"Paul Schilter" ""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net" wrote

What's your problem? Peggie is one of the most informative posters in
the group, you on the other hand.....

I don't mind informative, what I *do* mind is years and years of the
same old crap (literally) used as an excuse to advertise, sell books,
and drum up business for her. It's something that should be frowned
upon on the Usenet which is NOT intended for advertising. Ethical
folks don't do what Peggie Hall does. She's acting like a whore in
my opinion. I'm just as sick of all you who give her a pass. I will not
give her a pass. I'm calling a spade a spade.

Note she has a five-line signature advertising her business. If she were
on the Usenet just to be helpful, she would not use each and every
post no matter how small as an opportunity to advertise.

Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Capt. Neal® the anencephalic wrote:
snip
who the fsck cares
after only one-day this bonehead goes pointy head first straight into my
idiot bin

*plonk* with _extreme_ prejudice

"prodigal1" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® the anencephalic wrote:
snip
who the fsck cares
after only one-day this bonehead goes pointy head first straight into my idiot bin

*plonk* with _extreme_ prejudice

******!

CN

Say what you want about her, but she really knows her ****...

Capt. Jeff

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:47:03 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote:

Brian Whatcott wrote:
Lacking a stronger source, I speculate:
a wooden bucket or small barrel was formerly used for the sanitary
purpose.
The top surface of a barrel is called the head.


Nice try, Brian and Ansley, but no cigar for either of you this
time...Roger's answer is the correct one--the head takes its name from
its original location at the head/bow of the vessel. And since waste
went directly overboard--no hoses or fixtures where sea water or waste
could collect--there was no odor. But since sailors of that era rarely
bathed, they wouldn't have noticed any odor from the head anyway.


This is certainly the explanation most often cited: but it lacks one
feature for full credibility: on ships of the line, there were
heads, and these often were placed at the bows.
While the bows is plural, the head (of a ship) is always singular.

Still, never mind!

Brian W

Brian Whatcott wrote:
This is certainly the explanation most often cited: but it lacks one
feature for full credibility: on ships of the line, there were
heads, and these often were placed at the bows.
While the bows is plural, the head (of a ship) is always singular.

You're not going far enough back in history, Brian...the first toilet
facilities on vessels pre-date the first century AD...Noah's ark prob'ly
had 'em.

By the time there were "ships of the line" in the 15th, 16th centuries,
there were even water closets--wooden "boxes" that even had flush water
reservoirs and trap doors that opened to the sea in the captain's
quarters and some other officers'/"guest" quarters which were in the aft
end of the ship. However, the crew's toilets were still in the bow--not
holes in the hull, but wooden planks with holes in 'em extending from
the bow and projecting below the figurehead...the crew had to climb over
to get down to 'em...and on small ships, they were dangerously close to
the waterline. On larger ships such as Nelson's "Victory" they were
higher and safer.


--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1

"Peggie Hall" wrote schoolmarmishly:


You're not going far enough back in history, Brian...the first toilet
facilities on vessels pre-date the first century AD...Noah's ark prob'ly
had 'em.

By the time there were "ships of the line" snipped drivel -advertising and
all.

Fascinating, YAWN!

CN

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:49:51 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote:

Brian Whatcott wrote:
This is certainly the explanation most often cited: but it lacks one
feature for full credibility: on ships of the line, there were
heads, and these often were placed at the bows.
While the bows is plural, the head (of a ship) is always singular.

You're not going far enough back in history, Brian...the first toilet
facilities on vessels pre-date the first century AD...Noah's ark prob'ly
had 'em.

By the time there were "ships of the line" in the 15th, 16th centuries,
there were even water closets--wooden "boxes" that even had flush water
reservoirs and trap doors that opened to the sea in the captain's
quarters and some other officers'/"guest" quarters which were in the aft
end of the ship. However, the crew's toilets were still in the bow--not
holes in the hull, but wooden planks with holes in 'em extending from
the bow and projecting below the figurehead...the crew had to climb over
to get down to 'em...and on small ships, they were dangerously close to
the waterline. On larger ships such as Nelson's "Victory" they were
higher and safer.


Peggie,
I am enjoying this poo-poo thread (unbelievably!) so don't take this
as the kind of defencive come-back, with which I am sure you are as
familiar as I am.

I did not put my point quite succinctly enough in a prior post:

"Heads" for pooping in are often plural: the heads of small barrels
or buckets can also be plural, but the head of a vessel is invariably
singular, is it not?

Brian W

Thanks,
that makes sense.
/Lars J