|
The High Cost of Cruising
wrote
No doubt. It is one of his classics to justify his meager existance on a small little boat welded to a chain attached to an old chevy engine block. Remembering his web site, it was actually quite nice (other than the color selections) for a small little boat. His original personna and I do share one philosophy, have a small and managable boat and make it the way you want instead being a slave to too much boat and too many systems. Too bad he didn't do more with the boat. Given his ego, I'm sure we would have seen pictures if he'd ever managed a cruise to anyplace interesting. I doubt his existance is so grand as being on a mooring at this point. His net presence is too 24/7 not to have a permanent Internet connection. I'm fairly sure now that the boat on the web site was real even if the crew wasn't and that he picked up quite a bit of boating and cruising knowledge, even if he didn't make much use of it. It would take something much more definitive than over the top boasting though to convince me that he didn't lose the boat about the same time the web site disappeared and is now "cruising" from some sort of institution or shelter with free web terminals. Sad, really, he could have taken that boat some interesting places. I should talk. I'm here typing on a beautiful Maine day, checking on some work stuff and waiting for my son to return from a summer job hunt. We'll be sailing later in the day though. My other son and I are then going to spend Friday - Tuesday on the boat. -- Roger Long |
The High Cost of Cruising
wrote
No doubt. It is one of his classics to justify his meager existance on a small little boat welded to a chain attached to an old chevy engine block. Remembering his web site, it was actually quite nice (other than the color selections) for a small little boat. His original personna and I do share one philosophy, have a small and managable boat and make it the way you want instead being a slave to too much boat and too many systems. Too bad he didn't do more with the boat. Given his ego, I'm sure we would have seen pictures if he'd ever managed a cruise to anyplace interesting. I doubt his existance is so grand as being on a mooring at this point. His net presence is too 24/7 not to have a permanent Internet connection. I'm fairly sure now that the boat on the web site was real even if the crew wasn't and that he picked up quite a bit of boating and cruising knowledge, even if he didn't make much use of it. It would take something much more definitive than over the top boasting though to convince me that he didn't lose the boat about the same time the web site disappeared and is now "cruising" from some sort of institution or shelter with free web terminals. Sad, really, he could have taken that boat some interesting places. I should talk. I'm here typing on a beautiful Maine day, checking on some work stuff and waiting for my son to return from a summer job hunt. We'll be sailing later in the day though. My other son and I are then going to spend Friday - Tuesday on the boat. -- Roger Long |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 25, 12:15*pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
wrote No doubt. It is one of his classics to justify his meager existance on a small little boat welded to a chain attached to an old chevy engine block. Remembering his web site, it was actually quite nice (other than the color selections) for a small little boat. I saw it. Neal use to be somewhat respected among mariners. And he had a few things positive going on. IIRC he even sat for a 5 ton Capt. ticket. Me thinks he caught the clap, and now his brain is rotting like Hitlers did in his last days. Fred |
The High Cost of Cruising
wrote in message ... I saw it. Neal use to be somewhat respected among mariners. And he had a few things positive going on. IIRC he even sat for a 5 ton Capt. ticket. Me thinks he caught the clap, and now his brain is rotting like Hitlers did in his last days. Fred The Good Captain Neal is still very much respected among mariners. His accomplishments are legion. His Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman. Proof he http://www.badongo.com/pic/3853394 He e-mails me from time to time and I forward him a large box of his fan mail. The last box I sent to Cape Town, South Africa. He's going round again or those are his current plans at least. Had the skipper of the lost "Red Cloud" procured the services of the Good Captain on that ill-fated coffee run the Red Cloud would have never foundered. He's sailed through many a tropical cyclone so some short-lived little Gulf cold front he would have taken in stride even in a less than seaworthy such as Red Cloud. Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 25, 2:06*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message ... *I saw it. Neal use to be somewhat respected among mariners. And he had a few things positive going on. IIRC he even sat for a 5 ton Capt. ticket. Me thinks he caught the clap, and now his brain is rotting like Hitlers did in his last days. Fred The Good Captain Neal is still very much respected among mariners. More like a laughing stock, town clown, puppet show producing wanna- be. His accomplishments are legion. What French Legion? His Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman. Proof hehttp://www.badongo.com/pic/3853394 I bet it is to a seaman, but to the Captains out there it is a leaners permit for a tiny boat. Neal's so pathetic no one would hire him, so his ticket is useless and by now expired. I know a fellow who has a Masters degree in electrical engineering but works as a fireman He e-mails me from time to time and I forward him a large box of his fan mail. The last box I sent to Cape Town, South Africa. He's going round again or those are his current plans at least. Sure thing Nealbur, and I bet he has one hand tied behind his back too...right? And he's on a 68 ft Swan named Chippawa just like your Swan named Chippawa . Pathetic Fred Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On 25 Jun 2008 09:21:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:56:11 -0400, Wayne.B said: That's an oxymoron. There are *no* well-found blue water sailboats with outboard engines. Neal has a well-known propensity for trying to make a virtue of necessity. I guess. It is certainly interesting in a weird sort of way watching him talk to himself in these contrived discussions. Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard" pass without comment. Having a nice little 4 stroke Honda of my own for the dinghy, and a couple of 6 gallon tanks, I know something of the fuel range of such animals. Figure about 1 gph if you are lucky, at maybe 6 knots on a small light sailboat, times 12 gallons for typical tankage, I get a fuel range of 72 miles. Just the ticket for a nice blue water crossing to Bermuda, the Exuma Out Islands, the BVI, etc. Let's hope for favorable winds and lots of time for the crossings. What nonsense. Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. |
The High Cost of Cruising
"Wayne.B" wrote
Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard" pass without comment. Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment, welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times. People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean I wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it. A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does these things. -- Roger Long |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:26:50 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard" pass without comment. Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment, welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times. People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean I wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it. A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does these things. Roger, That definition of a "Blue water Cruiser" is dependent upon an individual's viewpoint. I have met many boats that would not meet your criteria including several barebones Wharram cats that I would consider grossly inadequate for my own needs. However, to their long time owners and crusiers they are considered ideal for crossing oceans. Quite a lot of what are advertised in boating magazines as "blue water cruisers" are not, regardless of their size and how many people have bought them to go "blue water cruising" Jenneaus, Oceans and Benetaus are only a few of them. They are certainly not made for out of sight of land crusing though doubtless some are taken there. Each owner has a different set of criteria. Your friend Wilbur for example, extols the virtues of a simple wooden bucket. The texbooks say that twin or bilge keel boats are not good cruisers. The cruiser who has one would extol the virtues of shallow draft and being able to anchor close in and dry out level. Provided the vessel is sound and seaworthy and the sailor has knowledge of his boat and its behaviour in all sea conditions, the main component of a "blue water cruiser" is the sailor him/herself. Neither Bligh nor Shackleton captained the ideal "blue water cruiser' though I dare say they would have prefered one such. Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
"Herodotus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:26:50 -0400, "Roger Long" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard" pass without comment. Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment, welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times. People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean I wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it. A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does these things. Roger, That definition of a "Blue water Cruiser" is dependent upon an individual's viewpoint. I have met many boats that would not meet your criteria including several barebones Wharram cats that I would consider grossly inadequate for my own needs. However, to their long time owners and crusiers they are considered ideal for crossing oceans. Quite a lot of what are advertised in boating magazines as "blue water cruisers" are not, regardless of their size and how many people have bought them to go "blue water cruising" Jenneaus, Oceans and Benetaus are only a few of them. They are certainly not made for out of sight of land crusing though doubtless some are taken there. Each owner has a different set of criteria. Your friend Wilbur for example, extols the virtues of a simple wooden bucket. The texbooks say that twin or bilge keel boats are not good cruisers. The cruiser who has one would extol the virtues of shallow draft and being able to anchor close in and dry out level. Provided the vessel is sound and seaworthy and the sailor has knowledge of his boat and its behaviour in all sea conditions, the main component of a "blue water cruiser" is the sailor him/herself. Neither Bligh nor Shackleton captained the ideal "blue water cruiser' though I dare say they would have prefered one such. Peter Well said. The boat and the crew work as a team. Even the best of boats skippered by an inept crew hardly stands a chance of making a successful blue water voyage. On the other hand, even a marginal boat, well-fitted out and modified to eliminate potential weaknesses and crewed by an experienced expert such as myself who knows the boat inside and out and can and does handle all the maintenance has a near 100% chance of a successful ocean voyage. Capt. Neal's blue water Coronado 27 did not start life as a blue water designed vessel. She was sold as a coastal cruiser. This designation was more due to the limits of tankage, storage, interior layout etc. than her ability to withstand the rigors of ocean voyaging. The good captain went to work to shore up the few weaknesses the Coronado 27 was produced with. He re-designed the interior to make it more practical for voyaging. He has installed 1/4" Lexan on the inside of the deadlights in lieu of outside storm boards. He added flotation foam between the liner and the hull where there were voids. He poured a block of flotation foam just forward of the transom to seal and support the rudder post tube. He claims his blue water Coronado has positive flotation and will not sink but settle on an even keel to about the rubbing strake if seriously holed. But, even the eventuality of being seriously holed is greatly lessened by virtue of the flotation foam poured into all the voids. He has replaced all the standing rigging and terminals are all Sta-Loks. Running rigging is kept in tip-top shape. The boom has been internally reinforced. Sails are plentiful and new and hanked-on in the fore triangle. He even ships storm try and storm jib. His philosophy has always been, "first she's a sailboat" and everything he has done to modify her and improve her weaknesses was done with this in mind. He claims he is safer in his blue water Coronado than in any other boat except for an Etap of similar size due the Etap also having positive foam flotation built in. The good captain has always claimed it's just plain stupid to go to sea in a boat that is sinkable when holed (like the erstwhile "Red Cloud") when unsinkable vessels are being mass produced or when you can modify your existing vessel to also be unsinkable due to a hole or holes in the hull. The old gentleman is entirely correct. The world famous Master Mariner himself told me that a small outboard-powered sailboat is the only way to go and I believe him. It makes sense. Small, light, fuel efficient engine, economical to purchase, maintain and operate. Easy to remove and stow when crossing oceans. After all, an auxiliary is supposed to be just that. Anybody who goes around with a huge, heavy, built in diesel and a 100 gallon tank so he can attempt to motor across oceans is an idiot and no sailor. He should have bought a long range trawler like the former sailor Doug King. One of the virtues of a 27-footer is she is handy and easily driven. Even a two knot wind is enough to sail her just about anywhere and she can be anchored under sail and gotten underway under sail. The only rationale for even an outboard is maneuvering in close quarter situations where there is no wind or less wind than current. In all other cases, learn to sail but that takes a handy small vessel in order for a single-hander to be entirely successful. It is a well-known fact that inboard diesels get you into trouble more than they get you out of trouble. That's a fact of life and you'd best accept it. Even if you didn't have to live with the smell of the beast which permeates every diesel boat I've ever stepped aboard it would still be folly to embrace them like today's so-called sailor has. They make you lazy, they turn you into a motorhead moron. They harm your health. Breathing the exhaust is carcinogenic. So, to sum up, Captain Neal's Coronado is, indeed, a blue water voyager for two clear reasons. 1) She has completed many a blue water voyage and weathered severe storms and has never been compromised or beaten back. 2) She has a qualified, experienced, intelligent, handsome captain who knows her inside and out and has fitted her out for blue water voyaging. Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 25, 11:06*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: The Good Captain Neal is still very much respected among mariners. His accomplishments are legion. His Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman. Proof hehttp://www.badongo.com/pic/3853394 Wilbur Hubbard My Fellow Marinier: I can not agree with your opinion that Neal's "...Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman...." I do not belive a 25 GRT NCW license supports your claim regardless if it his 2nd Issue. To paraphrase the USCG licensing site, one day sea service over 5 GRT will qualify you for a 25 GRT license. So the the guy self certified he had 360 days NC in 18' skiff and one day getting drunk on a friend's 6 GRT stinkpot. Not what I would call "most coveted" nor capable ability............................ :/ Bob |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 26, 10:43*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: Nealburs Fantasy snipped Nealbur are you ever going to stop reving your tiny little outboard and put it into gear? Fred - Show quoted text - |
The High Cost of Cruising
On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:
Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power! The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25' that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said: Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power! The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25' that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons. From my experience amongst fellow cruisers, they don't simply add tankage below due to space constraints. Also, in many ports it is necessary to use jerry cans to ferry the diesel between the pump and the boat. It is not as straight forward as using a dock hose in many places in the world when there are no marinas or alongside fuel docks. Therefore one may as well keep the jerry cans full of fuel on the deck. I carry two 20 litre (take 24 litres each) plastic jerry cans in the sail locker beneath my forward double berth as absolute emergency fuel. I could of course build a tank in there but I would rather keep it as a pure sail locker. I could of course invest in the inflatable tankage but would rather spend the money on something else. Also, regardless of how much tankage, most of us seem to want to carry that little bit more to extend our range - probably just human nature. Besides, when one is done with crossing oceans, the built in tanks will normally be more than enough. It's amazing how much of the space that could be utilised for extra tankage is readily filled up with other necessary 'stuff' such as spares, tools, provisions, folding bikes (2), sleeping bags, mountain tents, scuba gear (3 sets), roller blades (3 pair), shioes of various types for three people, clothing for all seasons for 3 people, school books, spare engine oil, gear box oil, etc., etc., etc., no matter the size of the vessel. regards Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 27, 2:15*am, Herodotus wrote:
... Also, in many ports it is necessary to use jerry cans to ferry the diesel between the pump and the boat. ... That's been our experience. Many boats, particularly North American boats, put a plank between some stanchions and tie their extra fuel and water to it. It was so common for a while on the coconut milk run that I had a Kiwi tell me that for years he was convinced that American designers didn't put fuel tanks in their boats. The advantages are that you carry extra fuel on an extended passage through places where fuel may be unavailable or expensive or of poor quality. And, you get the weight out on the rail for a passage that is essentially all on one tack. Some of the disadvantages are that the cans sit in the sun and may get contaminated by salt water and are exposed to wave impacts that can result in loss of fuel, damage to the stanchions or loose cans on the deck. We keep our cans in a sail locker. We started with one 20 liter can and one 10, but over the years have acquired enough cans so we can fill the main tanks in one run (if you've got to borrow a truck to go to find fuel it's nice to do it all in one go). And, it is hard to resist the temptation to use them as extra tankage now that we have them... -- Tom. |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said: Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power! The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25' that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons. Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip, several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to bring some back? Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said: Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power! The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25' that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons. Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip, several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to bring some back? Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours. More like a bulk carrier than a sailboat. But, whatever floats your boat . . .. Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap. Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. What he didn't want to admit was the winds were light and variable and he was too lazy and in too much of a hurry to work them. Not to mention his boat was so heavy loaded down with huge diesel engine and huge tanks to feed its appetite. Easier to just motor. It takes half a gale to make any decent amount of way with any motor sailer like that. That's the problem with carrying a lot of tankage. You quickly turn into just another worthless motorboat. Now, I think I understand why you failed to make it around even one time. Your tanks just weren't large enough. Some sailor, you! Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:32:44 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip, several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to bring some back? Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Welcome back Bruce, I presume that you have finished your boating chores. So, you are one of the foreigners who bludge on our taxes which are used to pay for subsidised cheaper diesel. Shame on you. Perhaps we shall have to keep a lookout at Kuah for foreign flagged vessels and confiscate their deck load of fuel. cheers Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:41:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said: Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course. OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power! The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25' that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons. Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip, several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to bring some back? Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours. More like a bulk carrier than a sailboat. But, whatever floats your boat . . . Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap. Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. What he didn't want to admit was the winds were light and variable and he was too lazy and in too much of a hurry to work them. Not to mention his boat was so heavy loaded down with huge diesel engine and huge tanks to feed its appetite. Easier to just motor. It takes half a gale to make any decent amount of way with any motor sailer like that. That's the problem with carrying a lot of tankage. You quickly turn into just another worthless motorboat. Now, I think I understand why you failed to make it around even one time. Your tanks just weren't large enough. Some sailor, you! Wilbur Hubbard For someone that doesn't sail you seem to have a lot of information about the Indian ocean, albeit incorrect. During the change over from the N.W. Monsoon to the S.W. Monsoon there are frequent periods of calm. The boat is a 55 ft. Ketch and the Perkins 6 cylinder doesn't seem to weight it down a bit, nor the fuel. Your problem is that you don't know anything about cruising boats. If you have ever sailed (and I find that extremely doubtful from your posts) it was in some sort of tiny day sailor. Had you have ever been around an ocean going boat or made a voyage out of sight of land you'd know better. But of course, you haven't so you sit there in your eazyboy recliner reading your yachting magazines and dreaming you are a sailor. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:05:26 +1000, Herodotus
wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:32:44 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip, several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to bring some back? Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Welcome back Bruce, I presume that you have finished your boating chores. So, you are one of the foreigners who bludge on our taxes which are used to pay for subsidised cheaper diesel. Shame on you. Perhaps we shall have to keep a lookout at Kuah for foreign flagged vessels and confiscate their deck load of fuel. cheers Peter Peter, Peter, When in Rome do as the Romans. When I am in Malaysia I am subjected to Malaysian taxes (and those bloody taxi drivers in Pinang). I pay harbour dues and light fees, so why shouldn't I be allowed to take advantage of the cheap fuel? If Abdawi is going to be so shirty about the fuel it would be only fair for him to absolve all foreigners from the taxes..... I'm still in the yard. The almost daily rains have slowed work down considerably. Today looks as though it may be the prelude to a few days of sunlight and maybe I can get the bottom painted and get out of here. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
Isang tao pinangalanan, Wilbur Hubbard nagsulat:
Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap. Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. Even an Armchairadventurer must have heard of the doldrums? http://www.nationalgeographic.com/vo.../01/index.html When will you attach some floatingdevice to your armchair and experience the real sea? -- Who am I? http://www.froerup.dk/claus |
The High Cost of Cruising
Bob wrote:
.... I can not agree with your opinion that Neal's "...Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman...." I do not belive a 25 GRT NCW license supports your claim regardless if it his 2nd Issue. To paraphrase the USCG licensing site, one day sea service over 5 GRT will qualify you for a 25 GRT license. So the the guy self certified he had 360 days NC in 18' skiff and one day getting drunk on a friend's 6 GRT stinkpot. Not what I would call "most coveted" nor capable ability............................ :/ This raises a question I've wondered about for a while: Although Neal clearly doesn't qualify for "near coastal" in the normal sense, even given the slight laxer rules for the Gulf Coast, how does "sea time" at anchor in the Bahamas count? Its clearly outside the line for coastal US waters, but anchored in sight of land really is not the same as outside the sea buoys (about 15 miles offshore) as most of the the East Coast requires. I'm sure that when Neal "self certified" he mis-read the regs as "near postal," which clearly he qualifies for. |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 28, 7:42*am, Jeff wrote:
This raises a question I've wondered about for a while: Although Neal clearly doesn't qualify for "near coastal" in the normal sense, even given the slight laxer rules for the Gulf Coast, how does "sea time" at anchor in the Bahamas count? *Its clearly outside the line for coastal US waters, but anchored in sight of land really is not the same as outside the sea buoys (about 15 miles offshore) as most of the the East Coast requires. I'm sure that when Neal "self certified" he mis-read the regs as "near postal," which clearly he qualifies for. He there, The USCG is very specific regarding Qulifying Sea Service. For a day to count it must be "underway." But the loop hole is the Small Sea Service Form. People lie when they self certify their sea service. I was appauled when I discoved that. But in one way its okay. If all someone is going to do with a Lower Level license (25-100 GRT) is hang it on the wall and brag....... no worries!!! Maybe there should be a new area of operation as you suggest............ Near Postal Waters (NPW) i like that :) Bob |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:39:55 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: More like a bulk carrier than a sailboat. But, whatever floats your boat . . . Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap. Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. What he didn't want to admit was the winds were light and variable and he was too lazy and in too much of a hurry to work them. Not to mention his boat was so heavy loaded down with huge diesel engine and huge tanks to feed its appetite. Easier to just motor. It takes half a gale to make any decent amount of way with any motor sailer like that. That's the problem with carrying a lot of tankage. You quickly turn into just another worthless motorboat. Now, I think I understand why you failed to make it around even one time. Your tanks just weren't large enough. Some sailor, you! Wilbur Hubbard For someone that doesn't sail you seem to have a lot of information about the Indian ocean, albeit incorrect. During the change over from the N.W. Monsoon to the S.W. Monsoon there are frequent periods of calm. The boat is a 55 ft. Ketch and the Perkins 6 cylinder doesn't seem to weight it down a bit, nor the fuel. Your problem is that you don't know anything about cruising boats. If you have ever sailed (and I find that extremely doubtful from your posts) it was in some sort of tiny day sailor. Had you have ever been around an ocean going boat or made a voyage out of sight of land you'd know better. But of course, you haven't so you sit there in your eazyboy recliner reading your yachting magazines and dreaming you are a sailor. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) I hate to support you in this Bruce, you being an American, but you are 100% correct. The man simply doesn't know what he is talking about having never been there in one of his several 'circumnavigations'. There are many periods of many days without wind and the currents in this area make it both necessary and sensible to motor. Another area requiring frequent motoring is the Med. I am certain that if Captain Cook and all the great sailors had an engine and adequate fuel they would have eschewed sailing at times of adverse or no wind and motored quite happily about. They would have also used flushing toilets instead of a wooden bucket. what a moron. Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:06:27 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message ... I saw it. Neal use to be somewhat respected among mariners. And he had a few things positive going on. IIRC he even sat for a 5 ton Capt. ticket. Me thinks he caught the clap, and now his brain is rotting like Hitlers did in his last days. Fred The Good Captain Neal is still very much respected among mariners. His accomplishments are legion. His Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman. Proof he http://www.badongo.com/pic/3853394 He e-mails me from time to time and I forward him a large box of his fan mail. The last box I sent to Cape Town, South Africa. He's going round again or those are his current plans at least. Had the skipper of the lost "Red Cloud" procured the services of the Good Captain on that ill-fated coffee run the Red Cloud would have never foundered. He's sailed through many a tropical cyclone so some short-lived little Gulf cold front he would have taken in stride even in a less than seaworthy such as Red Cloud. Wilbur Hubbard And there is Wilbur, The Old Man of the Sea, The Master Mariner, the individual who specifies the correct length of a set of oars was "short enough to fit in the boat" and many other gems of nautical wisdom. Too bad you have never been in a boat. Maybe you would have learned a tiny bit about sailing and instead of being the buffoon of RBC you might be able to scale the heights of being "someone who is not too bright". Far above being referred to as "Wilbur the Dummy". Say, for instance, if you had said that "oars should be long enough to reach the water", people would have thought, "well, he isn't the brightest light on the Christmas tree" instead of "Stupid old Wilbur done did it again". One thing I'll give you credit for though. You really work at being stupid. Nobody could be as dumb as you are without a tremendous amount of effort. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed. |
The High Cost of Cruising
"FoolKiller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:06:27 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message ... I saw it. Neal use to be somewhat respected among mariners. And he had a few things positive going on. IIRC he even sat for a 5 ton Capt. ticket. Me thinks he caught the clap, and now his brain is rotting like Hitlers did in his last days. Fred The Good Captain Neal is still very much respected among mariners. His accomplishments are legion. His Master Mariner ticket is the highest and most coveted of any seaman. Proof he http://www.badongo.com/pic/3853394 He e-mails me from time to time and I forward him a large box of his fan mail. The last box I sent to Cape Town, South Africa. He's going round again or those are his current plans at least. Had the skipper of the lost "Red Cloud" procured the services of the Good Captain on that ill-fated coffee run the Red Cloud would have never foundered. He's sailed through many a tropical cyclone so some short-lived little Gulf cold front he would have taken in stride even in a less than seaworthy such as Red Cloud. Wilbur Hubbard And there is Wilbur, The Old Man of the Sea, The Master Mariner, the individual who specifies the correct length of a set of oars was "short enough to fit in the boat" and many other gems of nautical wisdom. Too bad you have never been in a boat. Maybe you would have learned a tiny bit about sailing and instead of being the buffoon of RBC you might be able to scale the heights of being "someone who is not too bright". Far above being referred to as "Wilbur the Dummy". Say, for instance, if you had said that "oars should be long enough to reach the water", people would have thought, "well, he isn't the brightest light on the Christmas tree" instead of "Stupid old Wilbur done did it again". One thing I'll give you credit for though. You really work at being stupid. Nobody could be as dumb as you are without a tremendous amount of effort. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed. Did you really breast feed into kindergarten? |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:38:10 +1000, Herodotus
wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:39:55 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: More like a bulk carrier than a sailboat. But, whatever floats your boat . . . Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap. Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. What he didn't want to admit was the winds were light and variable and he was too lazy and in too much of a hurry to work them. Not to mention his boat was so heavy loaded down with huge diesel engine and huge tanks to feed its appetite. Easier to just motor. It takes half a gale to make any decent amount of way with any motor sailer like that. That's the problem with carrying a lot of tankage. You quickly turn into just another worthless motorboat. Now, I think I understand why you failed to make it around even one time. Your tanks just weren't large enough. Some sailor, you! Wilbur Hubbard For someone that doesn't sail you seem to have a lot of information about the Indian ocean, albeit incorrect. During the change over from the N.W. Monsoon to the S.W. Monsoon there are frequent periods of calm. The boat is a 55 ft. Ketch and the Perkins 6 cylinder doesn't seem to weight it down a bit, nor the fuel. Your problem is that you don't know anything about cruising boats. If you have ever sailed (and I find that extremely doubtful from your posts) it was in some sort of tiny day sailor. Had you have ever been around an ocean going boat or made a voyage out of sight of land you'd know better. But of course, you haven't so you sit there in your eazyboy recliner reading your yachting magazines and dreaming you are a sailor. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) I hate to support you in this Bruce, you being an American, but you are 100% correct. The man simply doesn't know what he is talking about having never been there in one of his several 'circumnavigations'. There are many periods of many days without wind and the currents in this area make it both necessary and sensible to motor. Another area requiring frequent motoring is the Med. I am certain that if Captain Cook and all the great sailors had an engine and adequate fuel they would have eschewed sailing at times of adverse or no wind and motored quite happily about. They would have also used flushing toilets instead of a wooden bucket. what a moron. Peter Many years ago I met Captain Carter, an 80 year old lobster fisherman and boat builder up on the coast of Maine. His family had lived in the area and built boats for a couple of hundred years. I asked him one day, Captain Carter, were the good old days really that good? He replied, "Boy, I'll tell you. you get down the mouth of the bay in a sloop and the wind dies and you have to row her home you won't talk about the Good Old Days. Sloop, in this case referring to a lobster boat, a 28 - 30 ft. Friendship Sloop like Captain Carter fished from in his younger days. The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands but they are all motorized now. Real sailors -- the people that actually make their living from being on the water are pretty unanimous in thinking that internal combustion is good. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:46:38 +0700, FoolKiller
wrote: Wilbur Hubbard And there is Wilbur, The Old Man of the Sea, The Master Mariner, the individual who specifies the correct length of a set of oars was "short enough to fit in the boat" and many other gems of nautical wisdom. Too bad you have never been in a boat. Maybe you would have learned a tiny bit about sailing and instead of being the buffoon of RBC you might be able to scale the heights of being "someone who is not too bright". Far above being referred to as "Wilbur the Dummy". Say, for instance, if you had said that "oars should be long enough to reach the water", people would have thought, "well, he isn't the brightest light on the Christmas tree" instead of "Stupid old Wilbur done did it again". One thing I'll give you credit for though. You really work at being stupid. Nobody could be as dumb as you are without a tremendous amount of effort. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed. Cruel, cruel... But, very good |
The High Cost of Cruising
The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands but they are all motorized now. Real sailors -- the people that actually make their living from being on the water are pretty unanimous in thinking that internal combustion is good. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, A thought just leapt into my somewhat disheveled mind. In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? regards Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:35:13 +1000, Herodotus
wrote: The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands /// Bruce-in-Bangkok /// In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? regards Peter The word bogey is linked to many similar words in European languages; púca, pooka or pookha (Irish Gaelic), pwca, bwga or bwgan (Welsh), puki (Old Norse), pixie or piskie (Cornish), puck (English), bogu (Slavonic) and of course bugge (Middle English) - frightening specter. Brian W |
The High Cost of Cruising
"Herodotus" wrote in message ... The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands but they are all motorized now. Real sailors -- the people that actually make their living from being on the water are pretty unanimous in thinking that internal combustion is good. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, A thought just leapt into my somewhat disheveled mind. In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? regards Peter People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Jun 29, 3:35*am, Herodotus wrote:
Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? Peter Yes unfortunatly..... it was durring the 1970s a terrrible time in US history. it began as a Saturday night fever that led to Bugie Nights nearly every one was have ing a hard time simply Stayin Alive Stayin alive...... Terrible terribble time n the US......... thank fully the 80s brought us back to reality... Bugie Night Bob |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:35:13 +1000, Herodotus
wrote: The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands but they are all motorized now. Real sailors -- the people that actually make their living from being on the water are pretty unanimous in thinking that internal combustion is good. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, A thought just leapt into my somewhat disheveled mind. In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? regards Peter I suspect that it was actually Buggie man, as someone else posted however the Bugis have made voyages between Sulawasi and Australia for generations and very likely visited N.Z. as well. As the Buggis have a reputation every where they go for being a troublesome race (instead of punching you in the nose they tend to stick a knife in you) it is quite possible that in N.Z. you were threatened by the Buggi man. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:57:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Herodotus" wrote in message .. . The Buggis Schooners, from S. Sulawasi are still trading between the Indonesian Islands but they are all motorized now. Real sailors -- the people that actually make their living from being on the water are pretty unanimous in thinking that internal combustion is good. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, A thought just leapt into my somewhat disheveled mind. In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. Was the Bugi man used in the USA to frighten children or is it a colonial legacy you didn't inherit? regards Peter People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard Ah! Wilbur the english teacher. But you spelled "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh" incorrectly. If you want to be taken seriously then you simply must learn to spell.... or use one syllable words that you do know how to spell. Didn't your Mama teach you that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and prove to the world how stupid you really are? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:04:50 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard Ah! Wilbur the english teacher. But you spelled "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh" incorrectly. If you want to be taken seriously then you simply must learn to spell.... or use one syllable words that you do know how to spell. Didn't your Mama teach you that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and prove to the world how stupid you really are? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, Your friend is, in addition to many of his other deficits, entirely ignorant of any knowledge about New Zealand. 1. The pronunciation was and is "Bugi" - not Bogey as is used elsewhere. 2. In 1997 I attended an IT conference at Harvard University where I was informed by Professorial staff that the USA was adopting much of the New Zealand literacy teaching methods as New Zealand had a 98.9% literacy rate. 3. Your America's Cup racing boat builder is Bruce Farr, a New Zealander. 4. For a country of 3 million, we have produced such people who first split the atom and who managed NAS for several years during the space race. There are many other inventions by New Zealanders such as ailerons on aircraft, the jet boat and the self sealing paint tin - in which comes all of your boating paint - to name a few. Bruce, please tell your pathetic miserable excuse for a human existance to nott show your ignorance and the fact that he is merely a silly little uneducated twit whose sole existence is within the pages of this newsgroup. He hqas done nothing and as he is also a coward, never will. cheers Peter |
The High Cost of Cruising
In article ,
Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:35:13 +1000, Herodotus wrote: In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. As the Buggis have a reputation every where they go for being a troublesome race (instead of punching you in the nose they tend to stick a knife in you) it is quite possible that in N.Z. you were threatened by the Buggi man. And immortalised by having a street in Singapore named after them? :-) -- Molesworth |
The High Cost of Cruising
"Herodotus" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:04:50 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard Ah! Wilbur the english teacher. But you spelled "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh" incorrectly. If you want to be taken seriously then you simply must learn to spell.... or use one syllable words that you do know how to spell. Didn't your Mama teach you that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and prove to the world how stupid you really are? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, Your friend is, in addition to many of his other deficits, entirely ignorant of any knowledge about New Zealand. 1. The pronunciation was and is "Bugi" - not Bogey as is used elsewhere. 2. In 1997 I attended an IT conference at Harvard University where I was informed by Professorial staff that the USA was adopting much of the New Zealand literacy teaching methods as New Zealand had a 98.9% literacy rate. 3. Your America's Cup racing boat builder is Bruce Farr, a New Zealander. 4. For a country of 3 million, we have produced such people who first split the atom and who managed NAS for several years during the space race. There are many other inventions by New Zealanders such as ailerons on aircraft, the jet boat and the self sealing paint tin - in which comes all of your boating paint - to name a few. Bruce, please tell your pathetic miserable excuse for a human existance to nott show your ignorance and the fact that he is merely a silly little uneducated twit whose sole existence is within the pages of this newsgroup. He hqas done nothing and as he is also a coward, never will. cheers Peter I think where the confusion lies is in the psyche of New Zealanders. Instead of calling it the Buggi man they should call it the Bugger man. Since New Zealanders' forefathers consisted of dregs of humanity emptied from overcrowded British jails into exile on a God forsaken southern hemisphere island one must examing British slang to glean the meanings of bugger and how they apply to New Zealanders or rather, how they define New Zealanders. bugger Noun. 1. An objectionable person. 2. A person. Also used in a sense of pity, see 'sod'. 3. A situation or event that is difficult or distressing. E.g. "It's a real bugger Pete catching the flu on his summer holidays." Exclam. Expressing annoyance or frustration. Verb. To ruin, damage, break. E.g."If I find out it was you that buggered my DVD player, then you can forget borrowing money from us to go on holiday." From: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/b.htm The lesson to be learned: know your roots. . . Wilbur Hubbard |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:38:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Herodotus" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:04:50 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard Ah! Wilbur the english teacher. But you spelled "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh" incorrectly. If you want to be taken seriously then you simply must learn to spell.... or use one syllable words that you do know how to spell. Didn't your Mama teach you that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and prove to the world how stupid you really are? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, Your friend is, in addition to many of his other deficits, entirely ignorant of any knowledge about New Zealand. 1. The pronunciation was and is "Bugi" - not Bogey as is used elsewhere. 2. In 1997 I attended an IT conference at Harvard University where I was informed by Professorial staff that the USA was adopting much of the New Zealand literacy teaching methods as New Zealand had a 98.9% literacy rate. 3. Your America's Cup racing boat builder is Bruce Farr, a New Zealander. 4. For a country of 3 million, we have produced such people who first split the atom and who managed NAS for several years during the space race. There are many other inventions by New Zealanders such as ailerons on aircraft, the jet boat and the self sealing paint tin - in which comes all of your boating paint - to name a few. Bruce, please tell your pathetic miserable excuse for a human existance to nott show your ignorance and the fact that he is merely a silly little uneducated twit whose sole existence is within the pages of this newsgroup. He hqas done nothing and as he is also a coward, never will. cheers Peter I think where the confusion lies is in the psyche of New Zealanders. Instead of calling it the Buggi man they should call it the Bugger man. Since New Zealanders' forefathers consisted of dregs of humanity emptied from overcrowded British jails into exile on a God forsaken southern hemisphere island one must examing British slang to glean the meanings of bugger and how they apply to New Zealanders or rather, how they define New Zealanders. bugger Noun. 1. An objectionable person. 2. A person. Also used in a sense of pity, see 'sod'. 3. A situation or event that is difficult or distressing. E.g. "It's a real bugger Pete catching the flu on his summer holidays." Exclam. Expressing annoyance or frustration. Verb. To ruin, damage, break. E.g."If I find out it was you that buggered my DVD player, then you can forget borrowing money from us to go on holiday." From: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/b.htm The lesson to be learned: know your roots. . . Wilbur Hubbard It is becoming increasingly noticeable that the good Wilbur is making more and more references to obscene activities. Perhaps his lifelong abhorrence of women is just now coming to the fore or perhaps he has always batted from the opposite side of the plate. In any event the closet door appears to be opening and the real Wilbur is slowly emerging. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed. |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:23:33 +1000, Herodotus
wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:04:50 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: People in New Zealand are retarded then. It's not a Bugi man its a Bogey Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman All U.S. Americans, when they were kids, were routinely threatened with the coming of a bogey man. If you were bad the bogey man was gonna get you, etc. Bugi Man??? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh! No wonder Kiwi's can't sail. They can't even think. Wilbur Hubbard Ah! Wilbur the english teacher. But you spelled "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh" incorrectly. If you want to be taken seriously then you simply must learn to spell.... or use one syllable words that you do know how to spell. Didn't your Mama teach you that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and prove to the world how stupid you really are? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) Bruce, Your friend is, in addition to many of his other deficits, entirely ignorant of any knowledge about New Zealand. 1. The pronunciation was and is "Bugi" - not Bogey as is used elsewhere. 2. In 1997 I attended an IT conference at Harvard University where I was informed by Professorial staff that the USA was adopting much of the New Zealand literacy teaching methods as New Zealand had a 98.9% literacy rate. 3. Your America's Cup racing boat builder is Bruce Farr, a New Zealander. 4. For a country of 3 million, we have produced such people who first split the atom and who managed NAS for several years during the space race. There are many other inventions by New Zealanders such as ailerons on aircraft, the jet boat and the self sealing paint tin - in which comes all of your boating paint - to name a few. Bruce, please tell your pathetic miserable excuse for a human existance to nott show your ignorance and the fact that he is merely a silly little uneducated twit whose sole existence is within the pages of this newsgroup. He hqas done nothing and as he is also a coward, never will. cheers Peter Peter, First of all he is not my friend! My friends are all of, at least normal intelligence on which point the bloke we are referring to hardly qualifies, to say nothing of the requirement to be a gentleman. But in regards to your paean regarding Kiwi accomplishments please note that these were all the work of expatriate New Zealanders .... in other words chaps that got tired of sheep and traveled abroad hoping to find that there was something else. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:00:09 -0500, Molesworth
wrote: In article , Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:35:13 +1000, Herodotus wrote: In New Zealand as small children we were threatened by the "Bugi man" along the lines of "If you don't be good, go to sleep etc., the Bugi man will get you" I think it has since fallen out of favour, probably to someone like Darth Vader. The Bugi man is derived of course from the fierce Bugis sailors, pirates and traders. As the Buggis have a reputation every where they go for being a troublesome race (instead of punching you in the nose they tend to stick a knife in you) it is quite possible that in N.Z. you were threatened by the Buggi man. And immortalised by having a street in Singapore named after them? :-) -- Molesworth Yes, Buggis Street is named after the Buggis, just as Arab street is named after Arabs and "Little India" and "China town" are named after those ethnic groups. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom) |
The High Cost of Cruising
I think where the confusion lies is in the psyche of New Zealanders. Instead of calling it the Buggi man they should call it the Bugger man. Since New Zealanders' forefathers consisted of dregs of humanity emptied from overcrowded British jails into exile on a God forsaken southern hemisphere island one must examing British slang to glean the meanings of bugger and how they apply to New Zealanders or rather, how they define New Zealanders. bugger Noun. 1. An objectionable person. 2. A person. Also used in a sense of pity, see 'sod'. 3. A situation or event that is difficult or distressing. E.g. "It's a real bugger Pete catching the flu on his summer holidays." Exclam. Expressing annoyance or frustration. Verb. To ruin, damage, break. E.g."If I find out it was you that buggered my DVD player, then you can forget borrowing money from us to go on holiday." From: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/b.htm The lesson to be learned: know your roots. . . Wilbur Hubbard It is becoming increasingly noticeable that the good Wilbur is making more and more references to obscene activities. Perhaps his lifelong abhorrence of women is just now coming to the fore or perhaps he has always batted from the opposite side of the plate. In any event the closet door appears to be opening and the real Wilbur is slowly emerging. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed. Now the idiot displays his ignorance. He does not even know the difference between New Zealand and Australia which is over 1,000 miles distant. New Zealand was founded either b y land companies or by Church Societies such as the Anglicans and Presbytarians. There were no convict forebears Ignoramus. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com