"Jessica B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:52:01 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:22:35 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:23:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
news:jsgio6l88tv5vm0u3gjqs4o32lm68rdrco@4ax. com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
snippage


I've seen way more sailors who use their engine as a crutch in lieu
of
learning how to handle their boat under sail. I've even had some of
the
Rubes in this very group try to say it's irresponsible to anchor
under
sail
if there are other boats anchored. They say such nonsense because
they
never
learned how to anchor under sail and if they tried they would most
likely
ram somebody. If they weren't so inept or inexperienced they would
discover
that a sailboat has better steering functionality under a balanced
sailplan
than under engine power alone.


I'd imagine that if the sailor is experienced in anchoring when
sailing that it wouldn't matter if there were rocks or other boats
around. I don't think I could do it, but ....

You could do it, Jessica, once you familiarized yourself with the
characteristics and handling of your sailboat, the ground tackle,
bottom
conditions and wind/current. Like anything else it just takes some
experience and some understanding of how things work. With your
analytical
mind, you'd be anchoring under sail with the best of them in no time.
It's
more about finesse than muscle. Even a big strong man simply cannot
muscle
a
four-ton sailboat into place. On the contrary, one must know what the
boat
is going to do and let the boat do it in the direction and velocity
one
desires. A sailboat is like a woman. You gotta let her do what she
wants
but
you have to know what she wants to do and then everything goes as
expected.


I hope we're going to get a lesson! I'm up for it if you have a pair
of gloves I can use.

I do. They might be a little large but they'll work. You'll like my
ground
tackle. The anchors aren't too big and they aren't all rusty and the
length
of chain is nice polished stainless steel. I get those gloves with the
little rubber dots on the palm side for better grip as the stainless
steel
tends to be slippery when wet. I'll be sure to have an extra pair or two
at
the ready for you ladies.


I've gotta get to the gym. Then, I'll email you more, but let me know
you got the last one!!

Work on the abs and biceps. You probably already have the legs being a
track
star. An anchor full of mud weighs about a hundred pounds. LOL! Just
kidding.


Wilbur Hubbard



Definitely get some gloves! 100 lbs? No prob.



Will do, they are cheap at the Dollar Store.

I spent all afternoon doing a good spring cleaning in the v-berth. My, but
what a disgusting mess in all the nooks and crannies. Mold and mildew and
dust and cat hair. I sure hope you and Jimbo aren't allergic to cats. I
had
to go over everything with bleach and water. Even the little nylon cargo
nets that hang along the ceiling (on a boat, ceiling means the walls on
the
inside of the hull) were dark with mildew. They are supposed to be white
but
they looked black when I removed all the miscellaneous junk and tossed
about
half of it into the garbage. I washed them in strong bleach, detergent and
water solution and they turned out nice and white again.

Tomorrow, I'm working my way aft cleaning and getting rid of a lot of
stuff
I haven't used in a year or so. I figure if I haven't used it in a year
it's
time for it to go. Otherwise the boat just gets too cluttered with junk.
I've bagged up all the unused crap and tossed it into the dinghy to take
it
ashore for the dumpster and the dinghy is down on its lines. Must be 100
pounds of crap - mostly old books. Now that I bought a Kindle I don't need
to carry a bunch of books. I also have a new digital portable TV you or
Jimbo can have if you want it. It's a little, seven inch flat screen HDTV.
I
bought it a few months ago but it turns out we're too far from Miami here
and there's no stations within range without some fancy tall TV antenna.
So,
it's useless for me.


Wilbur Hubbard


Neither of us are allergic. Buuuuut... thanks for doing a cleaning!!
Probably it was a good idea anyway!

Yes, it always surprises me how much dust can collect in a boat.

Thanks about the TV... not sure if either of us wants it, but we can
decide later right?

If neither of you has any use for it (I know you aren't much into TV which
is a good thing), I'll find somebody to give it to.

I should probably do something similar as far as cleaning goes. I'm
going to get my brother to visit when he gets in town, so I don't want
to gross him out. :-)

Don't worry, most men don't even notice things like that. Besides, he'll be
too busy hobbling around for a while longer to be bothered with it.

Well, I'm outta here.. the weather turned really beautiful including
warming up, so I'm going for a ride..

Good for you. Keeping those legs in shape will make you a better sailor. As
the boat sails over the "bounding main" the legs are always working to
maintain balance.

I haven't ridden this week since I did a fast 100 miles Sunday (about five
hours riding time). Since I have a time trials this Sunday, I'm letting my
leg muscles get saturated with all the good nutrients. Being a track person,
I bet you've heard of glycogen super compensation?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:35:06 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:08:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
snippage

A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans
are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract
from the dictionary below:

phoney ~ noun very rare
1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does
not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

phoney ~ adj very rare
1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance

As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how
ignorant you are.



That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about
something especially if it's a small thing.



BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol


Ha.. I see you admitted you were wrong about the tides thing with
Mark. So, it seems you aren't desperate to be right even if you're
wrong about something. Seems pretty adult and smart to me!



Thanks. Somebody's got to act mature around here. Bruce is so childish
with
his constant name-calling.

Somebody's also got to provide some balance for Bruce who, even when he's
totally wrong, like in spelling phony wrong, even managed to find some
antique dictionary that had a 'very rare' spelling of 'phoney' to attempt
to
justify his erroneous spelling rather than man up and admit he was
mistaken.
Real sailors don't act like that. LOL!


Wilbur Hubbard

My goodness Willie-boy but your reading comprehensive is sadly
lacking. The dictionary I use is WordNet, a free open lexical database
for English, by Cognitive Science Laboratory of Princeton University
under the direction of psychology professor George A. Miller.

Being supported by one of the better U.S. collages I would assume that
it would be satisfactory.

By the way, the classification "very rare" refers to the word's use in
common English usage. Your preferred spelling "phony" is rated exactly
the same.

So, once again the fabled "Outboard Willie" proves that it is better
to be quiet and be thought a fool then to speak and prove it.


I just have one question for you, Bruce. Isn't a "collage" an art form made
from various and sundry smaller parts? So pray tell what does this form of
art have to do with your misspelling phony as 'phoney'?

Enquiring minds wish to know. LOL!

Wilbur Hubbard

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:25:02 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
snip


Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.



Good grief, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more thick,
you do it.


Wilbur Hubbard


Yet another example of the amazing ignorance of the Armchair Sailor.
Or do you deliberately sail off into the typhoon?

(Well, perhaps you might.... if you ever sailed at all)



PKB! Talk about ignorance . . .

Poor Bruce is so sadly lacking in sailing knowledge. Why do I say this at
this point? It is because of his using the word "typhoon" out of context.
Doesn't he know that no typhoons occur other than in the Western Pacific and
Indian Oceans? Most certainly there are no typhoons in the western Atlantic
or the Caribbean Sea/Gulf of Mexico where I sail.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:03:35 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:32:32 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:19:40 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:15:06 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:13:00 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:20 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Jessica B wrote:

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.
Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

Not really. It's not a different of days, at least.

200 nm at 5 knots = 100 hours
200 nm at 7 knots = 71 hours

And if running from a storm you are running into a lee shore and
shallow water - just before the storm hits?

Pass...


The problem with all these armchair estimates that in a trip of any
length speeds are never that constant. Most people make an estimate of
how many miles they can do a day knowing that it (hopefully) is, at
best, an educated guess.

One trip I did at least once a year for about 10 years was anything
from an overnighter to something like 3 weeks (a bloke who's engine
broke and, as he said, he damned near ran our of food drifting 5 miles
that way and 4 miles back when the tide changed).

Cheers,

Bruce

Logically you would always use an average, so I don't understand what
would be wrong with estimates.

As I told you, estimates are often wrong by a considerable margin -
about 21 times as I mentioned above.

Cheers,

Bruce

Your logical conclusion seems to be multiply your estimated time of
travel by 21?? That's pretty excessive and it seems like you wouldn't
be going anywhere.


The example I gave (you really do need to read before commenting) as
an example of why estimates are not always logical, simply answers
your statement " I don't understand what would be wrong with
estimates."

Cheers,

Bruce

Please don't presume to tell me what to do.

You claimed that estimates are off by wide margins, then went on to
claim that your estimate of 21x was accurate for a particular
circumstance. How in the world is a person supposed to estimate when
it's safe or not safe to go if you don't look at predicted
information??????

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:48 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:35:15 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:30:16 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:18:02 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:59:07 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

chop

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Nor do I think that you have done much sailing.

If you are going someplace you set forth using all the sails that the
wind will allow. As time passes you alter that sail spread as the
winds allow. It is not really a matter of going as fast as YOU want to
go, rather going as fast as you CAN go.

Cheers,

Bruce

I absolutely have not done much sailing. What point are you trying to
make? Have I ever claimed that I was some experienced sailor?

We're still talking about averages. I don't think anyone thinks a
sailboat speed would be constant.


You are really obtuse. Deliberately so?

You say: "I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as
fast as possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more
dangerous."

and I'm simply saying that it is not a matter of going as fast or slow
as possible. It is a matter of how hard the wind blows that governs
things, something far outside the control of the boat and those in it.

Cheers,

Bruce

I think you're deliberately twisting the meaning of what I was trying
to say. I never said it was "simply" a matter of faster. I said it was
a better idea!

Well of course it depends on the wind, tides, etc. What does that have
to do with anything???


Of course it depends on the winds, tides, etc. Which is the point I've
been trying to convince you of.

But what does that have to do with anything? Quite simply everything,
as the winds and tides are what are causing you to move, assuming a
sailboat, or course.

Cheers,

Bruce

Like I said, I think you're twisting the meaning of what I said. It's
like suddenly it's a revelation that it's not just a matter of going
as fast as possible. Well, duhhh... this is your claim to expert
knowledge???

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:59:28 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:35:06 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:08:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
snippage

A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans
are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract
from the dictionary below:

phoney ~ noun very rare
1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does
not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

phoney ~ adj very rare
1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance

As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how
ignorant you are.



That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about
something especially if it's a small thing.



BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol


Ha.. I see you admitted you were wrong about the tides thing with
Mark. So, it seems you aren't desperate to be right even if you're
wrong about something. Seems pretty adult and smart to me!



Thanks. Somebody's got to act mature around here. Bruce is so childish with
his constant name-calling.

Somebody's also got to provide some balance for Bruce who, even when he's
totally wrong, like in spelling phony wrong, even managed to find some
antique dictionary that had a 'very rare' spelling of 'phoney' to attempt to
justify his erroneous spelling rather than man up and admit he was mistaken.
Real sailors don't act like that. LOL!


Wilbur Hubbard

My goodness Willie-boy but your reading comprehensive is sadly
lacking. The dictionary I use is WordNet, a free open lexical database
for English, by Cognitive Science Laboratory of Princeton University
under the direction of psychology professor George A. Miller.

Being supported by one of the better U.S. collages I would assume that
it would be satisfactory.

By the way, the classification "very rare" refers to the word's use in
common English usage. Your preferred spelling "phony" is rated exactly
the same.

So, once again the fabled "Outboard Willie" proves that it is better
to be quiet and be thought a fool then to speak and prove it.


Cheers,

Bruce

Sorry,but you're not making any sense. I think you're defending your
(wrong) position simply because you can't stand to be wrong about
anything.

If I type 'define phony' (no quotes) into Google, I get the Princeton
definition as the first hit.

If I type 'define phoney' (no quotes), I get the familiar Did you
mean: define phony.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:56:14 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:13:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
...
snip

JMB just e-mailed me. She sounds like an organized person and a
go-getter.
I
CC'd you my reply to her. Things are looking good. She's got some firm
dates
in mind so check your inbox. Sounds like she's planning to rent a car at
the
airport so you two should coordinate your flights if you can so you can
ride
together. It sure would save me time going back and forth twice to the
airport. In exchange I've offered to get you guys a room while you're
here
so you can have all the luxuries you're used to and a safe place for
your
luggage. Sounds like a deal to me. ;-)

You're an EXCELLENT person!

Thanks, I guess it takes one to know one. LOL! You're a real sweetheart,
Jessica B! You deserve excellence.

I promise to be better about email and such. I've just been swamped
with job and personal stuff.

I understand (now). Good to have you back. ;-)


snip



I'm picky... I only want the best... someone said that.. not sure who.



It sure wasn't that ungentlemanly Bruce in Bangkok. . . How would you like
to be married to him. Why, it wouldn't surprise me if his wife was miserable
because he's verbally abused her for years. He seems to be well-practiced at
it.


Wilbur Hubbard

AS I have repeatedly said - IGNORANT! You posted that little tirade as
response to the wrong message.

Do try to read before writing in the future.


Cheers,

Bruce

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:18:03 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:25:02 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
snip


Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.



Good grief, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more thick,
you do it.


Wilbur Hubbard


Yet another example of the amazing ignorance of the Armchair Sailor.
Or do you deliberately sail off into the typhoon?

(Well, perhaps you might.... if you ever sailed at all)



PKB! Talk about ignorance . . .

Poor Bruce is so sadly lacking in sailing knowledge. Why do I say this at
this point? It is because of his using the word "typhoon" out of context.
Doesn't he know that no typhoons occur other than in the Western Pacific and
Indian Oceans? Most certainly there are no typhoons in the western Atlantic
or the Caribbean Sea/Gulf of Mexico where I sail.

Wilbur Hubbard


Willie-boy, I live in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Cheers,

Bruce

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:24:05 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:03:35 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:32:32 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:19:40 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:15:06 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:13:00 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:20 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Jessica B wrote:

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.
Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

Not really. It's not a different of days, at least.

200 nm at 5 knots = 100 hours
200 nm at 7 knots = 71 hours

And if running from a storm you are running into a lee shore and
shallow water - just before the storm hits?

Pass...


The problem with all these armchair estimates that in a trip of any
length speeds are never that constant. Most people make an estimate of
how many miles they can do a day knowing that it (hopefully) is, at
best, an educated guess.

One trip I did at least once a year for about 10 years was anything
from an overnighter to something like 3 weeks (a bloke who's engine
broke and, as he said, he damned near ran our of food drifting 5 miles
that way and 4 miles back when the tide changed).

Cheers,

Bruce

Logically you would always use an average, so I don't understand what
would be wrong with estimates.

As I told you, estimates are often wrong by a considerable margin -
about 21 times as I mentioned above.

Cheers,

Bruce

Your logical conclusion seems to be multiply your estimated time of
travel by 21?? That's pretty excessive and it seems like you wouldn't
be going anywhere.


The example I gave (you really do need to read before commenting) as
an example of why estimates are not always logical, simply answers
your statement " I don't understand what would be wrong with
estimates."

Cheers,

Bruce

Please don't presume to tell me what to do.

You claimed that estimates are off by wide margins, then went on to
claim that your estimate of 21x was accurate for a particular
circumstance. How in the world is a person supposed to estimate when
it's safe or not safe to go if you don't look at predicted
information??????

No, as I said read before writing. I used the 21 day story to
illustrate why estimates can be wildly wrong.


Cheers,

Bruce

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:26:13 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:48 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:35:15 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:30:16 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:18:02 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:59:07 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

chop

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Nor do I think that you have done much sailing.

If you are going someplace you set forth using all the sails that the
wind will allow. As time passes you alter that sail spread as the
winds allow. It is not really a matter of going as fast as YOU want to
go, rather going as fast as you CAN go.

Cheers,

Bruce

I absolutely have not done much sailing. What point are you trying to
make? Have I ever claimed that I was some experienced sailor?

We're still talking about averages. I don't think anyone thinks a
sailboat speed would be constant.


You are really obtuse. Deliberately so?

You say: "I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as
fast as possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more
dangerous."

and I'm simply saying that it is not a matter of going as fast or slow
as possible. It is a matter of how hard the wind blows that governs
things, something far outside the control of the boat and those in it.

Cheers,

Bruce

I think you're deliberately twisting the meaning of what I was trying
to say. I never said it was "simply" a matter of faster. I said it was
a better idea!

Well of course it depends on the wind, tides, etc. What does that have
to do with anything???


Of course it depends on the winds, tides, etc. Which is the point I've
been trying to convince you of.

But what does that have to do with anything? Quite simply everything,
as the winds and tides are what are causing you to move, assuming a
sailboat, or course.

Cheers,

Bruce

Like I said, I think you're twisting the meaning of what I said. It's
like suddenly it's a revelation that it's not just a matter of going
as fast as possible. Well, duhhh... this is your claim to expert
knowledge???

(Goodness you sound like Willie)

I wrote:
and I'm simply saying that it is not a matter of going as fast or slow
as possible. It is a matter of how hard the wind blows that governs
things, something far outside the control of the boat and those in it

You wrote:
Well of course it depends on the wind, tides, etc. What does that have
to do with anything???

I wrote:
But what does that have to do with anything? Quite simply everything,
as the winds and tides are what are causing you to move, assuming a
sailboat, or course.

How so "twisting meanings"?
Cheers,

Bruce