"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...



Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing!

It strikes
me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb
position.


Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised.


But at least I'm
not the one who came up with it.


really? show me the post where I wrote that first.

SBV




Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek
though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers
floating around in
a way that they could sink boats.



What you suggested was dumb...D U M B !

You replied that it was "the dumbest thing
(you) had ever read."


''this week''. I haven't read your past posts.


doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring
containers to
sink.



When you ASS U me stuff, you make an ASS out of U, not ME.


Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat,
where they can
do harm.


You are WRONG again! Are you related to Boobspit?




SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better
solution.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing
cousin: Post a better
solution.


I never said I had a better solution, although given 15
minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb
idea.
I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded
containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week.
It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing
cousin: Post a better
solution.


I never said I had a better solution, although given 15
minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb
idea.
I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded
containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week.
It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible.

SBV



Now that's the dumbest post I've read all year. My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load or ballast them in a way that they
would always sink if they went overboard. And since you have been thinking
about this for a few days now without posting a better idea, capable only of
casting derision upon those who actually HAVE ideas, I must now consider you
to be incapable of having any ideas of your own.

However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in


My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load them



Hooh Boy!

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in


My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load them



Hooh Boy!



Clock's ticking, bubbie.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
news

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in


My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load them



Hooh Boy!



Clock's ticking, bubbie.

tick, tock, tick,
tock...Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt !

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...


However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You
now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.


'Breather tubes' in all eight corners.
However, they must be designed to not let rain water in. And
the reefer units would need some kind of insulation in them.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...


However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You
now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.


'Breather tubes' in all eight corners.
However, they must be designed to not let rain water in. And
the reefer units would need some kind of insulation in them.

SBV




As has already been pointed out by others, shipping containers are not
airtight or watertight, and fail to sink only because of the buoyancy (if
any) of their contents. "Breather Tubes" to let more air out, or more water
in, will not solve the essential problem. Clock's still ticking.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...


However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You
now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.


'Breather tubes' in all eight corners.
However, they must be designed to not let rain water in. And
the reefer units would need some kind of insulation in them.

SBV




As has already been pointed out by others, shipping containers are not
airtight or watertight, and fail to sink only because of the buoyancy (if
any) of their contents. "Breather Tubes" to let more air out, or more
water in, will not solve the essential problem. Clock's still ticking.


Well, I gave you half an hour and you've still not come up with a better
idea. Guess you lose, eh? :-D