JAXAshby wrote:
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