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

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

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

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

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