On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:46:05 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.
Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.

Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.


Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

Pictures really aren't needed, although I did look at the chart. It
simply isn't relevant. The kids were within their rights to call
starboard (I presume there really was a P/S situation). You were
within your rights to ask for more room. This is easily understood
within the rules. End of story.

You're claim is that the kids should have understood you were "less
maneuverable" and stayed out of your way. This is, at best, delusional.

If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.

No Jeff, I mentioned my dead engine in the original post. You
overlooked that fact and responded by indicating I should just have
started my engine, or something to that effect. I then made you aware
that the engine was dead. Repeated emphasis. I don't think so.


And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

Actually the question did give enough information, especially since it
was a hypothetical. The question asked if it was a meeting, crossing,
or overtaking situation. If you knew the rules you would instantly
realize it is none of these. Again, end of story.

If you really want to go deeper - even is it was a "narrow channel"
situation (and there was nothing to imply it was), the sailboat is
still "stand-on" although it may be required to give room for the
powerboat to get by. The only interesting question is whether the
High Speed boat essentially waives it's "narrow channel rights" by not
slowing down, since it might well be impossible for slow sailboat to
give it any room in time. The rules seem pretty clear that a "safe
speed" is required, but it seemed like you were implying that the high
speed boat might be considered "less maneuverable" - this would be
interesting question, certainly more so than what some kids should
have done.

I was not implying either boat had to give way, just commenting that
additional information might be needed to determine what action was
required by what vessel.


You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, I take
that back - he was correct that that was the historical basis for many
of the rules, you're incorrect in assuming that it is sufficient to
analyze all situations that arise.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.

You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

Once again, I never said or implied that I believed that.

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

Would you answer the question, and not ask another. Or can you?

You're the one who had the problem with the dead engine, do you really
think the kids would know about that? They just assumed that being
under sail you were willing to abide by the rules for boats being
under sail, and would inform them if there was something special going
on. They probably weren't aware that you didn't know the rules.

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.
That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

No! Kids never do that! My kids would certainly never do that! In
fact, I've never heard of a kid playing a dangerous game!

So I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the kids said
"Let's play a dangerous game - we'll ignore the ColRegs!" and they
would have been better off if they said, "we'll abandon common sense"?

BTW, you would have had a much better case if they were adults. Then
you could have started an interesting thread about how sometimes
adults forget common courtesy and insist on strict observance to the
rules. However, I've found that most of the times, those who ignore
courtesy never knew the rules at all.


You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.

I have never acted surprised that that was not the case.


The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

So either, the kids refused to give you room and ran you up on the
rocks (which I doubt), or they give you room and the situation was
over. But no one in their right mind would have made such a big deal
over it if they simply backed off when you asked them to. Really
Frank, you're the one who said "I'll ignore colregs and revert to
common sense every time."

and you started it up anew in this thread when you said:

"After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach."

Yes Jeff, that is where you left it.

The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff that is where you left it. It is certainly not what I ever
believed to be the case.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

Well, I guess I've never heard that before on ASA.

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.


I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.
You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

We have a lot in common, Frank.

No Jeff, I don't think we do. You see, I don't know you, don't know
if you are real, don't know the level of your expertise, but, unlike
you I'm not going to attack and insult you, call you stupid,
delusional or in need of medication. I'm not going to draw
conclusions about you or anything you post until I actually know more
about you and/or the situation you post. No, I don't think we have
very much in common. I would actually ask questions until I am
confident I know all the facts.

Maybe RB will be back (he's never left for good before) and you two
can go at it and you will be happy again.

Frank