JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, give it up. the damned thing is a gate, as described by both theCG
and the C of Eng.


Where do they say that, jaxie? In a dream you had? Certainly not on
the internet or in any publication! And what involvement does the Corps
of Eng have with it? You made this up and now you're lying because
you're too much of a coward to admit your blunder.


Whats more, *IF* you had ever seen the thing *OR* talked
with anyone who works adjacent to the canal you would know (well maybe not you,
jeffies, but the person of at least high two digit or more IQ would know) that
the damned gate if often left open for extended periods of time, totally
negating its intended purpose of limiting the flow of seawater in Peconic Bay.

We can all look at it Jaxie. Here's a pictu

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

Can you possibly claim this is not a lock?

As for "negating the purpose" there has been discussion about revering
the gates to allow more sea water into Peconic bay. But regardless,
that's a lock next to the tide gates. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

jeffies, a gate is used to impede fluid flow. a lock uses two gates to move a
boat from a body of water at one level to a body of water at another level.
jeffies, I know this is hard for you to understand, so ask your wife to help
you out here, but the Peconic Bay and Hampton Bay are tidal waters. Same
tides, same moon. the gates are there to impede the flow of tidal water from
Hampton Bay ***to*** Peconic Bay (which is less salty because of river flow).
the gates are often not closed and HB water flows freely into RB. I have seen
the gates open and have seen HB water flowing towards PB at what seemed to be
about 4 knots. I have also seen the gates open with PB water flowing towards
HB at what seemed to be about 4 knots. I have also talked with employees of
the marina on the canal who stated flatly that the gates were often open for
extended periods of time.

that ain't a lock, jeffies, it is a gate. Different purposes for either. The
CG and C of Eng know the difference even if you don't jeffies.

kriste but it is tough trying to talk with 80 IQ idiots.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 11/25/2004 10:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, give it up. the damned thing is a gate, as described by both
theCG
and the C of Eng.


Where do they say that, jaxie? In a dream you had? Certainly not on
the internet or in any publication! And what involvement does the Corps
of Eng have with it? You made this up and now you're lying because
you're too much of a coward to admit your blunder.


Whats more, *IF* you had ever seen the thing *OR* talked
with anyone who works adjacent to the canal you would know (well maybe not
you,
jeffies, but the person of at least high two digit or more IQ would know)
that
the damned gate if often left open for extended periods of time, totally
negating its intended purpose of limiting the flow of seawater in Peconic
Bay.

We can all look at it Jaxie. Here's a pictu

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

Can you possibly claim this is not a lock?

As for "negating the purpose" there has been discussion about revering
the gates to allow more sea water into Peconic bay. But regardless,
that's a lock next to the tide gates. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

I would not be surprised if the gates are, at times left open in both
directions. As I've said, there has been talk reversing the gates to
allow better flushing of the bay:
http://www.savethepeconicbays.org/cc.../appendixl.doc
However, the lock tender didn't mention this when I talked to him about
the lock.

I don't think the "reversal" was done at the recent refit of the lock
gates. Note that this was a refit of the "lock gates," not the "tide
gates" nearby. They even have a picture of the lock:
http://jmoa.com/structural/portfolio.asp?ID=139

I did find one mention of the canal in a Corps of Eng report. They say:
"This canal has a tidal gate, allowing water to enter Shinnecock Bay but
not leave it." I guess you talked to a different Corps of Engineers.
http://cirp.wes.army.mil/cirp/cetns/chetn-iv42.pdf

The issue is not whether the lock is, on occasion, left open. You have
claimed many times that there is no lock, and there is only a tide gate.
However, the picture is pretty clear and proves not only that you're
wrong, but that you've never actually been there and you've been lying
about this since the beginning.

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg







JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, a gate is used to impede fluid flow. a lock uses two gates to move a
boat from a body of water at one level to a body of water at another level.
jeffies, I know this is hard for you to understand, so ask your wife to help
you out here, but the Peconic Bay and Hampton Bay are tidal waters. Same
tides, same moon. the gates are there to impede the flow of tidal water from
Hampton Bay ***to*** Peconic Bay (which is less salty because of river flow).
the gates are often not closed and HB water flows freely into RB. I have seen
the gates open and have seen HB water flowing towards PB at what seemed to be
about 4 knots. I have also seen the gates open with PB water flowing towards
HB at what seemed to be about 4 knots. I have also talked with employees of
the marina on the canal who stated flatly that the gates were often open for
extended periods of time.

that ain't a lock, jeffies, it is a gate. Different purposes for either. The
CG and C of Eng know the difference even if you don't jeffies.

kriste but it is tough trying to talk with 80 IQ idiots.




From: Jeff Morris
Date: 11/25/2004 10:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, give it up. the damned thing is a gate, as described by both

theCG

and the C of Eng.


Where do they say that, jaxie? In a dream you had? Certainly not on
the internet or in any publication! And what involvement does the Corps
of Eng have with it? You made this up and now you're lying because
you're too much of a coward to admit your blunder.



Whats more, *IF* you had ever seen the thing *OR* talked
with anyone who works adjacent to the canal you would know (well maybe not

you,

jeffies, but the person of at least high two digit or more IQ would know)

that

the damned gate if often left open for extended periods of time, totally
negating its intended purpose of limiting the flow of seawater in Peconic

Bay.

We can all look at it Jaxie. Here's a pictu

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

Can you possibly claim this is not a lock?

As for "negating the purpose" there has been discussion about revering
the gates to allow more sea water into Peconic bay. But regardless,
that's a lock next to the tide gates. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

jeffie, your post below shows clearly just to what lengths you will go to
ignore ALL reality to keep your erroneous first thoughts in place. you admit
you have been shown the dictionary meanings of the words, you admit you
understand that there is no difference in water levels, you admit the gates are
often left open, you admit, the purpose of the gates was and is to prevent
saltier Hampton Bay water from entering Peconic Bay, you admit the CG says the
thing is is gate not a lock, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT you still insist it is
lock because ********you****** looked at a picture and *******you******** can't
imagine anything with two gates that can not be a lock.

Kriste almighty, jeffies, just how is anyone going to transit the canal when
the gate is closed without opening it????????????????????? THEN you have to
have two (2) gates, otherwise the water would flow into Peconic Bay when you
opened the gate. Duh.

jeffies, sometime when you post such stew ped stuff I think you are doing it
just to be a contentious turd. Other times, I think you really don't
understand.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 11/26/2004 8:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

I would not be surprised if the gates are, at times left open in both
directions. As I've said, there has been talk reversing the gates to
allow better flushing of the bay:
http://www.savethepeconicbays.org/cc.../appendixl.doc
However, the lock tender didn't mention this when I talked to him about
the lock.

I don't think the "reversal" was done at the recent refit of the lock
gates. Note that this was a refit of the "lock gates," not the "tide
gates" nearby. They even have a picture of the lock:
http://jmoa.com/structural/portfolio.asp?ID=139

I did find one mention of the canal in a Corps of Eng report. They say:
"This canal has a tidal gate, allowing water to enter Shinnecock Bay but
not leave it." I guess you talked to a different Corps of Engineers.
http://cirp.wes.army.mil/cirp/cetns/chetn-iv42.pdf

The issue is not whether the lock is, on occasion, left open. You have
claimed many times that there is no lock, and there is only a tide gate.
However, the picture is pretty clear and proves not only that you're
wrong, but that you've never actually been there and you've been lying
about this since the beginning.

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg







JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, a gate is used to impede fluid flow. a lock uses two gates to
move a
boat from a body of water at one level to a body of water at another level.

jeffies, I know this is hard for you to understand, so ask your wife to
help
you out here, but the Peconic Bay and Hampton Bay are tidal waters. Same
tides, same moon. the gates are there to impede the flow of tidal water
from
Hampton Bay ***to*** Peconic Bay (which is less salty because of river
flow).
the gates are often not closed and HB water flows freely into RB. I have
seen
the gates open and have seen HB water flowing towards PB at what seemed to
be
about 4 knots. I have also seen the gates open with PB water flowing
towards
HB at what seemed to be about 4 knots. I have also talked with employees
of
the marina on the canal who stated flatly that the gates were often open
for
extended periods of time.

that ain't a lock, jeffies, it is a gate. Different purposes for either.
The
CG and C of Eng know the difference even if you don't jeffies.

kriste but it is tough trying to talk with 80 IQ idiots.




From: Jeff Morris
Date: 11/25/2004 10:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, give it up. the damned thing is a gate, as described by both

theCG

and the C of Eng.


Where do they say that, jaxie? In a dream you had? Certainly not on
the internet or in any publication! And what involvement does the Corps
of Eng have with it? You made this up and now you're lying because
you're too much of a coward to admit your blunder.



Whats more, *IF* you had ever seen the thing *OR* talked
with anyone who works adjacent to the canal you would know (well maybe not

you,

jeffies, but the person of at least high two digit or more IQ would know)

that

the damned gate if often left open for extended periods of time, totally
negating its intended purpose of limiting the flow of seawater in Peconic

Bay.

We can all look at it Jaxie. Here's a pictu

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

Can you possibly claim this is not a lock?

As for "negating the purpose" there has been discussion about revering
the gates to allow more sea water into Peconic bay. But regardless,
that's a lock next to the tide gates. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

Gawd Jaxie, what a blatant liar you are! Have you no shame??? Have
you ever told the truth about anything?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffie, your post below shows clearly just to what lengths you will go to
ignore ALL reality to keep your erroneous first thoughts in place. you admit
you have been shown the dictionary meanings of the words, you admit you
understand that there is no difference in water levels,

A lie - The tide tables are pretty clear there is a significant
difference in the tide levels between the two bays. I pointed this out
early on - you seemed to claim this was impossible, but the tables don't
lie. This is just one of the many instances where you have shown your
complete ignorance of things nautical.

you admit the gates are often left open,

Another lie - I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
You provided no evidence it does, other than your claim, which is worthless.

Of course, the lock gates were designed to automatically open when the
current runs south - I pointed that out in my first post.

you admit, the purpose of the gates was and is to prevent
saltier Hampton Bay water from entering Peconic Bay,

Another lie - I never mentioned the original purpose of the facility,
only how the Coast Pilot says they operate now. The gates and lock were
built before a Hurricane (1938?) opened Shinnecock Inlet so the
conditions have changed. The lock, BTW, was added years after the
original tide gates were built.

you admit the CG says the
thing is is gate not a lock,

Another lie - I have found no mention of the facility from the CG. You
have made this claim, but you obviously made it up. The Coast Pilot,
published by the Office of Coast Survey under NOAA is quite clear there
are tide gates and a lock.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT you still insist it is
lock because ********you****** looked at a picture and *******you******** can't
imagine anything with two gates that can not be a lock.

I call it a lock because it is a lock. NOAA calls it a lock. The Corps
of Eng calls it a lock. The company that repaired it recently calls it
a lock. The agency that owns and maintains it calls it a lock. The
lock tender that runs it calls is a lock. Numerous reports describe it
as a lock. Several reports of transit describe it functioning as a
lock. All of this is from published sites I've provided. And a picture
of it clearly shows its a lock:

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

The only thing that is different about it is that the gates are designed
to stay open when the current runs south. And there are tide gates next
to the lock that open with the southerly current But I said that on
my very first post.



Kriste almighty, jeffies, just how is anyone going to transit the canal when
the gate is closed without opening it????????????????????? THEN you have to
have two (2) gates, otherwise the water would flow into Peconic Bay when you
opened the gate. Duh.

What? Are you claiming now that you don't know how a lock works?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Are you claiming it can't be a lock because its
a chamber with with gates on both ends???

perhaps you should study this for a while, jaxie:
http://www.eriecanal.org/locks.html
or maybe:
http://www.haworth-village.org.uk/na...canal-lock.asp
This one has cuter pictures:
http://www.fodc.org/info/fodclock.htm

I knew there was a fundamental problem here - you have no idea how a
lock works!!! What a bozo you are, jaxie!!!

jeffies, you finally admit the gates ar open on a an ebb tide, but then state
there is a huge difference in tide levels between the two bays.

think about it, jeffies. you just stated that the current would *not* flow
north.

jeffies, I have seen the current flow south on an ebb and north on a flood, the
gates wide open..

so, jeffies, gargble around some more, continuing to prove to one and all you
either are purposely a contentious turd or you are trying desparately to cover
your abject stewpedity.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 11/26/2004 1:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Gawd Jaxie, what a blatant liar you are! Have you no shame??? Have
you ever told the truth about anything?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffie, your post below shows clearly just to what lengths you will go to
ignore ALL reality to keep your erroneous first thoughts in place. you
admit
you have been shown the dictionary meanings of the words, you admit you
understand that there is no difference in water levels,

A lie - The tide tables are pretty clear there is a significant
difference in the tide levels between the two bays. I pointed this out
early on - you seemed to claim this was impossible, but the tables don't
lie. This is just one of the many instances where you have shown your
complete ignorance of things nautical.

you admit the gates are often left open,

Another lie - I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
You provided no evidence it does, other than your claim, which is worthless.

Of course, the lock gates were designed to automatically open when the
current runs south - I pointed that out in my first post.

you admit, the purpose of the gates was and is to prevent
saltier Hampton Bay water from entering Peconic Bay,

Another lie - I never mentioned the original purpose of the facility,
only how the Coast Pilot says they operate now. The gates and lock were
built before a Hurricane (1938?) opened Shinnecock Inlet so the
conditions have changed. The lock, BTW, was added years after the
original tide gates were built.

you admit the CG says the
thing is is gate not a lock,

Another lie - I have found no mention of the facility from the CG. You
have made this claim, but you obviously made it up. The Coast Pilot,
published by the Office of Coast Survey under NOAA is quite clear there
are tide gates and a lock.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT you still insist it is
lock because ********you****** looked at a picture and *******you********
can't
imagine anything with two gates that can not be a lock.

I call it a lock because it is a lock. NOAA calls it a lock. The Corps
of Eng calls it a lock. The company that repaired it recently calls it
a lock. The agency that owns and maintains it calls it a lock. The
lock tender that runs it calls is a lock. Numerous reports describe it
as a lock. Several reports of transit describe it functioning as a
lock. All of this is from published sites I've provided. And a picture
of it clearly shows its a lock:

http://www.sv-loki.com/shinnecock.jpg

The only thing that is different about it is that the gates are designed
to stay open when the current runs south. And there are tide gates next
to the lock that open with the southerly current But I said that on
my very first post.



Kriste almighty, jeffies, just how is anyone going to transit the canal
when
the gate is closed without opening it????????????????????? THEN you have
to
have two (2) gates, otherwise the water would flow into Peconic Bay when
you
opened the gate. Duh.

What? Are you claiming now that you don't know how a lock works?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Are you claiming it can't be a lock because its
a chamber with with gates on both ends???

perhaps you should study this for a while, jaxie:
http://www.eriecanal.org/locks.html
or maybe:
http://www.haworth-village.org.uk/na...canal-lock.asp
This one has cuter pictures:
http://www.fodc.org/info/fodclock.htm

I knew there was a fundamental problem here - you have no idea how a
lock works!!! What a bozo you are, jaxie!!!

How can you lie like this jaxie? Don't you realize that from now
everyone knows you're a pathological liar and will never believe
anything you ever say?

JAXAshby the pathological liar wrote:
jeffies, you finally admit the gates ar open on a an ebb tide,

I said that from the beginning. From the first, and many times after
I've quoted from the Coast Pilot:
"The lock gates and
tide gates are constructed so that tidal action opens
them to allow the current to set south through the
canal and closes them to prevent water from
Shinnecock Bay to flow back into Great Peconic Bay"

but then state
there is a huge difference in tide levels between the two bays.

Yes there is - several feet or more at times, measured a few miles apart
on opposite sides of the canal. Anyone can look that up, but it seems
beyond your skills or comprehension.


think about it, jeffies. you just stated that the current would *not* flow
north.

What part of "and closes them to prevent water from
Shinnecock Bay to flow back into Great Peconic Bay" do you not
understand? I'm not making this up; this is the Coast Pilot, published
by the US Coast Survey.



jeffies, I have seen the current flow south on an ebb and north on a flood, the
gates wide open..

What you think you've seen is of no relevance here. In addition to
being a pathological liar, you have no understanding of how a lock even
works. It is doubtful that you would even know which way is north.
And, it does not bear on the issue of whether the facility is a "lock."
I've seen a lock wide open many times; they are still a lock.

Perhaps if you posted a reference to back up your claim that this is the
normal practice ... but you would never do that.