DSK wrote:

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.

I was answering your question about when I lived in Baltimore. So it was
not a lie was it? C'mon try again the record does not lie but you do
-frequently.

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


Cheers

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

To coin a phrase "I think an apology is in order"

Actually, paying off your mistaken bet would be even nicer, but we'll
take things one at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

thanks in advance
Doug King

The problem is that you can't follow a thread. Try rereading at a speed
that matches your wit. Asd for stability have you found out what the
metacentric height is yet? I've forgotten more than you will ever know!

Bhahahhahahahhaha

Cheers

DSK wrote:

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

When will you agree to terms for settling the bet then?

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

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


To coin a phrase "I think an apology is in order"

Actually, paying off your mistaken bet would be even nicer, but we'll
take things one at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

thanks in advance
Doug King

But at least I was not lying about it eh? :-)

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

Well you said I was lying but I was not. To lie means to 'willfully
deceive' so I guess you should still apologise to me. I'll agree I had
confused the Constellation and Constitution (I hope that's not old age
taking over but rather the fact that it was a long time ago) but I
certainly wasn't lying about her -as my pictures show.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

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


To coin a phrase "I think an apology is in order"

Actually, paying off your mistaken bet would be even nicer, but we'll
take things one at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

thanks in advance
Doug King

feel compelled to make up lies:


BTW Thomas Gilmer, whom you called incompetent,


No, I never mentioned Gilmer and never called him incompetant. So why
does he do it?

Cheers

feel compelled to say


a man who has worked as a naval
architect's apprentice but cannot explain stability.


First I was not an apprentice but a student. I've posted many times on
the determinents of stability so why does he do it?

Cheers

I've posted many times on
the determinents of stability so why does he do it?

To make you jump through yet another hoop.
--
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

... I've posted many times on
the determinents of stability so why does he do it?


And you say the difference between 1983, 1988, and 1994 is "maths" when
it is simply a matter of not not know WTF you're talking about... again

katysails wrote:
To make you jump through yet another hoop.

Maybe all this jumping through hoops is why Navvie thinks he's the
Michael Jordan of sailing? And he doesn't realize how dull his tools are!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King