On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 12, 7:55?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:40:18 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Columbus can be hailed as an accomplished navigator and courageous
explorer, but in my opinion his less noble and more ambitious
motivations make him a much more human and far more interesting
character.

And Plymouth Rock has been moved at least three times that they know
of and there's plenty of evidence that the rock never was involved in
the Pilgrims landing.


I can't imagine anybody landing a dinghy on a big rock. It would make
more sense to row onto a beach or into a mudbank where one could make
a soft landing, rather than risk holing a boat on a rock. As any
mariner knows, when you see a rock sticking up above the surface, more
than likely there are some little cousins lurking around immediately
below. When I take a dingy ashore, I try to stay away from the rocks
and look for a flat area with sand, small gravel, or mud.

Now if "Plymouth Rock" were just a small flat stone that offered some
dry and stable footing in a soft or muddy environment that is a bit
more logical.

I've never visited Plymouth Rock, but the stereotypical illustration
shows
2-3 pilgrims standing on a shoreside boulder. Why the heck would
anybody bother to climb up onto a boulder? :-)

People behaved in the early 1600's pretty much the same way they
behave today. We are little different, if different at all. Only our
technology and culture are changed, human nature remains pretty
stable.


To what do you tie your dingy when you land on a beach? Would a nice rock
not be appropriate?