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