. She wasn't sinking. There were
always Navy personal - its a working Navy base, after all (sort of).

Phillips? There's no "Phillips" near the Constitution. And she was never moved
around the harbor, she was always at Pier 1. And there's no Key St. in Boston.
But wait! There's a Key Highway in Baltimore. And a Phillips Restaurant right
near where they keep the ... wait for it ... The Constellation!

Nav was all along confusing the Constitution for the Constellation! But isn't
that an easy mistake? Weren't they sister ships? Well, not really.

For those who don't know the story, there's a ship in Baltimore Harbor that has
been billed as the original Constellation, a smaller version of the
Constitution, launched in 1797. However, it turned out to be a hoax. The
original Constellation was broken up in Norfolk in 1853, and a new ship, of
larger proportions, was built in 1855 and given the name Constellation. Recent
inspection has proven that the framing is completely different from the
original, so any claim that the new ship was some form of refit of the original
is simply bogus. At some later point someone actually rebuilt the new
Constellation to resemble the original, and the hoax was adopted well meaning
folks in Baltimore. They now admit there is little or no connection between the
ships.

It is true that the new Constellation is in pretty sad shape - I felt a bit
embarrassed walking around it knowing we had the real thing in Boston. And I
suppose she deserves a spot in our history, but she is NOT Old Ironsides!

Does anyone think that nav knows anything about the Constitution? BWAHAHAHA!

-jeff

Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory
 

I was talking about Baltimore Jeff.

Cheers

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

I had no idea we lived so close together. I may even have walked past
you on the street several times in the past few years! Is you boat at
the 'new' marina off Key St? Talking of model building you should see my
Victory!




I don't know which marina you consider "new" - and there isn't a "Key St." in
Charlestown now. I was at Shipyard Quarters Marina (piers 6 and 8 -
Constitution is pier 1) and at Constitution Marina, which is at the old Hoosac
Pier on the other side of pier 1. Now I'm across the Mystic River in Chelsea.
SQM was built in the late 80's, I think. Constitution Marina was somewhat
earlier.

The constitution was rotten.. really?
 

Navigator wrote:
Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976

True, but you said 1983 to 1988.

I assume this is a backpedal?

.... I
also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988!

So this is *definitely* a major backpedal.

You did in fact say so, I asked you specifically "when" and you said 83
to 88... want to check the Google archive? You can lie freely about many
things, but you cannot lie about what you have posted. At least, not and
get away with it.


... The fact is that
the defects in her structure manifest by hogging and opening amidships
were started in her earlier repairs and were not addressed in the refit
you talked about. I spotted the problems quite early on -I could see
seams starting to open that were just painted over.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn8.htm#H2

"In 1994 the Navy surveyed Constellation and found her to be in very
poor condition.

Actually, this is true but not the whole story by far

The plans for the 1992-1997 refit began as early as 1990, when a series
of inspections and surveys were carried out.


... Among other problems, she was leaking 1200 gallons a day and had
suffered 35 inches of hog.

Dude, that doesn't even begin to require "fire pumps" to keep her
afloat. A good fire pump will throw over 1200 gallons per minute. You
said she had several going 24/7

In other words, you were just making up impressive sounding BS... or
"lying," as some people call it.



.... She was promptly closed to the public, and
all rigging and guns were removed.

And this was in 1994? She had already begun her refit according to your
own source. You said her masts were removed between 1983 and 1988

Oh and what about the lack of naval personnel?

What about being closed to the public between 1983 and 1988?

BTW the 35" of hogging is also inaccurate, I have other sources
(unfortunately not on line, but I can give ISDN numbers) that not only
discuss the issue in detail but have photographs of the hull in drydock
with measurement templates in place. They show the hogging to be between
14" and 15"

But who's counting? The fact that hull was hogged is not in dispute. I
am only presenting accurate info to show up your blatant lies.


An apology from you would be in order.

Negative. You've been busted hard and you're scraping the bottom of the
barrel, pretending that you meant over six years later and were talking
about the preparations for her refit.

BTW Thomas Gilmer, whom you called incompetent, was working on the
Constitution project from back in the late 1980s. Among other things he
worked over the plans to determine the distortion of her hull shape. He
also wrote a book about the Constitution, covering her history and her
recent rebuild & refit. You might benefit from checking it out, try
inter library loan. There is an excellent discussion of structural
issues & hulls as girders.

One thing that Gilmer discusses extensively that this reference glosses
over is the structural rebuild. Know what a rider knee is? They were on
the original plans (which BTW do exist and were referenced) but
apparently never installed. They were fitted during the 1992-1996
rebuild. I guess defense contractors haven't changed.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

He didn't know what year it was either
 

Was it 1983? Was it 1988? Was it 1994?

It's all so confusing, especially to a man who has worked as a naval
architect's apprentice but cannot explain stability.

But I don't necessarily want to cause Navvie any anguish... I just want
him to stop lying & making up BS to sound important... or would that
take away what little he has in life?

DSK

Nav's Big Blunder
 

Oh rats we were not talking about the same ship! My mistake.

Cheers

Jeff Morris wrote:

So I'm sitting in the dentist's chair this afternoon trying to will my mind as
far as possible from my body and I start contemplating Nav's old comments. They
just don't fit in with my recollections of the Constitution.

I don't recall any metal bands around her. She wasn't sinking. There were
always Navy personal - its a working Navy base, after all (sort of).

Phillips? There's no "Phillips" near the Constitution. And she was never moved
around the harbor, she was always at Pier 1. And there's no Key St. in Boston.
But wait! There's a Key Highway in Baltimore. And a Phillips Restaurant right
near where they keep the ... wait for it ... The Constellation!

Nav was all along confusing the Constitution for the Constellation! But isn't
that an easy mistake? Weren't they sister ships? Well, not really.

For those who don't know the story, there's a ship in Baltimore Harbor that has
been billed as the original Constellation, a smaller version of the
Constitution, launched in 1797. However, it turned out to be a hoax. The
original Constellation was broken up in Norfolk in 1853, and a new ship, of
larger proportions, was built in 1855 and given the name Constellation. Recent
inspection has proven that the framing is completely different from the
original, so any claim that the new ship was some form of refit of the original
is simply bogus. At some later point someone actually rebuilt the new
Constellation to resemble the original, and the hoax was adopted well meaning
folks in Baltimore. They now admit there is little or no connection between the
ships.

It is true that the new Constellation is in pretty sad shape - I felt a bit
embarrassed walking around it knowing we had the real thing in Boston. And I
suppose she deserves a spot in our history, but she is NOT Old Ironsides!

Does anyone think that nav knows anything about the Constitution? BWAHAHAHA!

-jeff