|
Head
Hi all speaker of nautical english
Can somone explain to an ignorant furriner: Why is the toilet on a boat called "head" /Lars J |
The toilets of many ships used to be built into the decorations at the
bow under the bowsprit so you were going to the "head". This was a good location because they whole area got constantly washed by spray. Going to the heads must have been really tough in bad weather though. -- Roger Long "Lars Johansson" wrote in message ... Hi all speaker of nautical english Can somone explain to an ignorant furriner: Why is the toilet on a boat called "head" /Lars J |
Roger is correct but you must remember that the ships were square rigged
back then and always going down wind so that the smell from the head was not sent over the deck. |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:55:29 +0200, "Lars Johansson"
wrote: Hi all speaker of nautical english Can somone explain to an ignorant furriner: Why is the toilet on a boat called "head" /Lars J 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. This word head is graced with more than 20 distinct usages in an Oxford dictionary Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
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. -- 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 in message ... 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. Yah, yah, yah - we've all heard that crap hundreds of times already. Your not talking to a bunch of ignorant children, ya know. What a pathetic woman. An entire adult life that revolves around sewage, stink and human waste. Peggy, you are a walking, talking waste of humanity. You stink, Peggy Hall. Capt. Neal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
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 |
In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote: The toilets of many ships used to be built into the decorations at the bow under the bowsprit so you were going to the "head". This was a good location because they whole area got constantly washed by spray. Going to the heads must have been really tough in bad weather though. But in such weather one would not have to wipe. h -- To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"? |
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 |
Capt. Neal,
What's your problem? Peggie is one of the most informative posters in the group, you on the other hand..... Paul Capt. Neal® wrote: "Peggie Hall" wrote in message ... 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. Yah, yah, yah - we've all heard that crap hundreds of times already. Your not talking to a bunch of ignorant children, ya know. What a pathetic woman. An entire adult life that revolves around sewage, stink and human waste. Peggy, you are a walking, talking waste of humanity. You stink, Peggy Hall. Capt. Neal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
"Red Cloud©" wrote in message ... Neal is a self professed Pedophile. You can find out a lot about him with a quick google search. Sounds to me more like pedophile BAIT and it caught you. Read the last paragraph closely. It asks would you rule out *loving* a 12 or 13-year-old. It is your pedophile inclinations that caused you to draw the conclusion that love is sex. Bwahahahahhahahahhahahahahah! CN Here's one sample: Correction. Those were not electric shocks that made Bobsprit's boat bounce up and down. They were hydraulic jackstands. I think you also need a lesson about flat-chested women. Flat chested women are, almost without exception, better lovers. They have had to develop certain skills below the waistline in order to compensate for their small mammaries. They know what it takes to please a man because of it. I don't know about you but I have never had a pair of mammaries, regardless of how big they were, give me what an educated vagina can. There is yet another reason why every man should learn to love flat-chested women . . . many young women do not grow them until they are 12 or 13. Would you honestly rule them out because of it? Respectfully, Capt. Neal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Paul wrote:
Capt. Neal, What's your problem? . Neal's problem is, he's had a crush on me for years...and he's never matured past the age when boys pulled girls' hair to let 'em know they like 'em. Please don't feed him...it's like feeding a dog table scraps...just encourages him to keep begging for more. -- 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 |
"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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
"Red Cloud©" wrote in message ... Hardly. As I pointed out, this is but one sample, and anyone who want's to see more can google up plenty more. Here's another: -------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa From: "Capt. Neal®" Date: 1999/11/21 Subject: A Story of PUTZES I can see Loree taught you some new fetishes during her visit. Practice them on her. I am not interested in sex unless it is willingly provided by young nubile women under the age of consent. Respectfully, Capt. Neal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Again, you show how you, yourself are a latent (if not active) pedophile. Does the above say I have sex with children? No it does not. Bring on another one, please. Expose yourself for what you are, a sicko with pedophile tendencies and yearnings. CN |
"Peggie Hall" fantasized because she can't get any . . . Neal's problem is, he's had a crush on me for years...and he's never matured past the age when boys pulled girls' hair to let 'em know they like 'em. Please don't feed him...it's like feeding a dog table scraps...just encourages him to keep begging for more. You know damned well it's your use of this forum to advertise your business and products that bothers me. I pointed it out in another nearby post. Get your head out of your ass for once! CN |
Harlan Lachman wrote in news:hlachman-
: But in such weather one would not have to wipe. h Still don't if the Y-valve is set just right....(c; |
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 |
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 |
Brian Whatcott wrote:
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 Because that's where the "figurehead" was located............... |
Say what you want about her, but she really knows her ****...
Capt. Jeff |
Brian Whatcott wrote:
"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? Today we tend to think of the head as just one device...two heads as two devices. But that wasn't always true. So I think you're confusing the multiple holes in the board mounted on the the head of the ship with multiple toilets--multiple separate devices. Think instead in terms of an outhouse...it may be a 2-, 3- or even 4-holer...but it's still just one (singular) outhouse. So too was the board with multiple holes mounted on the bow--or at the head of--the ship. Btw...Sir Thomas Crapper didn't invent the flush toilet, either. :) -- 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 |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:07:45 GMT,
Peggie Hall wrote: Paul wrote: Capt. Neal, What's your problem? . Neal's problem is, he's had a crush on me for years...and he's never matured past the age when boys pulled girls' hair to let 'em know they like 'em. Please don't feed him...it's like feeding a dog table scraps...just encourages him to keep begging for more. That's kindof a poor comparison... for the dogs... -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." H.l. Mencken |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:15:47 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote: Brian Whatcott wrote: "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? Today we tend to think of the head as just one device...two heads as two devices. But that wasn't always true. So I think you're confusing the multiple holes in the board mounted on the the head of the ship with multiple toilets--multiple separate devices. Think instead in terms of an outhouse...it may be a 2-, 3- or even 4-holer...but it's still just one (singular) outhouse. So too was the board with multiple holes mounted on the bow--or at the head of--the ship. Btw...Sir Thomas Crapper didn't invent the flush toilet, either. :) Ah, you can support the connection between ship's head and sanitary head, because, in your view, there is not properly a plural sanitary term in nautical use: "heads" Got it! :-) Brian Whatcott Altus, OK |
Brian Whatcott wrote:
Ah, you can support the connection between ship's head and sanitary head, because, in your view, there is not properly a plural sanitary term in nautical use: "heads" Brian...you're WAAAAY overthinking it! It's actually a VERY simple concept: bow of boat aka the vessel's "head"...plank extending from "head" of vessel...sailors who came to think of the need to visit it as "using the head"...resulting in that name being given to all future boat toilets regardless of location. IMO, the origin of the name "bridge" for a vessel's command center is far more entertaining. -- 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 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:48:38 GMT, Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:15:47 GMT, Peggie Hall wrote: Brian Whatcott wrote: "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? Today we tend to think of the head as just one device...two heads as two devices. But that wasn't always true. So I think you're confusing the multiple holes in the board mounted on the the head of the ship with multiple toilets--multiple separate devices. Think instead in terms of an outhouse...it may be a 2-, 3- or even 4-holer...but it's still just one (singular) outhouse. So too was the board with multiple holes mounted on the bow--or at the head of--the ship. Btw...Sir Thomas Crapper didn't invent the flush toilet, either. :) Ah, you can support the connection between ship's head and sanitary head, because, in your view, there is not properly a plural sanitary term in nautical use: "heads" Got it! :-) Brian Whatcott Altus, OK Brian, If I may offer a little more clarification to this perplexing question.g When I was serving in the Royal Navy in the early 50's it was my experience that the terms "head" and "heads" were used interchangeably. One could go to the head or the heads and everyone knew what was meant. In a couple of ships in which I served, the layout of the heads, yes, there were two sets, one port and one starboard, both right up in the bow, were not a great deal different from the old sailing ship days, except it was no longer necessary to perform ones act in the open. The layout consisted of a trough just above knee height which served as the urinal, this trough then dropped down and continued beneath about 6 stalls. Sea-water was pumped continuously into one end, ran down the trough and exited through a hole in the hull. Sea-boats had to be careful not to get under the out-flow. One source of amusement was to bunch up a page of a news-paper, light it and drop it into the trough when all the stalls were full. It was advisable to beat a hasty retreat after doing so.g This URL will show you just how the heads looked on HMS Victory, Nelson's flag-ship at the Battle of Trafalgar, as you will see from the picture and the explanation, this is situated in the bow section of the ship. http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/...ory/heads.html The last modern war-ship I was on for a visit had flush heads, such luxury we could only dream about.g Jan "If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined" |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:54:48 -0400, Jan
wrote: On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:48:38 GMT, Brian Whatcott wrote: // Ah, you can support the connection between ship's head and sanitary head, because, in your view, there is not properly a plural sanitary term in nautical use: "heads" Got it! :-) Brian Whatcott Altus, OK Brian, If I may offer a little more clarification to this perplexing question.g When I was serving in the Royal Navy in the early 50's it was my experience that the terms "head" and "heads" were used interchangeably. One could go to the head or the heads and everyone knew what was meant. In a couple of ships in which I served, the layout of the heads, yes, there were two sets, one port and one starboard, both right up in the bow, were not a great deal different from the old sailing ship days, except it was no longer necessary to perform ones act in the open. The layout consisted of a trough just above knee height which served as the urinal, this trough then dropped down and continued beneath about 6 stalls. Sea-water was pumped continuously into one end, ran down the trough and exited through a hole in the hull. Sea-boats had to be careful not to get under the out-flow. One source of amusement was to bunch up a page of a news-paper, light it and drop it into the trough when all the stalls were full. It was advisable to beat a hasty retreat after doing so.g This URL will show you just how the heads looked on HMS Victory, Nelson's flag-ship at the Battle of Trafalgar, as you will see from the picture and the explanation, this is situated in the bow section of the ship. http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/...ory/heads.html The last modern war-ship I was on for a visit had flush heads, such luxury we could only dream about.g Jan "If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined" Ah yes: a ship of the line had heads both forward and aft, of varying sophistication. The only disappointment with this interesting URL is that there is no mention of buckets. At all! :-) Brian Whatcott |
Thanks,
that makes sense. /Lars J |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:57:56 GMT, Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:54:48 -0400, Jan wrote: On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:48:38 GMT, Brian Whatcott wrote: // Ah, you can support the connection between ship's head and sanitary head, because, in your view, there is not properly a plural sanitary term in nautical use: "heads" Got it! :-) Brian Whatcott Altus, OK Brian, If I may offer a little more clarification to this perplexing question.g When I was serving in the Royal Navy in the early 50's it was my experience that the terms "head" and "heads" were used interchangeably. One could go to the head or the heads and everyone knew what was meant. In a couple of ships in which I served, the layout of the heads, yes, there were two sets, one port and one starboard, both right up in the bow, were not a great deal different from the old sailing ship days, except it was no longer necessary to perform ones act in the open. The layout consisted of a trough just above knee height which served as the urinal, this trough then dropped down and continued beneath about 6 stalls. Sea-water was pumped continuously into one end, ran down the trough and exited through a hole in the hull. Sea-boats had to be careful not to get under the out-flow. One source of amusement was to bunch up a page of a news-paper, light it and drop it into the trough when all the stalls were full. It was advisable to beat a hasty retreat after doing so.g This URL will show you just how the heads looked on HMS Victory, Nelson's flag-ship at the Battle of Trafalgar, as you will see from the picture and the explanation, this is situated in the bow section of the ship. http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/...ory/heads.html The last modern war-ship I was on for a visit had flush heads, such luxury we could only dream about.g Jan "If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined" Ah yes: a ship of the line had heads both forward and aft, of varying sophistication. The only disappointment with this interesting URL is that there is no mention of buckets. At all! :-) Brian Whatcott Probably because the only use for buckets was for doing laundry, fire-fighting or carrying water and other items from one location to another such as the galley.g The layout shown was common on all ships, not just "ships of the line". With different degrees of sophistication, the head area of a frigate, which was not a ship of the line, would be more spartan than the "Victory", the same area in a sloop, barque, cutter or a transport would be on a similar level as the frigate, however, buckets were never used as relief stations, or to be more forthright "crapping in".bg A great deal depended on the size of the ship, the smaller the ship, less room, less room, less sophistication. A ship of the line was the largest thing afloat at that time, and even in the "Victory", you have to watch your head as there is little head-room (pun intended) for the average person to-day. Jan "If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined" |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:50:58 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote: "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? Not necessarily. I've heard these facilities referred to as "the heads" on more than one occasion. Perhaps that means a two-holer (port? starboard?) or perhaps it recalls the plural "catheads", one of which lie on either side of the bow and are large wooden beams used in lashing and belaying anchors on old square-riggers. I assume it could also be "the 'heads", as in "the (cat)heads, where the poop planks be, arrr, matey" and so on. Funny how the poop is at the opposite end of the ship from the head, but the sea is a mysterious place. Oh, and Peggie, you have done service both personal and general on the subject of marine sanitation for many years now. Yes, I know you sell Raritans, and yes, I know you recommend other certain brands, but you also don't hesitate to recommend Lavacs and W-Cs for those so inclined and in the right situations. I am neither so simon-pure nor so willfully ignorant so as to avoid the sound advice of a reasonable vendor, and I believe I possess the wit to determine an educated opinion from a sales pitch. Time and again you've guided me to online resources and products (which I can't buy from you regardless as I am thousands of miles away) that have improved my waste disposal issues here on the Great Lakes, where the options are few and the rules strict. Please don't let Capt. Fiddlekid or whomever it is to stop your helpful and informed posts. You exercise good judgment in drawing a line between experienced advice and mercantile advocacy. R. |
rhys wrote:
Oh, and Peggie, you have done service both personal and general on the subject of marine sanitation for many years now. Yes, I know you sell Raritans... That's a common misconception. I don't sell Raritan or anything else any more...and haven't since I sold my own company--or more accurately, the product line--to Raritan in Jan of 1999. I don't even sell my own book...my publisher does. I only get a small royalty for each copy sold. However, when I was in business, we were distributors/mail order retailers for EVERY major mfr of marine sanitation equipment and acessories, including Raritan. So I don't have any axe to grind whatever by recommending one product or mfr over another, and never have..I've always "called 'em as I see 'em" when it comes to what I think is the best for a particular boat and its owner. So while your kind words are based on a false premise, I do appreciate 'em! :) -- 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 |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:42:32 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote: That's a common misconception. I don't sell Raritan or anything else any more...and haven't since I sold my own company--or more accurately, the product line--to Raritan in Jan of 1999. I don't even sell my own book...my publisher does. I only get a small royalty for each copy sold. OK, even better in the sense that I thought you were still a marine-supplies merchant. However, when I was in business, we were distributors/mail order retailers for EVERY major mfr of marine sanitation equipment and acessories, including Raritan. So I don't have any axe to grind whatever by recommending one product or mfr over another, and never have..I've always "called 'em as I see 'em" when it comes to what I think is the best for a particular boat and its owner. So while your kind words are based on a false premise, I do appreciate 'em! :) Not a problem..and I can't understand someone who would criticize you on the basis of being a FORMER vendor of sea-going toilets G. R. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com