JAXAshby wrote:
hoary, don't argue with me. a.) argue with the CG and/or the Corps of Eng
about what a lock is, and b.) argue with the physicists about anchors rodes.

what a fumb duck you are, hoary.


I'm not arguing with you. I am merely pointing out that your m.o. is to
make mountains out of molehills, and to so beat a subject into the
ground with your wild-assed commentary on the vagaries of boating that
no one really cares.

You add no value to boating discussions. None. Zip.

And you dress funny.



--

Subject: Shinnecock Inlet
From: (JAXAshby)


hoary, don't argue with me. a.) argue with the CG and/or the Corps of Eng
about what a lock is, and b.) argue with the physicists about anchors rodes.


Yeah, don't argue mit Doodles. It's obvious he doesn't know what he's talkin
about, and considering his past problems wit reading comprehension, you've only
got a one in one thousand chance that he read the CG and Corp sites correcty.

Shen

"Shen44" wrote

Yeah, don't argue mit Doodles. It's obvious he doesn't know what he's talkin
about, and considering his past problems wit reading comprehension, you've only
got a one in one thousand chance that he read the CG and Corp sites correcty.


Shen,
It isn't too hard to search the CG or Corps of Eng sites for all references to
"Shinnecock." There are very few, and none refer to the locks/gate. In the case of
the Corps, this is understandable, since they did not build nor do then maintain the
facility. I'm not sure if the CG area of responsibility extends through the canal,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly ever go through. Jax is bluffing- there
is no site, he never talked to the CG or Corps, he was never there.

There are however, a variety of rather explicit references to the locks, including the
size, number of gates and their operation. Its pretty clear they're regular locks,
with tide gates next to them. Its possible that jaxie heard someone say they went
through the gates when the current was south, and didn't realize you have to use the
locks to go back when the flow is the other way.

I called the lock tender just to make sure - he was rather surprised that someone
didn't understand how the facility works.

Subject: Shinnecock Inlet
From: "Jeff Morris"

It isn't too hard to search the CG or Corps of Eng sites for all references
to
"Shinnecock." There are very few, and none refer to the locks/gate. In the
case of
the Corps, this is understandable, since they did not build nor do then
maintain the
facility. I'm not sure if the CG area of responsibility extends through the
canal,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly ever go through.

About the only thing they would be responsible for would be any "aids" that
aren't privately maintained, although with their new responsibilities for
"homeland" security, I wouldn't be surprised that they have looked at the
"lock" in that regard.

Jax is
bluffing- there
is no site, he never talked to the CG or Corps, he was never there.

That's a given.


There are however, a variety of rather explicit references to the locks,
including the
size, number of gates and their operation. Its pretty clear they're regular
locks,
with tide gates next to them. Its possible that jaxie heard someone say they
went
through the gates when the current was south, and didn't realize you have to
use the
locks to go back when the flow is the other way.

To be sure I'm reading this correctly. The lock is mainly or exclusively used
on the incoming tide, not the outgoing?
BTW, I got a kick out of Jax' reference to people trying to make the Shinnecock
canal/lock into the Suez Canal...... mthere are NO locks in the Suez.

Shen

There are very few, and none refer to the locks/gate.

wrong, jeffies, though it is understandable that you couldn't find anything
having to do with "Corps of Eng" simpley because you had no idea whatsoever --
until this minute -- that it is short for "Army Corps of Engineers".

fumb duck.

jeffies, has never, ever, nowhere seen the canal -- not even from the highway
-- but he continues to claim expertise.

I wonder what jeffies is going to say when I tell him the "locks" are open on
an ebb, and **often** open on a flood. I wonder what jeffies is going to say
when I ask him how much difference there is in water height to produce a 5 knot
tidal flow?

watch jeffie's wife bark him about the head and shoulders because he doesn't
know what the phrase "tidal flow" means.



From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/21/2004 8:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Shen44" wrote

Yeah, don't argue mit Doodles. It's obvious he doesn't know what he's
talkin
about, and considering his past problems wit reading comprehension, you've
only
got a one in one thousand chance that he read the CG and Corp sites
correcty.


Shen,
It isn't too hard to search the CG or Corps of Eng sites for all references
to
"Shinnecock." There are very few, and none refer to the locks/gate. In the
case of
the Corps, this is understandable, since they did not build nor do then
maintain the
facility. I'm not sure if the CG area of responsibility extends through the
canal,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly ever go through. Jax is
bluffing- there
is no site, he never talked to the CG or Corps, he was never there.

There are however, a variety of rather explicit references to the locks,
including the
size, number of gates and their operation. Its pretty clear they're regular
locks,
with tide gates next to them. Its possible that jaxie heard someone say they
went
through the gates when the current was south, and didn't realize you have to
use the
locks to go back when the flow is the other way.

I called the lock tender just to make sure - he was rather surprised that
someone
didn't understand how the facility works.

Subject: Shinnecock Inlet
From: (JAXAshby)


because, I wish to show just how stew ped *you* [and, jeffies] are, hoary.
you
have no value in any discussion nautical.

ROFLMAO Now THERE'S the Pot calling the Kettle Black !!!!!!

Shen