note your expansion statement below.

no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as
you
did prior. I didn't expand it, you did.


over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps
charterplotters,
anything is possible.

If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I
have a fix not a "DR" position

ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the
definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did.

---------------- My simple
statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute.
-----------------------


BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help
your reading comprehension.

otn

there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why the
scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is telling us
the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of
physics are wrong, wrong, wrong.

good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far.

over the knee, give it up for the kriste sakes. once ah-fricken-ghen you
are
arguing a physical impossibilty. most every scientist -- and certainly
every
last physicist -- on the planet is laughing at you.

You, over the knee, have a better chance of arguing astrology is valid.

Try to pay attention, difficult as that may be.
The subject is navigation ..... because someone is a scientist,
physicist, or astrologist, it doesn't necessarily hold that they are a
"navigator".
If you had any experience, you would know that navigation, especially in
the past, was as much an "art form" as it was a "science".
Especially, back then, your "basic" definition of "DR" was used and
held, *AS* the basic definition, but again as stated, it was not the
only definition, then as now.
The only problem I really see here, is that you have at best a highly
limited knowledge base of navigation, coupled with extremely little
experience, so, that, coupled with your consistently poor showing in
reading comprehension and lack of ability to grasp or expand on a
concept other than the one you may have been initially taught, you can't
possibly grasp how these other factors could possibly be applied to the
definition of "DR" ..... hey, no problem .... just stick with the basics
you know .... it's not like you're going to be senior navigator on some
offshore boat, at any time.

otn

don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that
every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you.

There you go with that reading comprehension problem again.
Oh well, got better things to do than argue semantics with you.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
note your expansion statement below.


no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as

you

did prior. I didn't expand it, you did.



over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps

charterplotters,

anything is possible.

If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I
have a fix not a "DR" position

ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the
definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did.


---------------- My simple

statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute.

-----------------------



BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help
your reading comprehension.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why the
scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is telling us
the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of
physics are wrong, wrong, wrong.

good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far.


ROFLMAO There you have it folks! Ole jaxass hasn't enough knowledge and
experience with navigation, to argue one point I made, so he falls back
on his usual "scientist of the world", "physics", "astrology" ploy in
yet *ANOTHER* vain attempt to cover the fact.

jax, it's becoming obvious that even the simple process of "DR" is way
beyond your abilities.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that
every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you.


Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that
every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you.

ROFLMAO

otn

not reading comp, over the knee, that is your problem, but rather that you
don't care what reality is. you are vain, and if the world does not match your
prior beliefs, it is the world that is wrong.

ain't nothing sematic about the laws of physics. not a thing.

There you go with that reading comprehension problem again.
Oh well, got better things to do than argue semantics with you.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
note your expansion statement below.


no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR
as

you

did prior. I didn't expand it, you did.



over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps

charterplotters,

anything is possible.

If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I
have a fix not a "DR" position

ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the
definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did.


---------------- My simple

statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the
absolute.

-----------------------



BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help
your reading comprehension.

otn

over the knee, the laws of physics were not voted on by corrupt politicians and
they are not suspendable by you just because you didn't prior understand them.
You do understand them now, right? You do understand that DR is just a guess
and not a very good one at that, don't you?

I do hope you don't try to cling to your prior belief that just because you
don't understand something that it therefore can not be right. only really
stew ped people think that and you are not stew ped, are you over the knee?

there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why
the
scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is
telling us
the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of
physics are wrong, wrong, wrong.

good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far.


ROFLMAO There you have it folks! Ole jaxass hasn't enough knowledge and
experience with navigation, to argue one point I made, so he falls back
on his usual "scientist of the world", "physics", "astrology" ploy in
yet *ANOTHER* vain attempt to cover the fact.

jax, it's becoming obvious that even the simple process of "DR" is way
beyond your abilities.

otn

ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of
navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any
reason for this, but just flatly states it is true.

the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works.

yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right?



don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that
every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you.


Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that
every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you.

ROFLMAO

otn








don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that
every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you.


Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that
every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you.

ROFLMAO

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of
navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any
reason for this, but just flatly states it is true.

the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works.

yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right?

ROFLMAO

Ahhhh jaxass, you're always good for a laugh!!

You can't argue any point as to what "DR" is or might be, so you go off
running in circles yelling "physics, physics".
You know nothing about applying set and drift or how it may be
determined, so you claim "astrology,astrology".
You might be qualified to navigate in LI sound in daylight with
unlimited visibility within a mile of the beach, but never offshore, as
you've proven you can't even safely round Hatteras with a couple of GPS's.

BTW Yer right, I haven't crashed yet and I've been doin it fer about 45
years .....course, even idiots like you can do it nowadays .... as long
as you have enough spare gps receivers and batteries and don't lose the
signal for some reason..... then again, mebbe not.

Ahhhh well, enough jaxnonsense for this weekend.

otn