Group: rec.travel.australia+nz
Travel Information for Australia and New Zealand.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Cabins on Freighters
Cabins on Freighters
Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
from experience, not from law.
I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
US port to another US port to ships registered
in the US. These ships usually have at least two
cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
four such cabins. The usage of these cabins was
fairly limited as within country merchant marine
travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
noisy.
Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
likely have cabins for radio officers who are
no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
that when those ships were overhauled the space
was converted to other use.
A few years ago I went searching for freighter
transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
available.
Dick
Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
from experience, not from law.
I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
US port to another US port to ships registered
in the US. These ships usually have at least two
cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
four such cabins. The usage of these cabins was
fairly limited as within country merchant marine
travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
noisy.
Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
likely have cabins for radio officers who are
no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
that when those ships were overhauled the space
was converted to other use.
A few years ago I went searching for freighter
transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
available.
Dick
Re: Cabins on Freighters
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:33:24 +0000 (UTC), rdadams@panix,com (Dick
Adams) wrote in <fi0cek$cr2$1@reader1.panix,com > :
>Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
>have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
>from experience, not from law.
AFIK, the international requirements applied to
internationally registered freighters, not necessarily to
domestic ones.
As you would know, law is a very complex subject indeed.
As a trivial example, there might be State or even Federal
safety regulations requiring small boats to have life jackets and
other safety gear...but it usually wouldn't be applied to someone
floating a rubber raft in a backyard swimming pool. Or would
hope not anyway! :-)
There are, though from fairly subtle distinctions. Suppose that
the hypothetical general trucking firm "axyz" operates only
within a particular state. If someone steals something from it,
this will probably be a violation of one or more local, county or
state laws.
Suppose that the truck engages in interstate commerce, though?
Then the thief as also violated Federal law, and the FBI will be
on his case.
Many people would consider that if someone breaks into a public
phone and gains, say, $18 worth of coins. Many states would
consider theft of such an amount as "petty larceny".
Not so, or wasn't when I left the U.S. anyway. Back around WW2,
a federal tax was imposed on phone calls to discourage excessive
use. It was still in force at that time. Therefore, the theft
of this amount would still be a federal offense.
As to freighters, tugs, etc. engaged in transport within U.S.
boundaries, they probably wouldn't have been required to provide
extra bunks.
I haven't had time to track down the international regulations,
and couldn't say for sure that "all" seagoing freighters would be
bound by international regulations, or even bother to follow them
if they were supposed to.
Still, your post is very useful input, and I thank you for
posting it.
>
>I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
>limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
>US port to another US port to ships registered
>in the US.
It certainly was when I left, even though I lack your personal
experience.
> These ships usually have at least two
>cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
>four such cabins.
Again, thanks for the support. This may help clear up
the present argument between "accommodations" and
"cabins". Hopefully, anyway! :-)
> The usage of these cabins was
>fairly limited as within country merchant marine
>travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
>noisy.
No personal experience, but I can easily believe it!
Still, "sound", scientifically measured, only indicates
"intensity", not the human perception of "noise".
Scientifically, sound is measured on a logarithmic decibel
scale.
A passenger jet is very noisy on takeoff, and isn't exactly quiet
when cruising at altitude. Yet most passengers soon get used to
it, as most of it is within a rather narrow frequency band and
the brain simply filters it out.
Heavy ground construction equipment, like a D-9 cat is not really
quiet either. Put the average person on one and he or she
will often find it unpleasant. If they try to talk with the
operator, they will probably try to shout over the noise, and
won't understand what he is saying.
Yet if another operator of heavy equipment, or even someone used
to the sound of heavy equipment, wants to converse with the
operator, they can easily compensate for the sound of the
machinery, as the brain simply filters it out.
At least this is how I would explain it. I can assure you that
it works in practice.
The brain can adapt to almost any reasonable level of noise, as
long as it stays within the "accepted" frequency range.
Were I a relief driver on a long haul truck, the "normal"
background noise wouldn't bother me. ...But an unexpected sound,
like the loud squeal of brakes, would probably wake me up
instantly.
I could sleep with the noise of an engine or even a jackhammer.
Yet rock music at the same measurable sound level would not only
wake me up, but I couldn't possibly adapt to it.
Jackhammers or constant engine noise is much more pleasant to
hear than most rock or pop music, IMHO.
>Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
>likely have cabins for radio officers who are
>no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
True, there is no longer any need for Morse, and it hasn't even
been a requirement for an amateur radio license for many years
now.
Still, I didn't know that radio officers were no longer required.
I should have known, of course.
When diesel locomotives replaced steam locomotives, there wasn't
much use for a "fireman" on a diesel loco.
At one time, a minimum cockpit flight crew was pilot, co-pilot,
and flight engineer. Most airlines made the engineer redundant
decades ago.
Business offices required a large staff of "typists", but since
one good word processor operator could replace 6 or 7 typists,
they too became more or less redundant.
This has been going on for decades, though. When Ford invented
and marketed the first "Model T", there was much less demand for
farriers, wheelwrights, and buggy whip manufacturers. :-)
It will be interesting to see how many other trades, occupations,
etc. will become redundant in the next 10, 20, or 50 years.
Long gone are the days where someone could become an expert
tradesmen or professional in any field and be assured of lifetime
employment.
High school graduates of even a decade ago would probably have
to count on having to make 5 or 6 major career changes in their
working lifetime.
There are some interesting aspects, though. Banks here, and no
doubt there, are urging clients to use "online banking" rather
than depending on their local branch bank.
Pretty risky, given the current level of security technology from
my point of view.
Still, lets assume for the moment that online transactions could
be made absolutely secure and foolproof. Personally, I doubt
that it could be, but just for the hell of it, suppose it could.
If it was, I might be interested in using "Internet banking".
Saves the bank lots of money as they save on having to employ
counter staff.
Still, from my point of view, they don't seem to be thinking all
that far ahead. For once a local customer can deal with one or
more Australian banks via the net, what is to stop them from
dealing with any bank worldwide?
>Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
>that when those ships were overhauled the space
>was converted to other use.
Sounds very likely to me!
>
>A few years ago I went searching for freighter
>transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
>Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
>were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
>seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
>available.
>
>Dick
Yep, can easily believe that. But consider the costs involved,
even 30 or 40 years ago. When I came to Australia, could only
check 20 kg of baggage on an airliner without paying a heavy
penalty for every kg over. So carried the essentials, and
shipped the rest by sea freight, at around $US 2.00 per cubic
foot from west coast USA to Sydney.
I could easily carry all I really needed or wanted on the jet, as
the other items would be here in 3 months or so. Or 5 months, or
whatever.
So the total trip cost a one way airfare with 20Kg of essentials,
and perhaps $50 total for the rest coming by sea freight.
Even at the time, could have come by sea, paid nothing for excess
baggage. But, all considered it would have cost me more money.
By air, I was here in 18-20 hours. Collected my other
possessions about 4 months later, from memory.
By sea, would have cost me more than the air fare at the time
although nothing for freight costs.
Easy enough to analyze considering the carriers cost. By ship,
the extra freight weight was negligible, but they would have to
feed me for perhaps 10 to 12 weeks.
Qantas only had to feed me a few meals, and was here much
quicker.
Of course, this is also an individual choice. On a sea voyage,
the boredom might be excessive, and the sea was unpleasantly
close. Statistically, more ships sink than airliners crash.
Personally, would rather be 25,000 to 30,000 feet above the sea
for 18 hours or so, rather than traveling through it for three
months.
Everyone differs, of course, and others may consider the sea
travel as more desirable. I don't. I've never been "airsick"
but have felt "seasick" on a Sydney Harbor Ferry.
Anyway, Dick, thanks again for the post. I don't know your
current plans, but Australia is a nice place to live.
In this post, I don't think I have provided excessive information
in exchange for the information you have offered.
Were this a "moderated" group, certain un-named individuals
probably would censored most, if not all, of our interchange of
information.
I wonder what they would do if someone invented a "Time Machine"
and offered them a chance to travel into the past, say around the
late Cretaceous period, about 75,000,000 years ago, when
_Tyrannosaurus rex_ was one of the dominant dinosaurs.
They would probably be highly skeptical, and demand payment for
the time taken for the experiment, money to buy weapons in case
it worked, and so on.
Would it be a safe enterprise to contribute to?
Statistically, probably. We wouldn't see them or their possible
descendants again.
On the other hand, suppose they managed to succeed and founded
the human race as we know it today?
That would be a truly frightening possibility, as most of us
might inherit their possible obsessive/compulsive
characteristics, which might remove all vestige of pleasure from
the Internet.
If, of course they allowed any un moderated groups, or even
allowed it at all. :-)
Note: Am just indulging myself in speculation at the moment, due
to lack of activity on the group at the moment.
Any similarity to anyone currently posting on this group, living
or [spiritually, emotionally, psychologically,socially ]
"dead" is purely coincidental.
I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
have criticized him in posts.
And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
Perhaps one of the Australian posters will be willing to verify
this? :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:33:24 +0000 (UTC), rdadams@panix,com (Dick
Adams) wrote in <fi0cek$cr2$1@reader1.panix,com > :
>Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
>have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
>from experience, not from law.
AFIK, the international requirements applied to
internationally registered freighters, not necessarily to
domestic ones.
As you would know, law is a very complex subject indeed.
As a trivial example, there might be State or even Federal
safety regulations requiring small boats to have life jackets and
other safety gear...but it usually wouldn't be applied to someone
floating a rubber raft in a backyard swimming pool. Or would
hope not anyway! :-)
There are, though from fairly subtle distinctions. Suppose that
the hypothetical general trucking firm "axyz" operates only
within a particular state. If someone steals something from it,
this will probably be a violation of one or more local, county or
state laws.
Suppose that the truck engages in interstate commerce, though?
Then the thief as also violated Federal law, and the FBI will be
on his case.
Many people would consider that if someone breaks into a public
phone and gains, say, $18 worth of coins. Many states would
consider theft of such an amount as "petty larceny".
Not so, or wasn't when I left the U.S. anyway. Back around WW2,
a federal tax was imposed on phone calls to discourage excessive
use. It was still in force at that time. Therefore, the theft
of this amount would still be a federal offense.
As to freighters, tugs, etc. engaged in transport within U.S.
boundaries, they probably wouldn't have been required to provide
extra bunks.
I haven't had time to track down the international regulations,
and couldn't say for sure that "all" seagoing freighters would be
bound by international regulations, or even bother to follow them
if they were supposed to.
Still, your post is very useful input, and I thank you for
posting it.
>
>I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
>limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
>US port to another US port to ships registered
>in the US.
It certainly was when I left, even though I lack your personal
experience.
> These ships usually have at least two
>cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
>four such cabins.
Again, thanks for the support. This may help clear up
the present argument between "accommodations" and
"cabins". Hopefully, anyway! :-)
> The usage of these cabins was
>fairly limited as within country merchant marine
>travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
>noisy.
No personal experience, but I can easily believe it!
Still, "sound", scientifically measured, only indicates
"intensity", not the human perception of "noise".
Scientifically, sound is measured on a logarithmic decibel
scale.
A passenger jet is very noisy on takeoff, and isn't exactly quiet
when cruising at altitude. Yet most passengers soon get used to
it, as most of it is within a rather narrow frequency band and
the brain simply filters it out.
Heavy ground construction equipment, like a D-9 cat is not really
quiet either. Put the average person on one and he or she
will often find it unpleasant. If they try to talk with the
operator, they will probably try to shout over the noise, and
won't understand what he is saying.
Yet if another operator of heavy equipment, or even someone used
to the sound of heavy equipment, wants to converse with the
operator, they can easily compensate for the sound of the
machinery, as the brain simply filters it out.
At least this is how I would explain it. I can assure you that
it works in practice.
The brain can adapt to almost any reasonable level of noise, as
long as it stays within the "accepted" frequency range.
Were I a relief driver on a long haul truck, the "normal"
background noise wouldn't bother me. ...But an unexpected sound,
like the loud squeal of brakes, would probably wake me up
instantly.
I could sleep with the noise of an engine or even a jackhammer.
Yet rock music at the same measurable sound level would not only
wake me up, but I couldn't possibly adapt to it.
Jackhammers or constant engine noise is much more pleasant to
hear than most rock or pop music, IMHO.
>Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
>likely have cabins for radio officers who are
>no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
True, there is no longer any need for Morse, and it hasn't even
been a requirement for an amateur radio license for many years
now.
Still, I didn't know that radio officers were no longer required.
I should have known, of course.
When diesel locomotives replaced steam locomotives, there wasn't
much use for a "fireman" on a diesel loco.
At one time, a minimum cockpit flight crew was pilot, co-pilot,
and flight engineer. Most airlines made the engineer redundant
decades ago.
Business offices required a large staff of "typists", but since
one good word processor operator could replace 6 or 7 typists,
they too became more or less redundant.
This has been going on for decades, though. When Ford invented
and marketed the first "Model T", there was much less demand for
farriers, wheelwrights, and buggy whip manufacturers. :-)
It will be interesting to see how many other trades, occupations,
etc. will become redundant in the next 10, 20, or 50 years.
Long gone are the days where someone could become an expert
tradesmen or professional in any field and be assured of lifetime
employment.
High school graduates of even a decade ago would probably have
to count on having to make 5 or 6 major career changes in their
working lifetime.
There are some interesting aspects, though. Banks here, and no
doubt there, are urging clients to use "online banking" rather
than depending on their local branch bank.
Pretty risky, given the current level of security technology from
my point of view.
Still, lets assume for the moment that online transactions could
be made absolutely secure and foolproof. Personally, I doubt
that it could be, but just for the hell of it, suppose it could.
If it was, I might be interested in using "Internet banking".
Saves the bank lots of money as they save on having to employ
counter staff.
Still, from my point of view, they don't seem to be thinking all
that far ahead. For once a local customer can deal with one or
more Australian banks via the net, what is to stop them from
dealing with any bank worldwide?
>Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
>that when those ships were overhauled the space
>was converted to other use.
Sounds very likely to me!
>
>A few years ago I went searching for freighter
>transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
>Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
>were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
>seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
>available.
>
>Dick
Yep, can easily believe that. But consider the costs involved,
even 30 or 40 years ago. When I came to Australia, could only
check 20 kg of baggage on an airliner without paying a heavy
penalty for every kg over. So carried the essentials, and
shipped the rest by sea freight, at around $US 2.00 per cubic
foot from west coast USA to Sydney.
I could easily carry all I really needed or wanted on the jet, as
the other items would be here in 3 months or so. Or 5 months, or
whatever.
So the total trip cost a one way airfare with 20Kg of essentials,
and perhaps $50 total for the rest coming by sea freight.
Even at the time, could have come by sea, paid nothing for excess
baggage. But, all considered it would have cost me more money.
By air, I was here in 18-20 hours. Collected my other
possessions about 4 months later, from memory.
By sea, would have cost me more than the air fare at the time
although nothing for freight costs.
Easy enough to analyze considering the carriers cost. By ship,
the extra freight weight was negligible, but they would have to
feed me for perhaps 10 to 12 weeks.
Qantas only had to feed me a few meals, and was here much
quicker.
Of course, this is also an individual choice. On a sea voyage,
the boredom might be excessive, and the sea was unpleasantly
close. Statistically, more ships sink than airliners crash.
Personally, would rather be 25,000 to 30,000 feet above the sea
for 18 hours or so, rather than traveling through it for three
months.
Everyone differs, of course, and others may consider the sea
travel as more desirable. I don't. I've never been "airsick"
but have felt "seasick" on a Sydney Harbor Ferry.
Anyway, Dick, thanks again for the post. I don't know your
current plans, but Australia is a nice place to live.
In this post, I don't think I have provided excessive information
in exchange for the information you have offered.
Were this a "moderated" group, certain un-named individuals
probably would censored most, if not all, of our interchange of
information.
I wonder what they would do if someone invented a "Time Machine"
and offered them a chance to travel into the past, say around the
late Cretaceous period, about 75,000,000 years ago, when
_Tyrannosaurus rex_ was one of the dominant dinosaurs.
They would probably be highly skeptical, and demand payment for
the time taken for the experiment, money to buy weapons in case
it worked, and so on.
Would it be a safe enterprise to contribute to?
Statistically, probably. We wouldn't see them or their possible
descendants again.
On the other hand, suppose they managed to succeed and founded
the human race as we know it today?
That would be a truly frightening possibility, as most of us
might inherit their possible obsessive/compulsive
characteristics, which might remove all vestige of pleasure from
the Internet.
If, of course they allowed any un moderated groups, or even
allowed it at all. :-)
Note: Am just indulging myself in speculation at the moment, due
to lack of activity on the group at the moment.
Any similarity to anyone currently posting on this group, living
or [spiritually, emotionally, psychologically,socially ]
"dead" is purely coincidental.
I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
have criticized him in posts.
And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
Perhaps one of the Australian posters will be willing to verify
this? :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Re: Cabins on Freighters
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
[...]
> I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
> Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
>
> If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
> assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
> have criticized him in posts.
>
> And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
> all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
"those" did not "criticize" the Kangeroo, but *corrected* him. But the
Kangeroo can't handle it when people 'talk back' at him, so he labels
corrections as criticism. The funny part is that it's obvious that he
can't handle *either* and that shows how *un*-Australian he really is,
even after all this time.
And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
[...]
> I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
> Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
>
> If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
> assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
> have criticized him in posts.
>
> And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
> all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
"those" did not "criticize" the Kangeroo, but *corrected* him. But the
Kangeroo can't handle it when people 'talk back' at him, so he labels
corrections as criticism. The funny part is that it's obvious that he
can't handle *either* and that shows how *un*-Australian he really is,
even after all this time.
And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
Re: Cabins on Freighters
On 21 Nov 2007 18:40:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<47447b9b$0$54356$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>[...]
>> I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
>> Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
>>
>> If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
>> assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
>> have criticized him in posts.
>>
>> And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
>> all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
>
> "those" did not "criticize" the Kangeroo, but *corrected* him.
One can "criticize" someone else without "correcting" them, but
perhaps not the other way around. If you think about it, most
"correction" involves a degree of "criticism". If I can find my
Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases without taking too
much time, I'm confident that I can verify this.
> But the
>Kangeroo can't handle it when people 'talk back' at him, so he labels
>corrections as criticism. The funny part is that it's obvious that he
>can't handle *either* and that shows how *un*-Australian he really is,
>even after all this time.
Actually, I feel confident that I can handle both criticism and
correction, even when done in a rather impolite manner.
As to being "un-Australian", I'm sure that many Australians would
consider me as such. After all, I have zero interest in cricket
and other team sports, have never watched or attended a horse
race, didn't even bother to listen to the recent Melbourne Cup,
let alone watch it on T.V. I have never placed a bet on a horse
race in my life, in the U.S. or here. I rarely gamble at all,
and when I do it would be on a purely chance outcome, such
as a lottery ticket.
Of course, even some Australians, bred and born here, have
the same attitudes as I do. Australia is a very tolerant
country, though, and I don't remember anyone calling me
"un-Australian" to my face.
[brief break to locate my thesaurus] Will quote the index
entries for a few words. Won't bother to quote page numbers, as
my edition may have different page numbers than the one you
or others might care to consult.
CRITIC: estimator, dissentient, theorist, interpreter,
dissertator, malcontent, people of taste, detractor.
CRITICAL: crucial, discriminating, important, sick, dangerous,
discontented, fastidious, disapproving.
CRITICISM: estimate, interpretation, article, advice, censure.
CRITICIZE: be discontented
Most public libraries should have a copy, should you wish to
do further research on the issue.
While there, you might check a good dictionary on the
meanings of the above.
You could even search the net for the word. Just did, using the
search string
definition "criticism"
~ 2,500,000 returns.
The first reference to come up gives several definitions. Will
quote a couple if them:
* disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings;
"the senator received severe criticism from his opponent"
* a mental faculty or emotional taint, is the action of
criticizing, or passing judgment upon the qualities or merits of
anything, especially the passing of unfavorable judgment,
fault-finding, censure. ...
miriams-well.org/Glossary/index.html
http :// www .google,com .au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:criticism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Alternatively:
http :// tinyurl,com /yun9jj
>
> And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
Another value judgment, Frank? Suppose I disagree with you
and wonder about your motives? Why the need to call me
"un-Australian"? Why do you and Cath question my experience
on the net, which implies I am lying to the group when I have
told the truth?
In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
Would you suggest I should lie to them? If they didn't want a
truthful answer, they shouldn't have asked. Of course, I might
tell them I'm not a fashion expert and feel incapable of judging
their appearance. That would also be truthful.
As you know, Usenet is an open forum, and anyone
has a right to "correct" or "criticize" any post. As I oppose
censorship in any form, you have a right to criticize me for
anything I post. And I have a right to wonder about your
motives for doing so.
We can debate the issue _ad infinitum_ if you wish, or at least
as time permits. I do suggest that you do a little research on
the issue. Hopefully, the info given in this post will be of
help to you.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
On 21 Nov 2007 18:40:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<47447b9b$0$54356$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>[...]
>> I'm sure that more imaginary readers can visualize an innocent
>> Kangaroo hopping innocently off into the bush.
>>
>> If he should pause and extend his middle claw to watchers, rest
>> assured it is not to the group in general, just towards those who
>> have criticized him in posts.
>>
>> And they will probably misunderstand the gesture. It is, after
>> all,one of the great Aussie salutes.
>
> "those" did not "criticize" the Kangeroo, but *corrected* him.
One can "criticize" someone else without "correcting" them, but
perhaps not the other way around. If you think about it, most
"correction" involves a degree of "criticism". If I can find my
Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases without taking too
much time, I'm confident that I can verify this.
> But the
>Kangeroo can't handle it when people 'talk back' at him, so he labels
>corrections as criticism. The funny part is that it's obvious that he
>can't handle *either* and that shows how *un*-Australian he really is,
>even after all this time.
Actually, I feel confident that I can handle both criticism and
correction, even when done in a rather impolite manner.
As to being "un-Australian", I'm sure that many Australians would
consider me as such. After all, I have zero interest in cricket
and other team sports, have never watched or attended a horse
race, didn't even bother to listen to the recent Melbourne Cup,
let alone watch it on T.V. I have never placed a bet on a horse
race in my life, in the U.S. or here. I rarely gamble at all,
and when I do it would be on a purely chance outcome, such
as a lottery ticket.
Of course, even some Australians, bred and born here, have
the same attitudes as I do. Australia is a very tolerant
country, though, and I don't remember anyone calling me
"un-Australian" to my face.
[brief break to locate my thesaurus] Will quote the index
entries for a few words. Won't bother to quote page numbers, as
my edition may have different page numbers than the one you
or others might care to consult.
CRITIC: estimator, dissentient, theorist, interpreter,
dissertator, malcontent, people of taste, detractor.
CRITICAL: crucial, discriminating, important, sick, dangerous,
discontented, fastidious, disapproving.
CRITICISM: estimate, interpretation, article, advice, censure.
CRITICIZE: be discontented
Most public libraries should have a copy, should you wish to
do further research on the issue.
While there, you might check a good dictionary on the
meanings of the above.
You could even search the net for the word. Just did, using the
search string
definition "criticism"
~ 2,500,000 returns.
The first reference to come up gives several definitions. Will
quote a couple if them:
* disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings;
"the senator received severe criticism from his opponent"
* a mental faculty or emotional taint, is the action of
criticizing, or passing judgment upon the qualities or merits of
anything, especially the passing of unfavorable judgment,
fault-finding, censure. ...
miriams-well.org/Glossary/index.html
http :// www .google,com .au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:criticism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Alternatively:
http :// tinyurl,com /yun9jj
>
> And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
Another value judgment, Frank? Suppose I disagree with you
and wonder about your motives? Why the need to call me
"un-Australian"? Why do you and Cath question my experience
on the net, which implies I am lying to the group when I have
told the truth?
In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
Would you suggest I should lie to them? If they didn't want a
truthful answer, they shouldn't have asked. Of course, I might
tell them I'm not a fashion expert and feel incapable of judging
their appearance. That would also be truthful.
As you know, Usenet is an open forum, and anyone
has a right to "correct" or "criticize" any post. As I oppose
censorship in any form, you have a right to criticize me for
anything I post. And I have a right to wonder about your
motives for doing so.
We can debate the issue _ad infinitum_ if you wish, or at least
as time permits. I do suggest that you do a little research on
the issue. Hopefully, the info given in this post will be of
help to you.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Re: Cabins on Freighters
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in
news:1349k3t54j31hd6ivpkqu18h3p54126qjf@4ax,com :
> In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
> wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
> I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
The is a distinction between a big butt and an outfit that makes a butt
look big. You would do well to learn the differnece, Mrs. Roo for one
may well be delighted.
--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www .josephcoulter,com
yourvacation@comcast,net
877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in
news:1349k3t54j31hd6ivpkqu18h3p54126qjf@4ax,com :
> In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
> wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
> I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
The is a distinction between a big butt and an outfit that makes a butt
look big. You would do well to learn the differnece, Mrs. Roo for one
may well be delighted.
--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www .josephcoulter,com
yourvacation@comcast,net
877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell
Re: Cabins on Freighters
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:12:25 -0600, Joseph Coulter
<seeLOOKATsig@comcast,net > wrote in
<Xns99EFAF2C688BCyourvacationcomcastn@216.196.97.136> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in
>news:1349k3t54j31hd6ivpkqu18h3p54126qjf@4ax,com :
>
>> In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
>> wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
>> I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
>
>The is a distinction between a big butt and an outfit that makes a butt
>look big. You would do well to learn the differnece, Mrs. Roo for one
>may well be delighted.
No, as she too is a practical person. We have been married for
decades, and she is far too confident of her own assessment
than to seek my opinion on such a matter. :-)
For that matter, our female friends or acquaintances seeking
such an opinion would ask her, not me. Readers of my posts can
probably see the logic of this. :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:12:25 -0600, Joseph Coulter
<seeLOOKATsig@comcast,net > wrote in
<Xns99EFAF2C688BCyourvacationcomcastn@216.196.97.136> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in
>news:1349k3t54j31hd6ivpkqu18h3p54126qjf@4ax,com :
>
>> In my life, I have had women ask me if their outfit they were
>> wearing made their butt look to big. As I value truth over tact,
>> I have been truthful with them if I thought it did. :-)
>
>The is a distinction between a big butt and an outfit that makes a butt
>look big. You would do well to learn the differnece, Mrs. Roo for one
>may well be delighted.
No, as she too is a practical person. We have been married for
decades, and she is far too confident of her own assessment
than to seek my opinion on such a matter. :-)
For that matter, our female friends or acquaintances seeking
such an opinion would ask her, not me. Readers of my posts can
probably see the logic of this. :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Re: Cabins on Freighters
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2007 18:40:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <47447b9b$0$54356$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
[...]
> One can "criticize" someone else without "correcting" them, but
> perhaps not the other way around. If you think about it, most
> "correction" involves a degree of "criticism". If I can find my
> Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases without taking too
> much time, I'm confident that I can verify this.
Rest assured, I - nor most of the audience - need a thesaurus to know
and understand what (to) "criticize" or/and (to) "correct" does and
doesn't mean.
[...]
> Australia is a very tolerant country, though, and I don't remember
> anyone calling me "un-Australian" to my face.
Probably because you haven't behaved in the same way.
[...]
> > And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
>
> Another value judgment, Frank? Suppose I disagree with you
> and wonder about your motives? Why the need to call me
> "un-Australian"?
Because of *your* uncalled for value judgments. Because of your
chest-pounding. Because you're incapable of accepting a simple
correction. Because you rather twist and side-step than give an inch.
Etc., etc.. Ad infinitum.
Perhaps I've been 'lucky', but I've yet to meet a real live
Australian with those kind of traits.
> Why do you and Cath question my experience on the net, which implies I
> am lying to the group when I have told the truth?
We - well at least I - 'question' your "experience" because is does
not match at all with how little you actually know about things Usenet's.
Note however that "experience" does not mean experience in years, but
in 'volume'/depth/etc.. Expertise/knowledge is probably a better term,
because most people do not measure that in years, while some - for some
strange reason - measure experience only/mostly in years.
An analogy: In years, I have more driving experience than Michael
Schumacher. But I probably have a tad less expertise/knowledge/skill/
<whatever> than him! :-)
IOW, it's *perfectly fine* to have used something for years and still
know very little about it. There's all kinds of stuff I've used for
years and still know very little about. But when you start claiming
"experience" and display other forms of chest-pounding, then you should
either put your money where your mouth is or eat humble pie. You fail on
*both* counts, and *that* is why we "criticize"/"question"/<whatever>
you.
[...]
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2007 18:40:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <47447b9b$0$54356$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
[...]
> One can "criticize" someone else without "correcting" them, but
> perhaps not the other way around. If you think about it, most
> "correction" involves a degree of "criticism". If I can find my
> Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases without taking too
> much time, I'm confident that I can verify this.
Rest assured, I - nor most of the audience - need a thesaurus to know
and understand what (to) "criticize" or/and (to) "correct" does and
doesn't mean.
[...]
> Australia is a very tolerant country, though, and I don't remember
> anyone calling me "un-Australian" to my face.
Probably because you haven't behaved in the same way.
[...]
> > And yes, *this* *is* criticism. Highly deserved criticism.
>
> Another value judgment, Frank? Suppose I disagree with you
> and wonder about your motives? Why the need to call me
> "un-Australian"?
Because of *your* uncalled for value judgments. Because of your
chest-pounding. Because you're incapable of accepting a simple
correction. Because you rather twist and side-step than give an inch.
Etc., etc.. Ad infinitum.
Perhaps I've been 'lucky', but I've yet to meet a real live
Australian with those kind of traits.
> Why do you and Cath question my experience on the net, which implies I
> am lying to the group when I have told the truth?
We - well at least I - 'question' your "experience" because is does
not match at all with how little you actually know about things Usenet's.
Note however that "experience" does not mean experience in years, but
in 'volume'/depth/etc.. Expertise/knowledge is probably a better term,
because most people do not measure that in years, while some - for some
strange reason - measure experience only/mostly in years.
An analogy: In years, I have more driving experience than Michael
Schumacher. But I probably have a tad less expertise/knowledge/skill/
<whatever> than him! :-)
IOW, it's *perfectly fine* to have used something for years and still
know very little about it. There's all kinds of stuff I've used for
years and still know very little about. But when you start claiming
"experience" and display other forms of chest-pounding, then you should
either put your money where your mouth is or eat humble pie. You fail on
*both* counts, and *that* is why we "criticize"/"question"/<whatever>
you.
[...]
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 22 Nov 2007, 02:33
-- deleted messages --
Re: Cabins on Freighters
"Dick Adams" <rdadams@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fi0cek$cr2$1@reader1.panix,com ...
> Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
> have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
> from experience, not from law.
>
> I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
> limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
> US port to another US port to ships registered
> in the US. These ships usually have at least two
> cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
> four such cabins. The usage of these cabins was
> fairly limited as within country merchant marine
> travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
> noisy.
>
> Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
> likely have cabins for radio officers who are
> no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
> Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
> that when those ships were overhauled the space
> was converted to other use.
>
> A few years ago I went searching for freighter
> transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
> Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
> were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
> seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
> available.
>
> Dick
Back to the topic have you had a look at:
http :// www .geocities,com /freighterman.geo/mainmenu.html
"Dick Adams" <rdadams@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fi0cek$cr2$1@reader1.panix,com ...
> Fifty years ago it was unusal for freighters not to
> have additional cabins for passengers. This I know
> from experience, not from law.
>
> I know that with certainty that US Maritime Law
> limits the pickup and delivery of cargo from one
> US port to another US port to ships registered
> in the US. These ships usually have at least two
> cabins for passengers and I was on one that had
> four such cabins. The usage of these cabins was
> fairly limited as within country merchant marine
> travel is very slow and, in my experience, very
> noisy.
>
> Any ship built before the mid 1980's will most
> likely have cabins for radio officers who are
> no longer needed since Morse Code is now a relic.
> Since space is a premium at sea, it is most likely
> that when those ships were overhauled the space
> was converted to other use.
>
> A few years ago I went searching for freighter
> transportation from Oakland, California to Sydney,
> Australia. My search ended when I found the costs
> were equal to first class airfare. I do not recall
> seeing any ship with more than two or three cabins
> available.
>
> Dick
Back to the topic have you had a look at:
http :// www .geocities,com /freighterman.geo/mainmenu.html
