| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2006 09:44:53 PM |
| Object: |
Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6146592.stm
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:56 GMT
Roman ship thrills archaeologists
A Roman ship, wrecked off the coast of Spain in the 1st Century AD, has
been dazzling archaeologists with the array of historical treasures on
board.
Thirty metres (100ft) long and holding 400 tonnes, it is the largest
Roman ship found in the Mediterranean.
Chief amongst the goods the ship was carrying were hundreds of jars of
garum - a fish sauce which was a favourite condiment for rich Romans.
It was accidentally discovered in 2000 by sailors whose anchor snagged a
jar.
The ship is in great condition and extremely accessible - lying in just
25m of water, and 1.5km (one mile) from the coast of Valencia.
"I am not going to say it was on the beach but almost," said Carles de
Juan, who is co-director of the wreck's research team and was among the
first divers to examine it.
It is believed that the vessel, 60% of which is now buried in mud on
the sea floor, went down in a storm while sailing from Cadiz in southern
Spain to Rome.
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
First proper study
Once news of the ship's discovery was announced in 2000, souvenir
hunters targeted it, forcing the Spanish authorities to erect a steel
cage around the wreck to protect it.
After years of arranging funds, expertise and equipment, a proper
exploration of the site began in July of this year.
Since then, marine archaeologists have been conducting the painstaking
work of cataloguing what was on board.
"We knew it was an important find, but had no real idea until now," Mr
de Juan said in an interview with the Associated Press after he and
project co-director Franca Ciberchinni of Italy's University of Pisa
presented their first academic report on the site.
"It is an exceptional find," Mr de Juan added.
An estimated 1,500 two-handled amphorae, or clay jars, were on board.
Aphrodisiac
The researchers established from remains of fish bones inside that the
metre-high jars, which lay undisturbed but with eroded seals, were
carrying garum.
The highly-prized delicacy was served to wealthy Romans as an
accompaniment to a wide variety of dishes and was believed to be an
aphrodisiac.
It is thought that the ship was also carrying ingots of lead to be used
in plumbing and copper, which could be mixed with tin to make bronze
artefacts.
The last time a Roman ship of similar size and good condition was
discovered was off Corsica in 1985.
"For archaeologists, a sunken ship is a historic document that tells us
about ancient history and how its economy worked," Javier Nieto,
director of the Centre for Underwater Archaeology of Catalonia, said of
the find.
"This ship will contribute a lot," he added.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
15 Nov 2006 01:05:26 AM |
|
|
In article <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6146592.stm
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:56 GMT
Roman ship thrills archaeologists
A Roman ship, wrecked off the coast of Spain in the 1st Century AD, has
been dazzling archaeologists with the array of historical treasures on
board.
Thirty metres (100ft) long and holding 400 tonnes, it is the largest
Roman ship found in the Mediterranean.
Chief amongst the goods the ship was carrying were hundreds of jars of
garum - a fish sauce which was a favourite condiment for rich Romans.
It was accidentally discovered in 2000 by sailors whose anchor snagged a
jar.
The ship is in great condition and extremely accessible - lying in just
25m of water, and 1.5km (one mile) from the coast of Valencia.
"I am not going to say it was on the beach but almost," said Carles de
Juan, who is co-director of the wreck's research team and was among the
first divers to examine it.
It is believed that the vessel, 60% of which is now buried in mud on
the sea floor, went down in a storm while sailing from Cadiz in southern
Spain to Rome.
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
No kidding. I didn't think that the Romans were that dumb.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
15 Nov 2006 02:32:23 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet johac
(jhachmann@sbcglobal.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
No kidding. I didn't think that the Romans were that dumb.
Right, the Catholic Church was yet to be invented.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
16 Nov 2006 12:37:25 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns987C57CB9DEDvicman@66.75.164.120>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet johac
(jhachmann@sbcglobal.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
No kidding. I didn't think that the Romans were that dumb.
Right, the Catholic Church was yet to be invented.
Right. They would have been still on their knees praying as the ship
sank and they drowned.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
15 Nov 2006 04:58:11 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6146592.stm
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:56 GMT
Roman ship thrills archaeologists
A Roman ship, wrecked off the coast of Spain in the 1st Century AD, has
been dazzling archaeologists with the array of historical treasures on
board.
Thirty metres (100ft) long and holding 400 tonnes, it is the largest
Roman ship found in the Mediterranean.
Chief amongst the goods the ship was carrying were hundreds of jars of
garum - a fish sauce which was a favourite condiment for rich Romans.
It was accidentally discovered in 2000 by sailors whose anchor snagged a
jar.
The ship is in great condition and extremely accessible - lying in just
25m of water, and 1.5km (one mile) from the coast of Valencia.
"I am not going to say it was on the beach but almost," said Carles de
Juan, who is co-director of the wreck's research team and was among the
first divers to examine it.
It is believed that the vessel, 60% of which is now buried in mud on
the sea floor, went down in a storm while sailing from Cadiz in southern
Spain to Rome.
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
No kidding. I didn't think that the Romans were that dumb.
****John, I misunderstood the above comment, and constructed the
comments below to defend those poor "misunderstood" sailors. Then I
read yours again, and ROFL! Man, this overnight shift is removing the
brain cells I have left! I'm posting it anyway-maybe now that you're
retired, you'll find it interesting.****
Swimming was mostly known as a warrior's talent during ancient times. A
commoner like a sailor wouldn't have known how. IIRC, this continued
into the Age of Exploration. Many sailors (until the modern era, when
swimming became a common activity) were more afraid of going into the
sea than anything else.
I can't really find many cites for this, other than stories I've heard
growing up in a coastal culture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/features/2003/12/captain_webb.shtml
Cap'n Webb was the first man to swim the English Channel.
"It wasn't long before his swimming skills - at a time when most
sailors couldn't swim - began to attract attention."
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/about_production.html
"At a time when most sailors couldn't swim, Franklin taught himself
to swim from a book and then, true to form, set out to improve on the
process, even inventing a few new strokes."
http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/2000/ltplr021000.htm
Ancient Roman sailors
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
16 Nov 2006 12:36:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1163588291.225159.83370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6146592.stm
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:56 GMT
Roman ship thrills archaeologists
A Roman ship, wrecked off the coast of Spain in the 1st Century AD, has
been dazzling archaeologists with the array of historical treasures on
board.
Thirty metres (100ft) long and holding 400 tonnes, it is the largest
Roman ship found in the Mediterranean.
Chief amongst the goods the ship was carrying were hundreds of jars of
garum - a fish sauce which was a favourite condiment for rich Romans.
It was accidentally discovered in 2000 by sailors whose anchor snagged a
jar.
The ship is in great condition and extremely accessible - lying in just
25m of water, and 1.5km (one mile) from the coast of Valencia.
"I am not going to say it was on the beach but almost," said Carles de
Juan, who is co-director of the wreck's research team and was among the
first divers to examine it.
It is believed that the vessel, 60% of which is now buried in mud on
the sea floor, went down in a storm while sailing from Cadiz in southern
Spain to Rome.
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
No kidding. I didn't think that the Romans were that dumb.
****John, I misunderstood the above comment, and constructed the
comments below to defend those poor "misunderstood" sailors. Then I
read yours again, and ROFL! Man, this overnight shift is removing the
brain cells I have left! I'm posting it anyway-maybe now that you're
retired, you'll find it interesting.****
LOL! That is funny. I was giving the guys credit for saving themselves
and screw the ship and the cargo.
I know all about long hours. Twenty five hour days, eight day weeks, 32
day months, etc.
Swimming was mostly known as a warrior's talent during ancient times. A
commoner like a sailor wouldn't have known how. IIRC, this continued
into the Age of Exploration. Many sailors (until the modern era, when
swimming became a common activity) were more afraid of going into the
sea than anything else.
I can't really find many cites for this, other than stories I've heard
growing up in a coastal culture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/features/2003/12/captain_webb.shtml
Cap'n Webb was the first man to swim the English Channel.
"It wasn't long before his swimming skills - at a time when most
sailors couldn't swim - began to attract attention."
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/about_production.html
"At a time when most sailors couldn't swim, Franklin taught himself
to swim from a book and then, true to form, set out to improve on the
process, even inventing a few new strokes."
http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/2000/ltplr021000.htm
Ancient Roman sailors
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
15 Nov 2006 09:01:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
22 Nov 2006 10:34:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
23 Nov 2006 12:18:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
25 Nov 2006 08:59:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:18:15 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
25 Nov 2006 09:54:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing. You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning. You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 04:06:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 09:05:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
Which is why they would head for shore, hoping to get close enough to
beach or at the least dog paddle in.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
29 Nov 2006 10:27:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:05:01 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
Which is why they would head for shore, hoping to get close enough to
beach or at the least dog paddle in.
Rocky Reef Way....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 05:06:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1dcpm2lnt28buttv8ql3vbe5iaior5jf1c@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
The Dim Reaper?
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
29 Nov 2006 10:27:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:36:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1dcpm2lnt28buttv8ql3vbe5iaior5jf1c@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
The Dim Reaper?
or blind creeper.
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
True. For that you flick a switch and start the jet engine....
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
Pocket change....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
30 Nov 2006 12:55:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:27:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ransm2liells4mvbdoitaufn9rkf1lpvrm@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:36:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1dcpm2lnt28buttv8ql3vbe5iaior5jf1c@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
The Dim Reaper?
or blind creeper.
That gives me the creeps.
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
True. For that you flick a switch and start the jet engine....
Ah yes. Those 2,000 year old Roman masonry Jet Engines were a marvel!
Good old Hero of Alexandria.
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
Pocket change....
Table fish.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
02 Dec 2006 08:00:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:25:16 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:27:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ransm2liells4mvbdoitaufn9rkf1lpvrm@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:36:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1dcpm2lnt28buttv8ql3vbe5iaior5jf1c@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
The Dim Reaper?
or blind creeper.
That gives me the creeps.
Slither 'round then....
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
True. For that you flick a switch and start the jet engine....
Ah yes. Those 2,000 year old Roman masonry Jet Engines were a marvel!
Good old Hero of Alexandria.
He's still screaming; "Wilma! How do I get off this crazy thing?!"
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
Pocket change....
Table fish.
Fish keep an walleye on the tide tables.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
03 Dec 2006 07:25:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:00:43 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <erb4n250cvak69m11j6ddcvqrsenrs7n5g@4ax.com>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:25:16 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:27:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ransm2liells4mvbdoitaufn9rkf1lpvrm@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:36:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:06:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1dcpm2lnt28buttv8ql3vbe5iaior5jf1c@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:54:13 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Panic is a wonderful thing.
For the reaper.
The Dim Reaper?
or blind creeper.
That gives me the creeps.
Slither 'round then....
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
True. For that you flick a switch and start the jet engine....
Ah yes. Those 2,000 year old Roman masonry Jet Engines were a marvel!
Good old Hero of Alexandria.
He's still screaming; "Wilma! How do I get off this crazy thing?!"
He's my Hero!
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
Pocket change....
Table fish.
Fish keep an walleye on the tide tables.
Sockeye put forks on their tide tables.
"Salmon enchanted evening..."
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
04 Dec 2006 07:16:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:55:49 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:00:43 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <erb4n250cvak69m11j6ddcvqrsenrs7n5g@4ax.com>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:25:16 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
You're caught in a storm in the days when
navigation was mostly accomlished by dead reckoning.
If you don't reckon right you're dead.
You're taking on
water, the ship is starting to founder.. are you going to head for
land, no matter what, or make a rational decision?
And with many/most of the crew being unable to swim is there much of a
difference? After all, dead is dead.
You could always hang on to a bit of flotsam and paddle.
Not the jetsam, though.
True. For that you flick a switch and start the jet engine....
Ah yes. Those 2,000 year old Roman masonry Jet Engines were a marvel!
Good old Hero of Alexandria.
He's still screaming; "Wilma! How do I get off this crazy thing?!"
He's my Hero!
Sandwich?
The area outside the Golden Gate is littered with ships that sank
while trying to make the Bay in a storm.
The fish make a great haul.
Turning the tables for a change.
Pocket change....
Table fish.
Fish keep an walleye on the tide tables.
Sockeye put forks on their tide tables.
"Salmon enchanted evening..."
Until codzilla stomped in....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
25 Nov 2006 11:28:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5o0im2hbimoa2vk3gd632jp615qd70b1kk@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:18:15 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800 stoney <stoney@the.net> said the
following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Are you sure?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 04:08:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:43 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:59:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5o0im2hbimoa2vk3gd632jp615qd70b1kk@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
It's possible the ship was already damaged and in danger of sinking.
Getting to shore so the crew could save themselves would have been
their priority.
Depends on the 'shore.'
Are you sure?
Ayup.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
23 Nov 2006 01:54:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t09am2928peed3c6i3b9ufq3fchjr74rg9@4ax.com>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
25 Nov 2006 08:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:24:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t09am2928peed3c6i3b9ufq3fchjr74rg9@4ax.com>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
25 Nov 2006 11:28:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:24:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:34:23 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t09am2928peed3c6i3b9ufq3fchjr74rg9@4ax.com>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 04:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:24 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
Ok. Still.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
28 Nov 2006 05:03:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:00:33 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tacpm216ub3u1ap7kk9lg0d5afmdmq7keo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:24 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
Ok. Still.
Thankyou.
I would not wish the wrong impression to come across.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
29 Nov 2006 10:25:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:33:59 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:00:33 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tacpm216ub3u1ap7kk9lg0d5afmdmq7keo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:24 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
Ok. Still.
Thankyou.
You're welcome.
I would not wish the wrong impression to come across.
You did order the hula dancer tiles......
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
30 Nov 2006 12:53:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:25:34 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <h8nsm25ffs6veitv1g2fbo4faqh4v7dlkj@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:33:59 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:00:33 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tacpm216ub3u1ap7kk9lg0d5afmdmq7keo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:24 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
Ok. Still.
Thankyou.
You're welcome.
Have a nice day, now.
And I mean that most sincerely.
And I mean *that* most sincerely.
And I mean that... oh stuff it.
I would not wish the wrong impression to come across.
You did order the hula dancer tiles......
Are they in already?
I was expecting them to take much longer.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
02 Dec 2006 07:58:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:23:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:25:34 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <h8nsm25ffs6veitv1g2fbo4faqh4v7dlkj@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:33:59 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:00:33 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tacpm216ub3u1ap7kk9lg0d5afmdmq7keo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:58:24 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:58:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vl0im2tacun0bd3mjc4cs8vv7m72ge037i@4ax.com>
[]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
[snip]
I know they do. I've no idea why he stated that unless he's never been
to sea in anything other than a cruise ship. Safety is in deep water.
Or on top of it, preferably.
Yes, and I had read it right. I got confused by Matt's confusion. Are
you confused yet?
YET!?!?!?
Hah!
Ok. Still.
Thankyou.
You're welcome.
Have a nice day, now.
And I mean that most sincerely.
And I mean *that* most sincerely.
And I mean that... oh stuff it.
OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK...utilizing a 5 metre poll to stuff the
hula skirt up Mikes arse.
I would not wish the wrong impression to come across.
You did order the hula dancer tiles......
Are they in already?
I was expecting them to take much longer.
They were resigned to it....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: Roman ship thrills archaeologists |
16 Nov 2006 01:07:23 AM |
|
|
On or about Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:14 GMT did Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> dribble thusly:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:44:53 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <563ll25gagg3m5beoio4011h3tagd2pbvj@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Mr de Juan said that the storm must have been of immense strength to
drive such a vessel so close to shore.
"The crew did not care about the cargo or money or anything. They headed
for land to save their lives," he said.
In a storm a ship will try to head *away* from the shore. Ships sink
when they are storm driven to the shore.
Hence why it was said that the storm had to be strong to *drive* the
vessel so close to the shore. As in "we sure as hell don't want to be
that close to the shore, but it's blowing us there anyway, because
it's really quite strong".
Followed by "screw the loot, I'm swimming to shore before this thing
goes under".
--
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
