> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:38:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Ed hotmail.com> instead replied:
>
>
>
>
>

>>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?

>
> Modern carriers are those not like the straight deck carriers of
> WWII. The USS Nimitz is a modern carrier. In fact, all carriers
> built after her are referred to as Nimitz Class Carriers. Yes.
> Modern carriers do bob around at sea and the wind against the huge
> surface area of the hull can and does cause the ship to pound
> against the pier causing damage to both the ship and pier if left
> dockside. That's why, even today, all carriers set sail if there is
> any danger of a hurricane or tropical storm.
> --
> Ray-