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

Which facts, that you're nuts? Or that you know practically nothing
about ships & sailing? Don't worry, those facts have been out in the
open for a long time.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

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


Which facts, that you're nuts? Or that you know practically nothing
about ships & sailing? Don't worry, those facts have been out in the
open for a long time.


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

Cheers

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

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

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

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

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

Navsprit?


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Navigator wrote:
Maybe but I got the facts out into the open didn't I?

Which facts, that you're nuts? Or that you know practically nothing
about ships & sailing? Don't worry, those facts have been out in the
open for a long time.

DSK

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

Cheers



Scott Vernon wrote:

Navsprit?


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Navigator wrote:

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

Which facts, that you're nuts? Or that you know practically nothing
about ships & sailing? Don't worry, those facts have been out in the
open for a long time.

DSK

No, I don't.

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

Cheers



Scott Vernon wrote:

Navsprit?