Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true?

sailing content? Subject: Manure - An Interesting Fact Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship. It was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common. It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, not only was it heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas. As the cargo was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen. Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM! Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening. After that, bundles of manure were stamped with the instruction “Stow high in transit”on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the vessel would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane. Thus evolved the term 'S.H.I.T', (Stow High In Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day. You probably did not know the true history of this word. Neither did I. I always thought it was an aviation term.

Absolute On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:26 PM, ai… [at] aol.com wrote: > > sailing content? > > > > > >> Subject: Manure - An Interesting Fact >> >> >> >> Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship. It was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common. >> >> >> It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, not only was it heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas. As the cargo was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen. >> >> >> Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM! >> >> Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening. After that, bundles of manure were stamped with the instruction “Stow high in transit”on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the vessel would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane. >> >> >> Thus evolved the term 'S.H.I.T', (Stow High In Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day. You probably did not know the true history of this word. >> >> Neither did I. >> >> I always thought it was an aviation term. >> > > >

Not true according to Snopes http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp Carl Cal 34III Nauta On 1/21/11, ai… [at] aol.com <ai… [at] aol.com> wrote: > > sailing content? > > > > Subject: Manure - An Interesting Fact

On 1/23/2011 11:38 AM, Carl wrote: > > Not true according to Snopes > > http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp > It's interesting how something with a superficial plausibility gets accepted as fact. There was that complicated tale about the balls of a brass monkey, and supposed etymology of "posh." I don't know if it's an American thing or more general in the world. It's harmless when it comes to words but disastrous in political matters when we accept as true things that sound like they might be true. Chris Campbell

Or here http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php From: Chris <cc… [at] lsnm.org> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:03:26 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? On 1/23/2011 11:38 AM, Carl wrote: >Not true according to Snopes > >http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp > > It's interesting how something with a superficial plausibility gets accepted as fact. There was that complicated tale about the balls of a brass monkey, and supposed etymology of "posh." I don't know if it's an American thing or more general in the world. It's harmless when it comes to words but disastrous in political matters when we accept as true things that sound like they might be true. Chris Campbell

Bummer, and all this time I was being fed a line of shit. Rich From: Wayne Gillikin <wa… [at] yahoo.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:53:35 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? Or here http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php From: Chris <cc… [at] lsnm.org> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:03:26 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? On 1/23/2011 11:38 AM, Carl wrote: >Not true according to Snopes > >http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp > > It's interesting how something with a superficial plausibility gets accepted as fact. There was that complicated tale about the balls of a brass monkey, and supposed etymology of "posh." I don't know if it's an American thing or more general in the world. It's harmless when it comes to words but disastrous in political matters when we accept as true things that sound like they might be true. Chris Campbell

On 1/24/2011 9:53 AM, Wayne Gillikin wrote: > Or here > http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php Interesting discussion of the rise of acronyms and similar forms. I've always been especially fond of snafu and fubar. Chris Campbell > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Chris <cc… [at] lsnm.org> > *To:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Mon, January 24, 2011 9:03:26 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? > > On 1/23/2011 11:38 AM, Carl wrote: > >> Not true according to Snopes >> >> http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp >> > > It's interesting how something with a superficial plausibility gets > accepted as fact. There was that complicated tale about the balls of > a brass monkey, and supposed etymology of "posh." I don't know if > it's an American thing or more general in the world. It's harmless > when it comes to words but disastrous in political matters when we > accept as true things that sound like they might be true. > > Chris Campbell > > >

Rich, It's just a case of another acrimonious acronym! I hate those acronyms to pieces! Meeses, not so much, unless you mean E. Meese. Jerry --- On Mon, 1/24/11, richard beliveau <ri… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: From: richard beliveau <ri… [at] yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 6:56 AM Bummer, and all this time I was being fed a line of shit. Rich From: Wayne Gillikin <wa… [at] yahoo.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:53:35 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? Or here http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php From: Chris <cc… [at] lsnm.org> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:03:26 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Is this true? On 1/23/2011 11:38 AM, Carl wrote: Not true according to Snopes http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp It's interesting how something with a superficial plausibility gets accepted as fact. There was that complicated tale about the balls of a brass monkey, and supposed etymology of "posh." I don't know if it's an American thing or more general in the world. It's harmless when it comes to words but disastrous in political matters when we accept as true things that sound like they might be true. Chris Campbell