Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:13:57 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:16:57 -0800 (PST), Bob
wrote:

CFRs require it for all people needing dock acess for thier job. But
since you dont sail your license you reall have no use for either a
TWIC or that master license (sutible for framing and display) Hang on
to that purdy license.

The latest CFRs actually go farther than that. They say that without
a TWIC card your Masters ticket or OUPV are no longer valid.





There will be lawsuits. The government sold you something you paid good
money for and invested good time for that gave you certain rights and
privileges and now they say it's no longer valid.

That is fraud in anybody's book.


Wilbur Hubbard


I'm no lawyer, but it's changing the rules after the fact. That's
bogus.

Cannibal
 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:19:51 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:55:46 -0800 (PST), Bob
snip

And I support increased requirments completely. It time to keep the
drug users and fat asses off the water.

Somehow I don't get the impression that Capt. Wil is either a drug
user or a fat ass.


Thank you, Jessica, and well-said. As usual, you are more perceptive than
the so-called sailors. Beauty AND brains - so wonderful.


Wilbur Hubbard (wishing I were about forty years younger)


You're welcome! I didn't get the impression that you were doing
anything more than trying to give your honest, experienced opinion.

Well, I'm not beautiful.. I'm better looking than a sack of potatoes..
that's what my next oldest brother says... it's kind of an inside
joke, since I used to play with sacks of potatoes when I was a kid...
don't ask!

Cannibal
 

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:45:55 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Well, aren't you sweet! But, you are right; one of these days people are
going to have to WAKE UP and realize that money doesn't grow on trees.
People who don't produce a damned thing are going to have to realize that
they aren't worth a dime as far as payment for not producing a thing goes.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket. Every high school student
should have to read (and understand) Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged," before
they are given a diploma. You seem so very sensible. If you haven't read
"Atlas Shrugged" please do so as you are very much in the mold of Dagny
Taggart.

I forgot to write you back about Ayn Rand's book. I have not read it
but I heard a bunch about it actually recently by coincidence. I was
having dinner with my aunt and uncle and he was saying that it's about
being an individual who knows her own mind and isn't willing to
compromise her beliefs for other people's benefit. I was sort of
nodding my head, because I tend to go my own way... (you might have
gotten that impression?). He of course knows that I think this, so I
think it was all for my niece's benefit. (She's the most adorable
person, but is kind of hand fed if you know what I mean.) It seems to
me that people need to stand up for themselves, stop feeding at the
public trough, and stop feeling sorry for themselves.

Cannibal
 

I'm no lawyer, but it's changing the rules after the fact. That's
bogus.- Hide quoted text -

No its called a "Revision."

Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:17:53 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Ah Willie, I see you've been reading the Pardey's. If you read Lynn's
earliest stories you world have discovered that the major reason for
building Seraffyn (24'7") was lack of money to build bigger and the
Pardey's first published exercise was a letter to the editor of a
sailing magazine, in response to a published article, in which they
argue that a little boat can be as seaworthy as a big boat.

But your argue that a 27-30 ft. boat is ideal is just a pipe dream. A
VLCC or Box Carrier will be doing 30 K in weather that will keep you
in the harbor. Obviously you (once again) don't know what you are
talking about.

As for being pooped, boat length has nothing to do with it. If the
wave travels faster then the boat you get pooped, if the boat is at
wave speed, or faster, then you don't. But then, you don't have to
read a book to discover that little gem... just go sailing.


Boy, you sure display your sailing ignorance with each and every post.

If you have a boat that is fifty feet LOA and she is in a wave train that is
45 feet crest to crest just imagine what happens when running. Yes, the bow
goes up the wave in front and the stern drops just in time for the crest of
the following wave to poop the hell out of the transom. A 25-foot boat is
totally unaffected.

Good thinking.... and true, however...

A wave that was only 45 feet from crest to crest is a pretty small
wave. In fact, I can't even find a calculation that can be used to
calculate the dimensions of a wave this small. The closest I can find
by interpretation from the charts I have is:

A wave with a velocity of 10 M/S (36 MPH) in 10 M (~32 ft.) of water
would have a wave period of less then 4 seconds and a length of 200 M.

In other words your example is a highly unlikely (perhaps impossible)
situation.


How so Backwater? Are you comparing your S. Florida cove with Bali,
Jakarta, Singapore, Port Klang, Pinang, Or any of the Thai ports, and
that just covers a fraction of the places I've anchored in the past
few years.

Proof? How about some photos.

Sure, as soon as you post your log books along with proof that you
didn't concoct them out of thin air. Shoot! You can't even prove who
you are.

snip


I'm beginning to wonder about your continued rabbeting on about goals.
What ever are you going on about? My "goals" have been varied over the
years but have never been to sail a boat somewhere. It isn't a "goal"
to somehow be accomplished any more then driving to the convenience
store to get a can of beer. You just get in and go.

You see Willie-boy, you are romanticizing a subject that is just an
everyday occurrence. One of the shortcomings of reading rather then
doing.


Like I said, I have thousands of miles under my keel. I regularly sail in
more challenging conditions than you dream of. I've been on the open ocean
several times and it's nothing. Piece of cake and a rather boring one at
that. The real challenge is coastal cruising. The real enjoyment is coastal
cruising.

You are perfectly correct that you claim to have sailed thousands of
miles. In more challenging conditions then I, and you again claim that
conditions were more challenging, and all of it coastal, i.e., never
out of sight of land. But that is your claim.

I've actually done it.


Says the ground-to-a-halt voyager (since 35 years) who doesn't even
understand simple wavelength concepts. Says the dock dweller. Pah!

But, as I wrote above, I do understand wave dynamics and that is why I
don't listen to fools like you.


Boats are not some sort of Everest that has to be conquer. It is just
a form of transportation. Like your bicycle, a motor-car, even shoes.
Go you rabbit on about riding your bike to the 7-11 to get a tube of
toothpaste? Or extol your shoes and how you walk from house to house
reading the water-meters?

Now I think I begin to understand why you failed. Modern sailboats to us
real sailors represent a lifestyle. A sailboat is a home, a time machine, an
interface dancer, a compilation of systems the sailor must be intimately
familiar with and able to repair and modify when necessary. A sailboat is
FAR more than transportation.

What absolutely ignorance.

A Home, is it? Well, I've lived on a sailboat for most of 20 years
now.

A time machine? Well, I'll admit I am getting older.

An "interface dancer"? what in the world is that?

A compilation of systems? What are you going on about?

Sailing a boat is hardly as difficult or challenging as flying an
airplane and I could do that, albeit with an adult in the plane, when
I was 12 years old.

I sailed a 28 (FOD) Miscongus Bay Sloop (you may call it a "Friendship
Sloop, but that is wrong), with no engine, for several years up and
down the Maine coast with a one burner kerosene stove, a compass and a
Mobile Oil road map. No electrics except for a flashlight; no radio.
Canvas sails, manila ropes and a lead line.

I built my first boat when I was 12 years old (with my father's help.
It was only a small row boat, but it was a boat.

I have always made my own repairs, wood, fiberglass hulls, Wood and
aluminum spars, I can (under duress) splice wire rope from 1 X 19
through 7 X 7, and could do that since I was 19. I was a code welder
and can weld most metals including aluminum and titanium.

So don't go blathering on about the romance of boating. The essence of
a boat is "another way to get there".

If you don't believe read Bill Tilman, CBE, DSO, MC and Bar, was
rather famous mountaineer and sailor who when asked why he took up
sailing replied, "There were a lot of mountains I wanted to climb that
were only accessible by boat... So I learned to sail one in order to
get to the mountains".

Your attitude that a sailboat is just
transportion tells me you weren't ever able to appreciate what a sailboat
really is by virtue of the fact of your self-centeredness and ungodliness
where you place yourself in the center of the universe. This arrogance is
why you failed - you failed to appreciated the beauty of the machine and the
lifestyle. You viewed it as just another way to move your sorry fat carcass
around. This is so sad.

Failed? I'd say that I succeed. After all, I got to exactly where I
was going.


Willie-boy you go on about the romance and mystique of boating just
exactly like all the other wannabes. Try talking to someone who has
actually sailed to somewhere and you will be surprised at the lack of
romance there is. Just load the boat, check the mail, and go.


Perhaps you are to be pitied because you are too staid to ever appreciate
the beauty, romance, utility and connectedness of sailing. But, now all our
readers understand why you failed - one cannot master something one does not
understand.

You have a rather overheated imagination. Try talking to anyone who
has actually sailed somewhere and see whether your ethereal and
romantic outlook finds a soul mate.

The usual "sea story"of a real sailor after a trip is more like, "The
damned autopilot broke down about a week out and we had to hand steer
all the way". Or, perhaps, "We didn't have a breath of wind and had to
motor for two weeks". Another I heard was, "a damned storm hit us
about 200 miles north of Chagos and we layed a-hull for three days
before we could get going".

I have never heard a real sailor rabbit on about romance,
connectedness or any of the other platitudes heard from the romantic
dreamers who's maritime experience is measured by how many books
they've read.



Wilbur Hubbard


Cheers,

Bruce

Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:25:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:23:17 -0800 (PST), Bob
wrote:


As for being pooped, boat length has nothing to do with it. If the
wave travels faster then the boat you get pooped, if the boat is at
wave speed, or faster, then you don't. But then, you don't have to
read a book to discover that little gem... just go sailing.

My dear Bruce. I belive the defintion of getting pooped is when water
is shiped on deck. TO have a wave pass the boat is simply that: a wave
going by.

Please forgive me if I misunderstood your post.

Bob

I suspect that you are correct and I was guilty of jumping to the
conclusion that Willie was talking about running before the wind as a
storm tactic, in which case being pooped is usually when you aren't
traveling at wave speed and the waves are breaking over the stern.
Cheers,

Bruce




What a simpleton! A ballasted, monohull sailboat will not be able to outrun
the wave train. Fast multi-hulls may but the type of sailboat under
discussion here will have waves approach from astern (when running which is
the hoped-for case in the trades and elsewhere as in 'fair winds') slip
under the stern or quarter and move away from the bow.

You are really an ignorant oaf, aren't you? Did I ever say that a
monohull could outrun a wave? Nope, as I was replying to someone who
misinterpreted an earlier post I specified as many details as
possible.

If the wavelength happens to be (because of any number of diverse conditions
of wind, sea and depth) just slightly different than LOA, as the bow is
lifted by the wave exiting the bow the stern falls into the trough just in
time to have the top of the wave approaching from the stern poop it.

Yes, I keep hearing that but frankly, have never seen it happen and as
I wrote in another message I'm not sure that it can happen. Mind
giving us a reference (other then your wild claims),

Pah! You must have been lying about voyaging - either that or too drunk or
asleep to observe how things work.

Drunk? Am I the guy that went on about his even libations while
anchored (from the picture with the oars sticking out of the dinghy)
very close to shore.


Wilbur Hubbard

Cheers,

Bruce

Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:31:41 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:51:35 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
emptied ballast

Sir Eric may well have said/written that, however, given that Hiscock
was writing in an earlier time ("Wandering Under Sail" -1939) and who
died in 1986 I suggest that he was not writing about a rubber dinghy
which is a far different design from the small rowing boat that was
likely what Hiscock had experience with.

Poppycock! Sir Eric knew more about sailing than you can ever hope to. He
was talking about rowing dinghies and not so abortion of an inflatable
which
he could not and would not abide for all the obvious reasons. You must
think
I have a rubber duck. I do not. My dinghy is constructed of GRP and is six
feel long. Six-foot oars is the max length for my dinghy as they will lay
inside just like Sir Eric recommends. You are the clown the attempted to
say
it was nonsense to suggest oars should fit in the length of the dinghy.
So,
stop trying to obfuscate, man up, admit your mistake and apologize for
your
ignorant abusive tone.

Are you sure that you know what you are talking about?
For a very quick example, you refer to "Sir Eric Hiscock". He was
never knighted and never used that title.

My mistake. I was thinking he was knighted too just before he died. Like Sir
Robin Knox-Johnson and Sir Eric Hiscock. At any rate, he should have been
knighted. Maybe it was his wife, Susan? Dame Susan Hiscock???


did you really read the book? Of just see it in the window when
passing the store?

Of course I've read the book. Several times and it is in my library. Perhaps
you should acquire a copy and read it, too. It might help to dispell your
absurd notion that a sailboat is only transportation.


It is nonsense to suggest that oars short enough to fit inside the
boat is a major criterion for oar design. and arguing is simply
attempting to justify yet another stupid statements.

It is NOT nonsense! It is one of the necessary attributes according to
Hiscock and other authorities. Only a fool uses oars that extend outside the
ends of a rowing dinghy. Most any dinghy used by cruising sailors is eight
feet or more in lenght. Eight-foot oars will fit inside when no in use. Are
twelve-foot oars really better than eight-foot oars in an eight-foot dinghy?
C'mon - wake up.


Wilbur Hubbard



And, as usual you are toe dancing all around the subject.. You are the
one who stated, in your intrepid way that oars should fit inside the
boat... When I objected saying that wasn't the main criteria in
selecting oars you argued. Now you are saying that you don't need 12
foot oars to row a 8 ft. boat.... Probably not but the main criteria,
that the oars need to, as I said, reach the water, still hasn't
changed.

In other words, one selects ones oars to fit one's physical shape,
fitness and the size, mainly the width, of the boat. If they should
fit inside the boat then lucky you but it is rather unworldly to say
it is logical to saw off a perfectly good set of oars just to fit them
inside the boat.

Cheers,

Bruce

Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:47:33 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:54:30 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...


Dinghy Dock? And you've spent all this time nattering on about Marinas
and now you admit to anchoring off to avoid paying dockage and then
sneaking into the dinghy dock??


More proof that you never go anywhere. If you were a real cruiser you
would
use dinghy docks regularly when anchored in distant harbors. What do YOU
do?
Haul your dinghy ashore on private property? Probably. Some dinghy docks
charge a small fee and some are free - either way trying to change the
subject about the stupidity of having long oars protruding over the ends
or
sides of a dinghy just won't cut the mustard.

Wilbur Hubbard

Err... What "distant harbours are you referring to? The places I
anchor don't have "dinghy docks", they only have a beach. Private
property? Whatever are you talking about, there is no one there but
me.

Ah Willie... the penny drops - you are talking about the coast of
Florida. Not the far flung harbors and bays of the world. But I do
suppose that reading books give one a bit of a restricted viewpoint.

By the way, Willie-boy, the secret of not having your oars stick out
of your dinghy isn't to cut the oars off, a much better solution is to
build a longer dinghy.

Oh, but I forgot, you lack the skills to built a dinghy so you buy a
"rubber duck".

Cheers,

Bruce




Where did you ever get that rubber duck nonsense? I can't abide an
inflatable because they are more properly named a "deflatable." My dingy is
a six-foot bluff bow pram with a relaxed 'V' entry. It is constructed of GRP
and weighs only fifty pounds empty. It can be rowed fast and efficiently
with six-foot oars or motored with at 2hp outboard. It is light enough for
me to lift out of the water, turn upside-down and secure to my custom,
stainless steel stern pushpit for rough water and ocean cruising. For inland
and sheltered waters I tow it astern but to do so otherwise is not very
seamanlike.

Yes, I did look at your photo of sunset over the mangrove swamps that
included a bit of your dinghy. Your custom stern davits are not of the
off shore cruising type. Too flimsy. In fact I don't believe I know
anyone who starts an offshore voyage with the dinghy on aft davits.
Too easy to get the dingy full of water and busted loose. Most
experienced people get it up on deck and bottom up and tied down
before heading out. Aft stern davits are for when you get there and
are using the dinghy every day. Never for off shore trips.


I suppose you don't use your dinghy for anything but visiting secluded
beaches because you live at a dock and have all your groceries, water, fuel,
etc. delivered? Some sailor. We real sailors use our dinghies to ferry
supplies from the shore to the mother ship. Dinghy docks are the preferred
loading points as they are generally provided by the purveyors of said
supplies. Living aboard at a dock is just plain disgusting and depraved.
It's tantamount to trying to kayak down Mt. Everest. Wrong tool for the
wrong place.

Yes, I lived at anchor in the Singapore straits for several years. Not
only did I dinghy back and forth to the boat but lugged all my
provisions some 20 miles by bus, another 5 miles to the island by
speed boat and finally by dinghy to the boat, and if you find hauling
groceries out to a boat as something to rhapsodize over then you are a
far stranger individual then I've previously encountered.


Pah! You are no cruising sailor. Everything you write demonstrates that
fact.

Wilbur Hubbard



Cheers,

Bruce

Cannibal
 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:16:22 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
om...


That's not what the magazine article that he read said though!


Stow it! I speak from 35 years of ACTIVE sailing and living aboard
experience.

Willie-boy! Living on an anchored boat (live aboard, they call it,
sort of like maritime trailer trash) does not qualify you as an expert
in anything but ferrying groceries out to the boat and garbage back.

So, 35 years of being a grocery delivery boy and a Sanitation engineer
qualifies you for .?



As is the usual case, Bob is ill-informed. He seems to delight in displaying
his usual lack of due diligence and presumptuous mental impecuniousness


See my reply to the PUTZ, further up this thread, debunking his
misconceptions.



Wilbur Hubbard

Cheers,

Bruce

Cannibal
 

"Jessica B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:19:51 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:55:46 -0800 (PST), Bob
snip

And I support increased requirments completely. It time to keep the
drug users and fat asses off the water.

Somehow I don't get the impression that Capt. Wil is either a drug
user or a fat ass.


Thank you, Jessica, and well-said. As usual, you are more perceptive than
the so-called sailors. Beauty AND brains - so wonderful.


Wilbur Hubbard (wishing I were about forty years younger)


You're welcome! I didn't get the impression that you were doing
anything more than trying to give your honest, experienced opinion.

Sometimes I'm guilty of a little irony with some of the pretend sailors but,
for the most part, I try to be honest about my opinions.


Well, I'm not beautiful.. I'm better looking than a sack of potatoes..
that's what my next oldest brother says... it's kind of an inside
joke, since I used to play with sacks of potatoes when I was a kid...
don't ask!

Mr. Potato Head? LOL! You're too young for that one for sure.

But, you're wrong, you're quite beautiful. Both in mind and body so don't
underestimate your attributes. I think there are more men than anybody
thinks who would rather have a fit, attractive Tomboy type than some prissy
debutante who faints at the sight of a little dirt and sweat and is too weak
to do any real physical effort or enjoy the outdoors.


Wilbur Hubbard