If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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' |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
""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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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' |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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 ;-) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Eagle Rays in Cozumel
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cozumel Welcomes Cruisers with a Festival! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 3 | November 15th, 2005 08:44 AM |
Carnival To Cozumel Details! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 2 | November 10th, 2005 10:26 PM |
Cozumel news | George Leppla | Cruises | 17 | October 31st, 2005 06:52 PM |
Cozumel report on 8/4/05 Carnival Sensation cruise | Andy P. Jung | Cruises | 1 | August 18th, 2005 07:22 AM |
Cozumel status | Dillon Pyron | Cruises | 2 | July 22nd, 2005 11:45 AM |