"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message

Why is that the professional captains, the standard textbook, and the authors of the
rule
all agree on its meaning, and yet Neal stands alone in his opinion?



Hey, Jeff, I happen to be a professional captain.

Is that true? Hoiw much money have you made using your license?

And, I just happen
to be a greater authority on the English language than some smuck
named Farwell. Does this Farwell even have a lowly bachelor's
degree? I doubt it.


Farwell died a number of years ago, he was the author of the first edition in 1941. The
authors of the 6th edition that I've been quoting are Frank E. Basset, Commander, US Navy,
US Naval Academy, '58, served as chairman of the Navigation Department of the Naval
Academy; and Richard A. Smith, Commander, Royal Navy, graduate of the Royal Naval College
in Dartmouth and the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, also served as chairman of the
Navigation Department of the Naval Academy, and at the time of publication, commanding
officer of HMS Achilles.

I think its fair to say they know what they're talking about.


'Shall not impede' means what it says. It is as much a part of the
English language as apple pie. Nobody attempts to come up with
his own definition of 'apple pie' yet they presume to come up with
a definition of 'shall not impede' that is contrary to the dictionary
definition. Could it be that those who do so do so out of ignorance?


Absolutely wrong. Anyone creating formal rules must define their terms and use them
precisely. Even the IMO, the body that formulated the ColRegs, commented on how "shall no
impede" was a very specific term, used in a limited sense, and that in particular, rule 8f
was added to clarify the meaning of "shall not impede" in rules 9 and 10.

You, on the other hand, have refused to acknowledge common usage, as when you claimed the
"sea room" could only apply on the high seas, even though Bowditch defines it in terms of
being able to maneuver without risk of collision. The ColRegs use it, of course, in the
same context.

So what's next? Will you claim you know more than Bowditch?




Yes, sir, it is very likely the case. Any time some Rube attempts to
force his own lame definitions which do not agree with dictionary
definitions upon certain words and terms it is because the Rube is
uneducated and ignorant. It casts whatever the Rube says in a
dubious light. That's a fact. Another fact is those who would give
any credit at all to said Rube are ignorant of the English language
just as is the Rube.


Have you just assumed a new name, Rube?