>On Sep 16, 9:00 pm, Ray Haddad iexpress.net.au> wrote:

>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:29 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and Ed hotmail.com> instead replied:
>>

>>>On Sep 10, 9:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck mindspring.com> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 10, 10:18 am, Pies de Arcilla gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>> On Sep 10, 7:24 am, Sylvia cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
>>>>>> sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
>>>>>> so that it got caught in the storm.

>>

>>>>> Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
>>>>> ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
>>>>> around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
>>>>> doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
>>>>> of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
>>>>> the area posthaste.

>>

>>>> For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
>>>> the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
>>>> Major league type storm.

>>

>>>> For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
>>>> hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
>>>> blow might hit, they run for it.

>>

>>>I am curious about one thing. How "modern" would the carrier Ray was
>>>supposed to be on be if the story is to have taken place about 30
>>>years ago? And, for that matter, I would assume the carrier wouldn't
>>>have been all that new even the 70s.

>>
>> Akkk! It was fairly new, Ed. USS Nimitz (CVN-68). However, the
>> damage that high winds and heavy seas can do to the pier and the
>> ship means that even newer ships set sail when threatened. It's
>> standard operating procedure even today.
>>
>> Before you get too mired in all this, do note that Sylvia is simply
>> doing her best to spread lies about me digging at what she thinks
>> are "facts" which are more closely related to her own fantasies. But
>> then, you've figured that all out by now.

>
>I'm not saying anything about whether the carrier could have sat at
>the docks or not.
>
>The post said that "modern carriers" wouldn't be bobbing and weaving
>like a cork in the water. My question was; if the story was from the
>70s, then it can hardly be considered a "modern" carrier by today's
>standards. Even if it was built in the 60s or even early 70s, would it
>have the same technology that todays sailors take pretty much for
>granted?