Cozumel Anchor Ahoy

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
oups.com...

The Star Princess has 4 Captains. The one I happened to ask first
obviously did not have any duty with the anchoring or positioning of
the cruise ship IN COZUMEL pn that particular day, Nov. 15, 2005.

You think Captain/Prez George Bush would know how deep a hole
he has dug at various places in Iraq and the rest of the world? ;-)

No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD in
Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there. All the
captain had to do was tell you he didn't know. Instead, he made up an
answer. When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's
swamped by Tropical Storm Gamma, are you going to blindly follow his
directions? Heck, they're probably not even telling you about the impending
doom. When your internet access suddenly cuts out, you'll know why.

"Greg Mossman" wrote

No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD
in Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there.

How quickly y'all forget who agreed with him.

WE remember.

Curtis

Reef Fish wrote:
Grumman-581 wrote:

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
groups.com...

Cruise ships sometimes do that even after docked at pier or anchored,
when there is current, to lessen the stress on the lines, I supposed.

But the point is moot. Whatever little sand that might have been
stirred up is not going to reach a point 15 miles away, in the wrong
direction of the current.

I wasn't commenting on whether it stirred up any sand... I was just curious
from a technical point of view...


But that was the major complaint of "jer" and others, about how the
anchoring of cruise ships would damage the corals, and then when I
saw how far the ship was from shore, "jer" brought up the issue that
it would affect the mating eagle rays -- when he didn't realize how far
the eagle ray mating site was OR the current direction.

But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which
the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the
luncheon today, and he said it was anchored, but he didn't know how
deep.

But THE answer came from THE Chief Captain that the spot was
200 meters (I estimated over 400 feet) from the bottom of the channel
at that spot, which made it too deep to drop anchor, so that ship was
held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might
do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska.

Okay, it's too deep at that spot. Good to know. It ain't that deep at
a lot of other spots in the world. RCI considers this method of station
holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge
pumps full engaged, even when close to shore for extended periods.
Maybe someone is Alaska ought to go deal with those arrogant nasty
cruise bitches and show them what's it's really like to **** in somebody
else's mess kit. Interesting how the pod pigs foul the very ocean they
claim to value enough to be worth scam^H^H^H^H er...selling.

To highlight your oinkiness

oink...
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/ab...fm?NLEid=54226

oink...
http://www.serconline.org/cruiseShipPollution.html

oink...
http://www.akpirg.org/issues/cruise.htm

oink...
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal...7&journalID=46

If reading all this doesn't keep you busy enough while you're trolling
around on your garbage scow with your Captain Pig, just ping me, there's
plenty more where this came from.



So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise
ships damage the corals by dropping anchor.

So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others? Are
we to believe those anchors they haul around all over the place are
never used? Your own ignorance is appalling. Your own arrogance is
your Achilles heel.


The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked,
perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be
held in position without any anchor.

End of that story.

Hardly.


-- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

""Magilla"" cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com wrote in message
...

"Greg Mossman" wrote

No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were
WMD
in Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there.

How quickly y'all forget who agreed with him.

WE remember.

They didnt forget, election year is coming.

They, and especially Greg, are lying.

It's what they do best.

Jer wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Grumman-581 wrote:

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
groups.com...

Cruise ships sometimes do that even after docked at pier or anchored,
when there is current, to lessen the stress on the lines, I supposed.

But the point is moot. Whatever little sand that might have been
stirred up is not going to reach a point 15 miles away, in the wrong
direction of the current.

I wasn't commenting on whether it stirred up any sand... I was just curious
from a technical point of view...


But that was the major complaint of "jer" and others, about how the
anchoring of cruise ships would damage the corals, and then when I
saw how far the ship was from shore, "jer" brought up the issue that
it would affect the mating eagle rays -- when he didn't realize how far
the eagle ray mating site was OR the current direction.

But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which
the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the
luncheon today, and he said it was anchored, but he didn't know how
deep.

But THE answer came from THE Chief Captain that the spot was
200 meters (I estimated over 400 feet) from the bottom of the channel
at that spot, which made it too deep to drop anchor, so that ship was
held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might
do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska.

Okay, it's too deep at that spot. Good to know. It ain't that deep at
a lot of other spots in the world.

jer, you really have trouble focussing your attention in a discussion.
don't you?

We were talking about ... the Star Princess anchoring in Cozumel.

Jer brought out the adverse effect of it on eagle ray mating sites in
Cozumel.

I had completely demolished jer's faulty theory and erroneous facts.

That should have been the END of that FOCUSED discussion.



Look what new tangents jer brought out now ... having lost all his
credibility about the eagle ray in Cozumel issue ...

RCI considers this method of station
holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge
pumps full engaged, even when close to shore for extended periods.
Maybe someone is Alaska ought to go deal with those arrogant nasty
cruise bitches and show them what's it's really like to **** in somebody
else's mess kit. Interesting how the pod pigs foul the very ocean they
claim to value enough to be worth scam^H^H^H^H er...selling.

To highlight your oinkiness

oink...
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/ab...fm?NLEid=54226

oink...
http://www.serconline.org/cruiseShipPollution.html

oink...
http://www.akpirg.org/issues/cruise.htm

oink...
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal...7&journalID=46

If reading all this doesn't keep you busy enough while you're trolling
around on your garbage scow with your Captain Pig, just ping me, there's
plenty more where this came from.

You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the
ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing.

Keep hugging your trees viewed from your myotic, prejudiced
views about the "pod people" -- remember that?


So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise
ships damage the corals by dropping anchor.

Oh yeah, about the coral damage -- now it had been proven that
the anchor wasn't even dropped! And there was absolutely NO
stir up of sand, and absolutely NO coral damage ...

and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking
at the wrong tree.

So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others?

Of course not! But only an oinking, prejudiced MORON (I can call
you that now, because you have shown it amply) to bring out
issues that were not even remotely related to the EAGLE RAYS
in COZUMEL when that issue had been completely settled.


The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked,
perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be
held in position without any anchor.

End of that story.

That was the end of the ANCHOR story, to Grumman-581.

The story about the damage to corals and the eagle ray mating site
had ended LONG before now, jer!

Hardly.


-- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling.

You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to

conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your
"****ing behavior" when you started it all by saying you were not
going to be in any ****ing contest, and proceeded to do so
immediately, and incessantly ever since.

I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and
focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm
done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel.

-- Bob.

Reef Fish wrote:
Jer wrote:

Reef Fish wrote:

Grumman-581 wrote:


"Reef Fish" wrote in message
legroups.com...


Cruise ships sometimes do that even after docked at pier or anchored,
when there is current, to lessen the stress on the lines, I supposed.

But the point is moot. Whatever little sand that might have been
stirred up is not going to reach a point 15 miles away, in the wrong
direction of the current.

I wasn't commenting on whether it stirred up any sand... I was just curious

from a technical point of view...


But that was the major complaint of "jer" and others, about how the
anchoring of cruise ships would damage the corals, and then when I
saw how far the ship was from shore, "jer" brought up the issue that
it would affect the mating eagle rays -- when he didn't realize how far
the eagle ray mating site was OR the current direction.

But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which
the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the
luncheon today, and he said it was anchored, but he didn't know how
deep.

But THE answer came from THE Chief Captain that the spot was
200 meters (I estimated over 400 feet) from the bottom of the channel
at that spot, which made it too deep to drop anchor, so that ship was
held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might
do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska.

Okay, it's too deep at that spot. Good to know. It ain't that deep at
a lot of other spots in the world.


jer, you really have trouble focussing your attention in a discussion.
don't you?

I don't think so. If you can't keep up, that's your problem. But your
a pod person, what can we expect?



We were talking about ... the Star Princess anchoring in Cozumel.

Not anymore.


Jer brought out the adverse effect of it on eagle ray mating sites in
Cozumel.

Yes, the adverse effect, which wooshed right over your pointy little pod
head, was about anchor damage. You said Capt. P.I.G. of the Star
Princess Garbage Scow wasn't using an anchor - which isn't about kicking
up the sand ruining visibility, it's about anchors destroying the feed
beds of eagle rays in a nationally protected wildlife park. Okay, fine,
no anchor damage because they're not using anchors - we now learn the
Star Princess Garbage Scow is using her diesel engines for station
keeping. You've heard about air pollution? It's been a contentious
issue for a while now for all the right reasons. Are you so busy
stuffing your pie hole to pay attention to the results of your own
piggish behaviour? As a passenger of the Star Princess Garbage Scow,
you're obligated to stand there and take whatever I dish out. You need
to remember this, even if you have to tattoo it on your pod pig heinie.


I had completely demolished jer's faulty theory and erroneous facts.

There's no theory here, and they're not my facts. But you're a pod
person, we expect you to be easily misled and confused.


That should have been the END of that FOCUSED discussion.

It will end when your piggish behaviour ends. Until then, stand there
like the pod pig your are and take it.




Look what new tangents jer brought out now ... having lost all his
credibility about the eagle ray in Cozumel issue ...

....only in your little pod pig mind.




RCI considers this method of station
holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge
pumps full engaged, even when close to shore for extended periods.
Maybe someone is Alaska ought to go deal with those arrogant nasty
cruise bitches and show them what's it's really like to **** in somebody
else's mess kit. Interesting how the pod pigs foul the very ocean they
claim to value enough to be worth scam^H^H^H^H er...selling.

To highlight your oinkiness

oink...
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/ab...fm?NLEid=54226

oink...
http://www.serconline.org/cruiseShipPollution.html

oink...
http://www.akpirg.org/issues/cruise.htm

oink...
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal...7&journalID=46

If reading all this doesn't keep you busy enough while you're trolling
around on your garbage scow with your Captain Pig, just ping me, there's
plenty more where this came from.


You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the
ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing.

I'm not having trouble focusing, you're having trouble keeping up. And
I'm only getting warmed up. For the rest of you, take a seat and heat
up the popcorn.



Keep hugging your trees viewed from your myotic, prejudiced
views about the "pod people" -- remember that?

Somebody has to hug the trees since you won't.



So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise
ships damage the corals by dropping anchor.


Oh yeah, about the coral damage -- now it had been proven that
the anchor wasn't even dropped! And there was absolutely NO
stir up of sand, and absolutely NO coral damage ...

and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking
at the wrong tree.

Just a nit, it's style, not stile. But you're a pod pig, no surprises here.


So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others?


Of course not! But only an oinking, prejudiced MORON (I can call
you that now, because you have shown it amply) to bring out
issues that were not even remotely related to the EAGLE RAYS
in COZUMEL when that issue had been completely settled.

You can call me names if you like, I don't care. You can even insult my
mother if you like, she and I are all grown up, we can take it.



The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked,
perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be
held in position without any anchor.

End of that story.


That was the end of the ANCHOR story, to Grumman-581.

The story about the damage to corals and the eagle ray mating site
had ended LONG before now, jer!

Hardly.


-- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling.


You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to
conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your
"****ing behavior" when you started it all by saying you were not
going to be in any ****ing contest, and proceeded to do so
immediately, and incessantly ever since.

How 'bout I changed my mind...? how 'bout I yank your little pod person
chain? my ****ing will end when I **** in your pod beer. But you're a
pod person, what would you know? Are you still tossing the garbage off
the back of your garbage scow in the dead of night when nobody is
expected to notice your piggish behaviour? As an ex-pod person and
diver that cares about the environnment, I noticed.


I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and
focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm
done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel.

-- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling.



Tell us about how your precious garbage scow had it's plumbing
rearranged to allow for dumping the bilge at sea instead of keeping it
on board until back in port. You do know what's in the bilge, don't
you? Here's a tip: hydraulic fluid. Ask your precious Capt. P.I.G.
about it. He's the smart guy, remember? They never lie.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:

You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the
ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing.

Bad typo. I meant "completely UNrelated" subject.


So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise
ships damage the corals by dropping anchor.

Oh yeah, about the coral damage -- now it had been proven that
the anchor wasn't even dropped! And there was absolutely NO
stir up of sand, and absolutely NO coral damage ...

and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking
at the wrong tree.

Just a nit, it's style, not stile. But you're a pod pig, no surprises here.

You're a good one to pick spelling nits.

jer But your a pod person, what can we expect?

Don't you know the difference between "you're" and "your"?

Moron, style and stile are the same (see Merriam-Webster below).

Main Entry: 1style
Pronunciation: 'stI(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English stile, style

My stile was my misspelling for

1 : a pen or enclosed housing for swine

That's why you were oinking at other sties.


You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to
conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your
"****ing behavior" when you started it all by saying you were not
going to be in any ****ing contest, and proceeded to do so
immediately, and incessantly ever since.

How 'bout I changed my mind...? how 'bout I yank your little pod person
chain?

That would not even bother me as much as a bite by a GNAT. You have
only shown, by exposing yourself, that this "pod person" knew more
about
Cozumel eagle rays, and have hundreds or perhaps thousands more dives
in Cozumel that you have, while you're wallowing in your pigsty in
Mexico
City. That's what you succeeded in establishing as your credential in

this cruise ship/ Cozumel/Eagle ray thread.

Your "pod people" actually is appropriate for some (a few) of the
posters
in rec.travel.cruises, such as the Goldie twins Ray and Dick Goldhaber,
as well as some of those yapping Old Ladies tm who only congrat
each other on their birthdays, what they eat at breakfast, while they
don't
know the LEAST even about the piers and locations in which they have
cruised.

But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in
rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology,
and everything related to marine life and cruising.


my ****ing will end when I **** in your pod beer.

And you'll drown yourself in your own ****! If you aren't so
clueless,
you would have known that I don't DRINK (alcoholic drinks), much less
beer, which I had characterized numerous times as something that
looks and smells like what had been recycled though a horse.

I am sure THAT's your favorite breverage, from the horse next to your
pigsty.


I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and
focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm
done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel.

-- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling.

You have finally succeeded in provoking me to **** back at you in your
pigsty, even though you're sure to drown in your own **** there,
without
any help from me.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

In article .com,
Reef Fish wrote:


€
€ But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in
€ rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology,
€ and everything related to marine life and cruising.
€

Are you implying that pod people are more attuned to the envrionment
and more knowledgable about marine biology than divers?

And what's this about a ship with a "captian" who didn't know how much
water he had under his keel? I can't imagine anyone in any position of
command of a vessel who wouldn't know that fundamental bit of
information.

€
€ my ****ing will end when I **** in your pod beer.
€
€ And you'll drown yourself in your own ****! If you aren't so
€ clueless,
€ you would have known that I don't DRINK (alcoholic drinks)

Well, except for "flavoring" your coffee with Kahlua ;-)

Alan Street wrote:
In article .com,
Reef Fish wrote:


€
€ But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in
€ rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology,
€ and everything related to marine life and cruising.

My post stands on what *I* said, not edited and misrepresented
version by some no-life multi-newsgroup idiot Alan Street.


Are you implying that pod people are more attuned to the envrionment
and more knowledgable about marine biology than divers?

I implied no such. As I said, MY post stands on what *I* said.

Besides jer is hardly a diver; and divers are hardly marine
biologists.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Alan Street wrote:
In article . com, Reef
Fish wrote:

€ Alan Street wrote:
€ In article .com,
€ Reef Fish wrote:
€
€
€ €
€ € But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in
€ € rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology,
€ € and everything related to marine life and cruising.
€
€ My post stands on what *I* said, not edited and misrepresented
€ version by some no-life multi-newsgroup idiot Alan Street.

Alan, you have added absolutely NOTHING to what you had already
posted and I had already responded in the two lines above.


And *you* said that people in rec.travel.pod-life would be insulted (or
more accurately, INSULTED) by Jer's comments about everything related
to marine life. Since Jer basically said pod people such as yourself

Alan, you're just too DUMB and OBTUSE that jer's stereotypical
naming of ALL people who cruise as "pod people" is the INSULT
already.

And YOUR "rec.travel.pod-life" is YOUR stereotypical insult of ALL
the people in rec.travel.cruises, because by your own admission
you have never read or posted in that group, on through a few
cross-posted posts, many of which initiated by Forgers and IDIOTS
like yourself!

Get lost, you ignorant fool!

-- Reef Fish Bob.