<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Point missed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/</link>
	<description>Just another Crikey Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:11 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: RobJ</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9501</link>
		<dc:creator>RobJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9501</guid>
		<description>&quot;Robj, that has to be one of the weakest ‘debunk the debunker’ debunkings I’ve ever read. Go back to your bunk and spank your (brass) monkey before I keelhaul you.&quot;

Hey, I&#039;m happy to have my debunking of a debunk debunked but I&#039;d appreciate it if you were more specific. I only learned the brass monkey was a cannonball holder recently. I suppose point three gives an alternative explanation, one which can be quantified even ;) OK,  I just read The Pav&#039;s post and concede that the brass monkey story is probably bullshit. and that I am a crap debunker. :(

My debunking career was rather short.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Robj, that has to be one of the weakest ‘debunk the debunker’ debunkings I’ve ever read. Go back to your bunk and spank your (brass) monkey before I keelhaul you.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hey, I&#8217;m happy to have my debunking of a debunk debunked but I&#8217;d appreciate it if you were more specific. I only learned the brass monkey was a cannonball holder recently. I suppose point three gives an alternative explanation, one which can be quantified even <img src='http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/wp-content/mu-plugins/tango-smilies/tango/face-wink.png' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  OK,  I just read The Pav&#8217;s post and concede that the brass monkey story is probably bullshit. and that I am a crap debunker. <img src='http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/wp-content/mu-plugins/tango-smilies/tango/face-sad.png' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>My debunking career was rather short.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: twobob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9495</link>
		<dc:creator>twobob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9495</guid>
		<description>Self recommendation is no recommendation robj. Calling yourself a kind person and in the same post calling me names is a little inconsistent don&#039;t you think?
By not reading and responding to comments you show all how closed your mind actually is. And this suits me as you have little to offer those who post here other than foul language which again indicates to all how limited your vocabulary and asinine little mind are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Self recommendation is no recommendation robj. Calling yourself a kind person and in the same post calling me names is a little inconsistent don&#8217;t you think?<br />
By not reading and responding to comments you show all how closed your mind actually is. And this suits me as you have little to offer those who post here other than foul language which again indicates to all how limited your vocabulary and asinine little mind are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeywrench</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9477</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeywrench</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9477</guid>
		<description>Robj, that has to be one of the weakest &#039;debunk the debunker&#039; debunkings I&#039;ve ever read. Go back to your bunk and spank your (brass) monkey before I keelhaul you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robj, that has to be one of the weakest &#8216;debunk the debunker&#8217; debunkings I&#8217;ve ever read. Go back to your bunk and spank your (brass) monkey before I keelhaul you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RobJ</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9458</link>
		<dc:creator>RobJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9458</guid>
		<description>You might be right Gavin, I haven&#039;t got a clue I just didn&#039;t think much of the debunking I listed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might be right Gavin, I haven&#8217;t got a clue I just didn&#8217;t think much of the debunking I listed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Myths and distortions - Pure Poison</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9457</link>
		<dc:creator>Myths and distortions - Pure Poison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9457</guid>
		<description>[...] our own commenters discuss the origins of the hapless &#8220;brass monkey&#8221;, it seems appropriate to drop in a plug for - and invite discussion of - last week&#8217;s episode [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>...] our own commenters discuss the origins of the hapless &#8220;brass monkey&#8221;, it seems appropriate to drop in a plug for &#8211; and invite discussion of &#8211; last week&#8217;s episode [...</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Pav</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9456</link>
		<dc:creator>The Pav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9456</guid>
		<description>For all those who read Bertus&#039; comment regarding brass monekys

&quot;Which reminds me of an old Royal Navy tale concerning the expression “cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey”. 

Back in the 1700s and 1800s cannonballs were stored on navy ships in a mound, called a brass monkey, on the deck. The cannonballs were made of brass and in the extreme cold found in many seas, the poorly made brass had a nasty propensity to change shape somewhat, making the mound unstable. when it was very cold cannonballs would start falling off the mound, hence the saying&quot;

This is an old explanation &amp; is totally false. I don&#039;t know the origin of the saying but it isn&#039;t this. Common sense alone would dictate this

Shot was kept in wooden racks called shot garlands.A few rounds were kept handy in action (ready use ammunition) but most was below.
Why would the working areas of the ship be cluttered up with round shot
Safety considerations alone would ensure shot was well secured
Why waste a valuable metal on such a menial task.
Shot is heavy so it would be stored low for stability
Iron rusts so it was kept away from the weather</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For all those who read Bertus&#8217; comment regarding brass monekys</p>
<p>&#8220;Which reminds me of an old Royal Navy tale concerning the expression “cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey”. </p>
<p>Back in the 1700s and 1800s cannonballs were stored on navy ships in a mound, called a brass monkey, on the deck. The cannonballs were made of brass and in the extreme cold found in many seas, the poorly made brass had a nasty propensity to change shape somewhat, making the mound unstable. when it was very cold cannonballs would start falling off the mound, hence the saying&#8221;</p>
<p>This is an old explanation &amp; is totally false. I don&#8217;t know the origin of the saying but it isn&#8217;t this. Common sense alone would dictate this</p>
<p>Shot was kept in wooden racks called shot garlands.A few rounds were kept handy in action (ready use ammunition) but most was below.<br />
Why would the working areas of the ship be cluttered up with round shot<br />
Safety considerations alone would ensure shot was well secured<br />
Why waste a valuable metal on such a menial task.<br />
Shot is heavy so it would be stored low for stability<br />
Iron rusts so it was kept away from the weather</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RobJ</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9455</link>
		<dc:creator>RobJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9455</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d read your post and respond to it twobob, if you weren&#039;t an idiot. I&#039;m a kind person so I&#039;ll advise you not to waste your time addressing posts to me, I will be ignoring you, I&#039;ve read enough to realise you&#039;re an idiot, worse an idiot who has no respect for women..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d read your post and respond to it twobob, if you weren&#8217;t an idiot. I&#8217;m a kind person so I&#8217;ll advise you not to waste your time addressing posts to me, I will be ignoring you, I&#8217;ve read enough to realise you&#8217;re an idiot, worse an idiot who has no respect for women..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew of Canberra</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9451</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew of Canberra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9451</guid>
		<description>To me, this seems pretty straightforward:   I would not want to be trying to run that ship after this nonsense came to light.  From the point of view of individual men or women involved, nyeah - stuff happens.   I don&#039;t think anyone was exploited, or has any right to a grudge beyond the usual young-person-angst.  But the overall impact of a distinct group of identifiable sailors having that sort of &quot;angle&quot; on another would be disastrous for my confidence in the ability of the team to function at its best.  The quickest and most effective way to resolve the problem (and send a very clear message) would be to split up and relocate one group or the other - and it&#039;s pretty clear which group started it.   

The cost and irritation to the navy of having to do this isn&#039;t insignificant.  Apparently they took the problem seriously, and hats off to them.  There&#039;s a certain reality to recruiting a large number of young men and women, taking them far from home and giving them responsibilities - and that&#039;s the risk of frat-house behavior.  But a battleship isn&#039;t the appropriate place for that, it&#039;s not &quot;schoolies&quot;, and the only response the navy has at its disposal is discipline.  

Hearing some of the stories that have come from the US army about the treatment of women by male colleagues, I&#039;m pleased that the navy took this decision.  My impression is that our military is professional and upstanding, and moves like this will help to keep it that way (and will help them recruit the best and brightest).

As for certain columnists who insist on claiming this is about natural male urges - just remember they pay their bills by clicks and eyeballs.  Writing sensible, reasoned, fact-based columns is a very inefficient use of their time.  That&#039;s the way the media&#039;s headed, I&#039;m afraid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me, this seems pretty straightforward:   I would not want to be trying to run that ship after this nonsense came to light.  From the point of view of individual men or women involved, nyeah &#8211; stuff happens.   I don&#8217;t think anyone was exploited, or has any right to a grudge beyond the usual young-person-angst.  But the overall impact of a distinct group of identifiable sailors having that sort of &#8220;angle&#8221; on another would be disastrous for my confidence in the ability of the team to function at its best.  The quickest and most effective way to resolve the problem (and send a very clear message) would be to split up and relocate one group or the other &#8211; and it&#8217;s pretty clear which group started it.   </p>
<p>The cost and irritation to the navy of having to do this isn&#8217;t insignificant.  Apparently they took the problem seriously, and hats off to them.  There&#8217;s a certain reality to recruiting a large number of young men and women, taking them far from home and giving them responsibilities &#8211; and that&#8217;s the risk of frat-house behavior.  But a battleship isn&#8217;t the appropriate place for that, it&#8217;s not &#8220;schoolies&#8221;, and the only response the navy has at its disposal is discipline.  </p>
<p>Hearing some of the stories that have come from the US army about the treatment of women by male colleagues, I&#8217;m pleased that the navy took this decision.  My impression is that our military is professional and upstanding, and moves like this will help to keep it that way (and will help them recruit the best and brightest).</p>
<p>As for certain columnists who insist on claiming this is about natural male urges &#8211; just remember they pay their bills by clicks and eyeballs.  Writing sensible, reasoned, fact-based columns is a very inefficient use of their time.  That&#8217;s the way the media&#8217;s headed, I&#8217;m afraid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: twobob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9448</link>
		<dc:creator>twobob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9448</guid>
		<description>Your so cool and mature robJ it makes me wonder if you ever were young and foolish.
Humanity in my experience is not like you at all, many of us are a little less perfect than you, especially when we are young. Did I feel the need to brag about my sexual conquests? No, but I did discuss some of them with my mates. Am I comfortable with my masculinity? Yes thanks for asking. And would my wife be happy with me taking and placing bets on sleeping with other women? What an ignorant comment, were these men married?
And thanks rob I am glad you found my comments funny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your so cool and mature robJ it makes me wonder if you ever were young and foolish.<br />
Humanity in my experience is not like you at all, many of us are a little less perfect than you, especially when we are young. Did I feel the need to brag about my sexual conquests? No, but I did discuss some of them with my mates. Am I comfortable with my masculinity? Yes thanks for asking. And would my wife be happy with me taking and placing bets on sleeping with other women? What an ignorant comment, were these men married?<br />
And thanks rob I am glad you found my comments funny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GavinM</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/08/point-missed/comment-page-1/#comment-9447</link>
		<dc:creator>GavinM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/?p=2573#comment-9447</guid>
		<description>Hello Rob

I&#039;ve done a little bit of internet trawling -- what do you think of this theory ?

Apparently, according to a couple of sites I found, the first recorded use of the term &quot;brass-monkey&quot; was in a book called Before the Mast written in 1857, the quote was &quot;freeze the tail off a brass monkey&quot;. 

Also, according to the same sites the Cunard Line -  (established around 1840) - house flag is a &#039;gold lion rampant on a red field&#039; and is nick-named the brass monkey.

Given the sort of language that sailors of the day used, do you think it could be possible that the term &quot;freeze the balls off a brass monkey&quot; was derived from the expression in the book and originally was referring to the Cunard flag ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Rob</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve done a little bit of internet trawling &#8212; what do you think of this theory ?</p>
<p>Apparently, according to a couple of sites I found, the first recorded use of the term &#8220;brass-monkey&#8221; was in a book called Before the Mast written in 1857, the quote was &#8220;freeze the tail off a brass monkey&#8221;. </p>
<p>Also, according to the same sites the Cunard Line &#8211;  (established around 1840) &#8211; house flag is a &#8216;gold lion rampant on a red field&#8217; and is nick-named the brass monkey.</p>
<p>Given the sort of language that sailors of the day used, do you think it could be possible that the term &#8220;freeze the balls off a brass monkey&#8221; was derived from the expression in the book and originally was referring to the Cunard flag ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
