Skip Gundlach wrote:
....
Well, apparently several reasons. None are particularly
important; I presume it to be that I misread a fouled anchor,
when, instead, it was a lousy mud bottom which had done me in on
the first pull. Not having sampled the bottom directly, but only
by apparent set, I didn't know the nature of it as being -
apparently, in hindsight - the same lousy stuff we abandoned on
the other side of the channel when we first started on our time
in Oxford, when we didn't set well, and I did, indeed, do the bottom
sample, albeit with a 55# Delta.

Duh! What a coincidence - soft mud in two different parts of the
Chesapeake! What are the odds of that?

'''

I can't find anything by him. However, in the book of the same name
by Hinz, the author suggests sampling only a very small portion of
only the surface. If you thought that duck consisted of a few inch
circle of feathers, you'd be missing a pretty good meal, but that's
what you'd get with his soap, grease or other sticky to pull up
something from the bottom. I'll take a core sample or at least a foot
or so of some other means, thanks.

Ah! Hinz is an incompetent bozo because he doesn't advise taking many
core samples to figure out there's mud in the Chesapeake.

No, you're correct that I didn't
do that in my second anchoring location; had I, I might have anchored
differently. My bad. But then, again, I've never been shy about
admitting those, have I?
For god sakes man. Just go to a book store and order it ! ! !
or go
on line and order it

Already read it. Well, already read what I presume you intended
me to read, not something by a nonexistent Hintz. Interesting
reading and I see that it's where you got all your questions.
Now that I know how to find the means to calculate, perhaps I'll
do that. Other than the minutiae of calculation, I didn't see
anything in the book which was new information to me;

Yes, it's clear you have the anchoring thing down pat now.

I did see lots
of old data/equipment and not the first word about third generation
anchors which are available today...

Skip, this has to rank amongst the dumbest things you've said here.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how these "third generation anchors"
have made Hinz's work obsolete.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to my movie.

The time would be better spent reading a good book on anchoring. I
suggest Hinz.

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud, ya
know, but, just a couple of observations...

On Oct 27, 10:36 pm, jeff wrote:
Skip Gundlach wrote:

...

Well, apparently several reasons. None are particularly
important; I presume it to be that I misread a fouled anchor,
when, instead, it was a lousy mud bottom which had done me in on
the first pull. Not having sampled the bottom directly, but only
by apparent set, I didn't know the nature of it as being -
apparently, in hindsight - the same lousy stuff we abandoned on
the other side of the channel when we first started on our time
in Oxford, when we didn't set well, and I did, indeed, do the bottom
sample, albeit with a 55# Delta.

Duh! What a coincidence - soft mud in two different parts of the
Chesapeake! What are the odds of that?

This is the first time I've ever been in, let alone cruised the
Chesapeake, and the only reason I was in it was to make the trip south
a bit more interesting for my 82 year old Mother-in-Law, who joined us
in NY on September 1. The ICW isn't my cup of tea.

Having said that, we've enjoyed where we've been so far, and, as those
who have been around long enough to have observed my style, anything
which has happened which didn't kill me is merely part of life's
fabric, and an adventure. So, I don't get very fussed about it, and
instead, provide target practice for those who are better than I, and,
sometimes, cautionary tales for those who haven't made my mistakes
yet.

My bad. Repetitively admitted. I'm unlikely to make the same mistake
twice, whatever it is.


'''



I can't find anything by him. However, in the book of the same name
by Hinz, the author suggests sampling only a very small portion of
only the surface. If you thought that duck consisted of a few inch
circle of feathers, you'd be missing a pretty good meal, but that's
what you'd get with his soap, grease or other sticky to pull up
something from the bottom. I'll take a core sample or at least a foot
or so of some other means, thanks.

Ah! Hinz is an incompetent bozo because he doesn't advise taking many
core samples to figure out there's mud in the Chesapeake.

No. I was disputing the absolute certainty that the only way to find
out what the bottom was composed of was to do a Hinz-stick maneuver.
I don't agree with that as being sufficient information. I agree that
it's a quick and dirty (muddy?) way to get some debris from the top of
whatever you're over. I'm much more interested in what's underneath.


No, you're correct that I didn't
do that in my second anchoring location; had I, I might have anchored
differently. My bad. But then, again, I've never been shy about
admitting those, have I?
For god sakes man. Just go to a book store and order it ! ! !
or go
on line and order it

Already read it. Well, already read what I presume you intended
me to read, not something by a nonexistent Hintz. Interesting
reading and I see that it's where you got all your questions.
Now that I know how to find the means to calculate, perhaps I'll
do that. Other than the minutiae of calculation, I didn't see
anything in the book which was new information to me;

Yes, it's clear you have the anchoring thing down pat now.

Nor did I say that. I said I didn't see new (to me) information. As
someone else in this thread has observed, reading and application are
different things. Whether I knew something and applied all the
knowledge are not necessarily congruent.


I did see lots
of old data/equipment and not the first word about third generation
anchors which are available today...

Skip, this has to rank amongst the dumbest things you've said here.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how these "third generation anchors"
have made Hinz's work obsolete.

Nor did I say it was obsolete. However, to your point, and mine,
which related to rode, the state of the art has changed since the
edition I read. I was being taken to task for an inadequate
(inferred) rode; it's my opinion that the cordage and hooks today are
superior to that shown in the book I read as directed (assuming Bob
merely has a twitchy "t" finger and isn't trying to have me read
something else), and that what I have done to construct the several
rodes we have aboard is sufficient to the task at hand.




Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to my movie.

The time would be better spent reading a good book on anchoring. I
suggest Hinz.

Not a bad suggestion. And if you've bothered to read for content
rather than merely to find something to shoot at, you'd have seen that
I have done just that. However, having completed my assignment for
the day, I went back to entertaining my two lady companions.

For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:


For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


Go for the prayers! :-)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud

Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:


Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud


Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

And for sharing your adventures with us.

Richard

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:15:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud

Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

What he said.

Brian W

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud, ya
know, but, just a couple of observations...

Not a bad suggestion. And if you've bothered to read for content
rather than merely to find something to shoot at, you'd have seen that
I have done just that. However, having completed my assignment for
the day, I went back to entertaining my two lady companions.

For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


Don't let 'em get to you Skip.
You're living the dream and having fun. If we all wanted a risk free life
we'd hardly step outside the house.