“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Bilges?
Bilge.
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Particularly since they store the shit high in transit.
don’t know about all the rest of yous but more than half of these look wet to us
SCIENCE said:
don’t know about all the rest of yous but more than half of these look wet to us
Shit range of choice.
SCIENCE said:
don’t know about all the rest of yous but more than half of these look wet to us
Moist
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
At times like this I wish I still had web access to the complete Oxford dictionary.
That would tell me the first time that the phrase “bowels of a ship” was first used, and in what context.
If I understand correctly, “the bowels of the ship” would not refer to the wet part (the bilge tanks). A person would be swallowed in one or more entrances at the top, and pass downward through the ship’s alimentary tract to the engine room to even deeper parts of the lower intestine. The “bowels” would then be the human-accessible parts of the ship interior, not the wet parts.
Which would be a shit job.
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Basically “in the bowels of (something)” means “deep on the insides of (that thing)”. It’s a metaphorical saying.
Michael V said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Basically “in the bowels of (something)” means “deep on the insides of (that thing)”. It’s a metaphorical saying.
Yeah, it’s a bit like saying you love something with your all heart. It is not really anatomically correct, it is just a saying.
Incidentally, there was a bloke at my parent’s church when I was a kid, who had been a missionary in Africa. He reckons the local expression there “I love you with all my liver”.
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
At times like this I wish I still had web access to the complete Oxford dictionary.
That would tell me the first time that the phrase “bowels of a ship” was first used, and in what context.If I understand correctly, “the bowels of the ship” would not refer to the wet part (the bilge tanks). A person would be swallowed in one or more entrances at the top, and pass downward through the ship’s alimentary tract to the engine room to even deeper parts of the lower intestine. The “bowels” would then be the human-accessible parts of the ship interior, not the wet parts.
Which would be a shit job.
Down through the intestines.
party_pants said:
Michael V said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Basically “in the bowels of (something)” means “deep on the insides of (that thing)”. It’s a metaphorical saying.
Yeah, it’s a bit like saying you love something with your all heart. It is not really anatomically correct, it is just a saying.
Incidentally, there was a bloke at my parent’s church when I was a kid, who had been a missionary in Africa. He reckons the local expression there “I love you with all my liver”.
Ha!
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
At times like this I wish I still had web access to the complete Oxford dictionary.
That would tell me the first time that the phrase “bowels of a ship” was first used, and in what context.If I understand correctly, “the bowels of the ship” would not refer to the wet part (the bilge tanks). A person would be swallowed in one or more entrances at the top, and pass downward through the ship’s alimentary tract to the engine room to even deeper parts of the lower intestine. The “bowels” would then be the human-accessible parts of the ship interior, not the wet parts.
Which would be a shit job.
As far as I can tell it would or could not have been older than ships that had bowels.. or holds. Say a Viking longboat or a Roman galley couldn’t really have had bowels to speak of.
So ships that had more than one deck.
Earliest mention I can find is; The Hairy Ape by Eugene O’Neill, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4015/4015-h/4015-h.htm
roughbarked said:
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
At times like this I wish I still had web access to the complete Oxford dictionary.
That would tell me the first time that the phrase “bowels of a ship” was first used, and in what context.If I understand correctly, “the bowels of the ship” would not refer to the wet part (the bilge tanks). A person would be swallowed in one or more entrances at the top, and pass downward through the ship’s alimentary tract to the engine room to even deeper parts of the lower intestine. The “bowels” would then be the human-accessible parts of the ship interior, not the wet parts.
Which would be a shit job.
As far as I can tell it would or could not have been older than ships that had bowels.. or holds. Say a Viking longboat or a Roman galley couldn’t really have had bowels to speak of.
So ships that had more than one deck.
Earliest mention I can find is; The Hairy Ape by Eugene O’Neill, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4015/4015-h/4015-h.htm
that’s 1922.
Michael V said:
Spiny Norman said:
“…. down in the bowels of the ship …”
Shouldn’t it be ‘the bladder of the ship’, considering it’s you know, wet?
Basically “in the bowels of (something)” means “deep on the insides of (that thing)”. It’s a metaphorical saying.
Could be the bowels of the earth.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
mollwollfumble said:At times like this I wish I still had web access to the complete Oxford dictionary.
That would tell me the first time that the phrase “bowels of a ship” was first used, and in what context.If I understand correctly, “the bowels of the ship” would not refer to the wet part (the bilge tanks). A person would be swallowed in one or more entrances at the top, and pass downward through the ship’s alimentary tract to the engine room to even deeper parts of the lower intestine. The “bowels” would then be the human-accessible parts of the ship interior, not the wet parts.
Which would be a shit job.
As far as I can tell it would or could not have been older than ships that had bowels.. or holds. Say a Viking longboat or a Roman galley couldn’t really have had bowels to speak of.
So ships that had more than one deck.
Earliest mention I can find is; The Hairy Ape by Eugene O’Neill, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4015/4015-h/4015-h.htm
that’s 1922.
> “The treatment of this scene, or of any other scene in the play, should by no means be naturalistic. The effect sought after is a cramped space in the bowels of a ship, imprisoned by white steel. The lines of bunks, the uprights supporting them, cross each other like the steel framework of a cage. The ceiling crushes down upon the men’s heads. They cannot stand upright. This accentuates the natural stooping posture which shovelling coal and the resultant over-development of back and shoulder muscles have given them.”
Brilliant. I was thinking that it would have to be steamships rather than sailing ships.
————
On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
mollwollfumble said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:As far as I can tell it would or could not have been older than ships that had bowels.. or holds. Say a Viking longboat or a Roman galley couldn’t really have had bowels to speak of.
So ships that had more than one deck.
Earliest mention I can find is; The Hairy Ape by Eugene O’Neill, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4015/4015-h/4015-h.htm
that’s 1922.
> “The treatment of this scene, or of any other scene in the play, should by no means be naturalistic. The effect sought after is a cramped space in the bowels of a ship, imprisoned by white steel. The lines of bunks, the uprights supporting them, cross each other like the steel framework of a cage. The ceiling crushes down upon the men’s heads. They cannot stand upright. This accentuates the natural stooping posture which shovelling coal and the resultant over-development of back and shoulder muscles have given them.”
Brilliant. I was thinking that it would have to be steamships rather than sailing ships.
————
On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
Sir sir, there’s leeks in the hold. from Cap’n Pugwash.
mollwollfumble said:
On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
That’s very difficult to imagine for a lot of ships.
The quantity of vegetables that would be needed for a ship with any sort of sizeable population (even these days, moderate sized warships have 150 -180 people aboard) or a cruise ship (thousands!) make the space, light, and water requirements absolutely impractical.
Even for a small-crew ship (say,a container ship with 12 – 20 people), you’re going to need a lot of space and a fair chunk of fresh water.
It’s far more practical to buy sacks and boxes of the veges and fruits, which will provide for a much longer period of time, and not require all of the things listed above. Most ships need stuff by the pallet-load, if not the truckload – you’re never going to make a dent in that need by gardens at sea.
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
That’s very difficult to imagine for a lot of ships.
The quantity of vegetables that would be needed for a ship with any sort of sizeable population (even these days, moderate sized warships have 150 -180 people aboard) or a cruise ship (thousands!) make the space, light, and water requirements absolutely impractical.
Even for a small-crew ship (say,a container ship with 12 – 20 people), you’re going to need a lot of space and a fair chunk of fresh water.
It’s far more practical to buy sacks and boxes of the veges and fruits, which will provide for a much longer period of time, and not require all of the things listed above. Most ships need stuff by the pallet-load, if not the truckload – you’re never going to make a dent in that need by gardens at sea.
Unless you eat algae?
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
That’s very difficult to imagine for a lot of ships.
The quantity of vegetables that would be needed for a ship with any sort of sizeable population (even these days, moderate sized warships have 150 -180 people aboard) or a cruise ship (thousands!) make the space, light, and water requirements absolutely impractical.
Even for a small-crew ship (say,a container ship with 12 – 20 people), you’re going to need a lot of space and a fair chunk of fresh water.
It’s far more practical to buy sacks and boxes of the veges and fruits, which will provide for a much longer period of time, and not require all of the things listed above. Most ships need stuff by the pallet-load, if not the truckload – you’re never going to make a dent in that need by gardens at sea.
That’s why squash is such a popular item for warships. Our Supply Officer swore that he would never get squash since he (and others) hated it. When he took over on a ship, he said he wasn’t going to have squash. When he was presented with the logistical benefits of squash by his team, he reluctantly had to cave and order squash (and lots of it).
Obviousman said:
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:On a different topic, are there any ships that grow their own vegetables on board?
That’s very difficult to imagine for a lot of ships.
The quantity of vegetables that would be needed for a ship with any sort of sizeable population (even these days, moderate sized warships have 150 -180 people aboard) or a cruise ship (thousands!) make the space, light, and water requirements absolutely impractical.
Even for a small-crew ship (say,a container ship with 12 – 20 people), you’re going to need a lot of space and a fair chunk of fresh water.
It’s far more practical to buy sacks and boxes of the veges and fruits, which will provide for a much longer period of time, and not require all of the things listed above. Most ships need stuff by the pallet-load, if not the truckload – you’re never going to make a dent in that need by gardens at sea.
That’s why squash is such a popular item for warships. Our Supply Officer swore that he would never get squash since he (and others) hated it. When he took over on a ship, he said he wasn’t going to have squash. When he was presented with the logistical benefits of squash by his team, he reluctantly had to cave and order squash (and lots of it).
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
furious said:
Obviousman said:
captain_spalding said:That’s very difficult to imagine for a lot of ships.
The quantity of vegetables that would be needed for a ship with any sort of sizeable population (even these days, moderate sized warships have 150 -180 people aboard) or a cruise ship (thousands!) make the space, light, and water requirements absolutely impractical.
Even for a small-crew ship (say,a container ship with 12 – 20 people), you’re going to need a lot of space and a fair chunk of fresh water.
It’s far more practical to buy sacks and boxes of the veges and fruits, which will provide for a much longer period of time, and not require all of the things listed above. Most ships need stuff by the pallet-load, if not the truckload – you’re never going to make a dent in that need by gardens at sea.
That’s why squash is such a popular item for warships. Our Supply Officer swore that he would never get squash since he (and others) hated it. When he took over on a ship, he said he wasn’t going to have squash. When he was presented with the logistical benefits of squash by his team, he reluctantly had to cave and order squash (and lots of it).
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
Tamb said:
furious said:
Obviousman said:That’s why squash is such a popular item for warships. Our Supply Officer swore that he would never get squash since he (and others) hated it. When he took over on a ship, he said he wasn’t going to have squash. When he was presented with the logistical benefits of squash by his team, he reluctantly had to cave and order squash (and lots of it).
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
Seaweed would be fairly easy to grow.
Also, ignore my question, I got my conversations mixed up…
furious said:
Tamb said:
furious said:What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
Seaweed would be fairly easy to grow.Also, ignore my question, I got my conversations mixed up…
On this forum all questions are valid.
Tamb said:
furious said:
Tamb said:Seaweed would be fairly easy to grow.
Also, ignore my question, I got my conversations mixed up…
On this forum all questions are valid.
I’m reasonably sure they could grow enough loofas to stock the bathrooms?
Tamb said:
furious said:
Tamb said:Seaweed would be fairly easy to grow.
Also, ignore my question, I got my conversations mixed up…
On this forum all questions are valid.
I was thinking juice as a substitute for a serve of fruit and squash being a kind of juice that also doubles as scurvy prevention…
furious said:
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
The yellow veggie, of course.
Obviousman said:
furious said:
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
The yellow veggie, of course.
Not all are yellow.
In fact most aren’t.
roughbarked said:
Obviousman said:
furious said:
What kind of squash you talking about? The vegetable? The drink? The ball sport?
The yellow veggie, of course.
Not all are yellow.
In fact most aren’t.
All the ones I have ever seen – on ships – are yellow.
Obviousman said:
roughbarked said:
Obviousman said:The yellow veggie, of course.
Not all are yellow.
In fact most aren’t.
All the ones I have ever seen – on ships – are yellow.
NOTE – I am not an expert in vegetables.
Obviousman said:
roughbarked said:
Obviousman said:The yellow veggie, of course.
Not all are yellow.
In fact most aren’t.
All the ones I have ever seen – on ships – are yellow.
Old seedy squash then. More protein in the seeds.
Obviousman said:
Obviousman said:
roughbarked said:Not all are yellow.
In fact most aren’t.
All the ones I have ever seen – on ships – are yellow.
NOTE – I am not an expert in vegetables.
Most do go yellow when they go to seed. Otherwise they are called zucchini or some other nickname.