When I was a kid, I learned that the difference between a ship and a boat is a ship can hold a boat on board but a boat cannot hold a ship on board. Is this basically correct?
Posts: 1371 | Location: Cameron Park, CA | Registered: January 23, 2007
That is exactly the way I have heard guys in white uniforms with a lot of stuff on the epaulets explain it to guys in shorts with wing tips and dark knee socks.
It must be correct.
Posts: 3382 | Location: Costa Mesa, California | Registered: November 16, 2006
Dab gum it, the imagery you just created tickled the crud out of me. I have, for years, characterized the typical tourist from Kansas (sorry folks) visiting Yosemite with pasty white skin, bermuda shorts, a "happy face" t-shirt, black socks, deck shoes, and a Disneyland fishing hat with a camera (poloroid) dangling around his neck!
I once said that to one of my college professors who quickly informed me that he and Mrs. Rombold were from Kansas.
Posts: 1371 | Location: Cameron Park, CA | Registered: January 23, 2007
Originally posted by oppis: I´ll give you the explanation from the Radiance Captain, because he´s always upset, when people name his ship a boat.
A ship has a norwegian captain, a boat has a frustrated husband,
Not my words, but I like the explanation.
Best regards oppis
I'm not sure what it means but I like it.
Being ex Navy the definition in the original post is what I understand to be correct. But it is not always intuitive. I was on the Thomas Hart a Destroyer Escort that had 138 men and carried ASROC missles. It was classified by the Navy as a BOAT. I suppose you could pick it up and place it on the deck of a Carrier if you wanted.