QM2: "Ship" vs. "Boat"?

[bazzaw]

I am so old that I remember when a ship had to have three or more masts! 

[Host Hattie]

9 hours ago, Rotterdam said:

Let's deal w the facts...any qualified NAVAL ARCHITECT would agree QM2 was built as a dual purpose ship...not as a pure oceanliner.

As far as decor, menus etc...that has more to do w the times & tastes the ship sails.  Do I want to go back in time..no.  but to deny the fact the QE2, FRANCE etc  were thoroughbred OCEAN LINERS is ignorance.

I don't think anyone is denying your first fact, but everything I've read about the QE2 is that she was also designed as a dual purpose ship.

That's all posters are trying to explain.

[exlondoner]

Confessing to ignorance in advance, but wasn't the QE2 built as a dual purpose ship? And from personal experience of gales on both QE2 and QM2, I certainly felt  much less ill on the latter, if handling gales is part of being a liner. In fact I don't think it really is, but is a result of the presence and quality of the stabilisers. The first Queen Mary had none for years. And there were ships built as ocean liners for liner services with far shallower drafts than QM2. That is undoubtedly a fact.

[navybankerteacher]

Perhaps we should wait until the Bureau of Weights and Standards makes their determination.  Meanwhile, it might be an option that we simply accept the fact that virtually every form of transportation evolves with the passage of time:  why should we freeze on one step of the evolution of ships?

[newjoisey]

yepper......south park is gettin more interesting by the post.....come on vaccine lol