Nav wrote:
Doug, you really start to look incredibly foolish when you don't even
bother to look at what reference books say and then criticise them as
knowing less than you.

According to your references, the Thomas W. Lawson could not have been
termed a schooner. But that's exactly what her builder, her owners, her
captain, called her. I guess you'd say they were all wrong, too.


Does a schooner have to be gaf rigged? Do you think you could be
bothered to look for yourself? I'm not here to do your homework for
you. Is this how you got through school?



OK, so, you don't know.

Actually, I do.

... Since you have shown no ability at maths
(especially calculus)

I have enough ability to not call it "maths."

... I don't think you could have done any of my
homework.

Considering that you haven't a clue how to resolve forces on a free-body
diagram (merely the latest of a long string of your revealed
inabilities) there is no way you could have even started mine.


... But that's OK because the world need wipers and I'm sure you
were (are still) a very good wiper.

Yep, can still do the basics. Although after qualifying for all watch
stations up through GQ-EEOW and R-5 Leader, "wiper" hasn't really been
part of my job description for a long time.

I guess you can't cope with any machinery more complex than a fork, is
that why you're so resentful?

DSK