"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty



Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in favor of shipping
containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see them? It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in

How about passing international law that all
shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV



I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.


Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident
you'll
try your hardest.

Scotty



Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in
favor of shipping
containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see
them?


Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
...



Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV




Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted, somewhat tongue-in-cheek
though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers floating around in
a way that they could sink boats. You replied that it was "the dumbest thing
(you) had ever read." It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...



Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb
position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV




Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek
though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers
floating around in
a way that they could sink boats.



What you suggested was dumb...D U M B !

You replied that it was "the dumbest thing
(you) had ever read."


''this week''. I haven't read your past posts.


doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring
containers to
sink.



When you ASS U me stuff, you make an ASS out of U, not ME.


Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat,
where they can
do harm.


You are WRONG again! Are you related to Boobspit?




SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better
solution.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing
cousin: Post a better
solution.


I never said I had a better solution, although given 15
minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb
idea.
I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded
containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week.
It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing
cousin: Post a better
solution.


I never said I had a better solution, although given 15
minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb
idea.
I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded
containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week.
It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible.

SBV



Now that's the dumbest post I've read all year. My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load or ballast them in a way that they
would always sink if they went overboard. And since you have been thinking
about this for a few days now without posting a better idea, capable only of
casting derision upon those who actually HAVE ideas, I must now consider you
to be incapable of having any ideas of your own.

However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they
can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

Yes, this has been pointed out. Which is why I proposed requiring ballast
(or otherwise adjusting the buoyancy) so the container would sink if the
cargo would otherwise prohibit sinking.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:55:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they
can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

Yes, this has been pointed out. Which is why I proposed requiring ballast
(or otherwise adjusting the buoyancy) so the container would sink if the
cargo would otherwise prohibit sinking.


I posted some figures(I thought to this thread) a while ago and
according to the insurance companies, that insure containers, the loss
per year is from 2 - 10,000 containers per year. The port of
Singapore, for example, handled some 23.2 million containers in 2005.

If you apply loss of containers ONLY to Singapore shipping then some
0.043 % of the containers passing through Singapore are lost.

The next question would be to determine how many boats are sunk by
collisions with containers each year and off set this figure by how
many vessels are sunk by collisions with other kind of floating
debris.

My suspicion is that the sinking of boats by hitting containers is
infinitesimal.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)