On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:58:08 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

No. I'm not interested in hookers of either sex.


But that's all you can get.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

Actually, that's all you try for.

I'm sure you're quite successful at it.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:58:08 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

No. I'm not interested in hookers of either sex.


But that's all you can get.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:07:44 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote this
crap:

On 1 Aug 2003 03:49:54 GMT, Horvath wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:43:12 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote this
crap:

Ever spent 90 days at sea on a yacht Holly?
You'd be looking a little worn too....

She doesn't look "worn." She looks like a dyke.

Holly, they don't have hairdressers on race yachts.
No blow dryers or curling wands either...makes sense to have short
hair don't it?

My girlfriend says that short hair is just as hard to take care of
than long hair, and my fiance agrees with her.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

If you shave your dogs on a regular basis, you won't
have the same problem with fleas.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:07:44 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote this
crap:

On 1 Aug 2003 03:49:54 GMT, Horvath wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:43:12 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote this
crap:

Ever spent 90 days at sea on a yacht Holly?
You'd be looking a little worn too....

She doesn't look "worn." She looks like a dyke.

Holly, they don't have hairdressers on race yachts.
No blow dryers or curling wands either...makes sense to have short
hair don't it?

My girlfriend says that short hair is just as hard to take care of
than long hair, and my fiance agrees with her.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

It sure sounded to me like you completely conceded the argument.

First of all, although you claimed for months that it was OK for sailboats to continue at
hull speed, suddenly, when I pointed out that courts generally ruled that no more than 3-4
knots was "safe" you claimed you would never go more the 3-4 knots in the fog.

You've claimed that fog only happens with light wind; anyone from Maine knows that 15-20
knots of wind is not uncommon at all in fog.

You claimed that really thick fog, which is the premise of this discussion, doesn't exist.
When a number of people said that's ridiculous, you got very quiet and now say you don't
want to talk about it anymore.

And you speak as though you never even bothered to read the rules. You claim that because
one vessel must slow down, the other vessel is encouraged to continue at full speed.
There is absolutely nothing to this effect; on the contrary the rule are very specific:
ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED TO MINIMUM. No matter how many times we go through
this, you keep saying things like, "they couldn't mean me" or "I'm under the control of
the wind ... I don't know how to slow down" or "I would be dangerous if I had to do
that." Frankly claiming that you're too incompetent to comply doesn't sound like a good
defense to me. And your most bizarre claim, that since a boat at anchor (tied to a
buoy) can't be told to slow down anymore, the entire rule is invalid! WTF is that???

Frankly, there are a number of directions that you could have gone with this that I would
have agreed to. Yes, sailboats are usually going at a safe speed in the fog. Yes,
powerboats are more often at fault. Yes, the special signal (long-short-short) is in
effect, a request to the other boat to take extra caution. But to say that there is a
"pecking order" is just plain wrong. And to insist that a sailboat is a "stand-on" when
the rules explicitly say the opposite is reprehensible.

For those lurkers who are interested, here is the relevant passage from "Farwell's Rules
of the Nautical Road," Naval Institute Press. This has been the standard text on the
subject for the last 60 years. The two authors of this edition were professors at
Annapolis. I've posted this several times; Neal has dismissed it as liberal nonsense!

"While the rules for vessels in sight of one another give a pecking for give-way
status among hampered vessels, there is no such explicit status in restricted
visibility. Despite the provisions of unique signals for hampered vessels, Rule
19 - the conduct of vessels in restricted visibility - affords them no specific
rights. Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as any other vessel, but
clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious purposes of causing
ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution"

This has been precisely my position from the beginning of the discussion.

Poor Neal, you say you're "blue in the face" from repeating your arguments. I suggest you
take a breath and read the rules. While your arguments may make some logical sense to
you, the simply aren't supported in the rules.


--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I tried my best to clue that clueless pair in on the
facts of the matter when it comes to the practical
aspects of the Rules and how they apply to sailboats
but to no avail. I'm afraid trying to instruct Shen44 and
Jeff is like teaching a special education class for Down's
syndrome children. Their attention span is way to
short and their IQ is way too limited. They even
attempted to start a discussion of court cases
and we all know there isn't a judge in the world
who knows what sailing is all about. The bottom
line and unfortunate fact is motorboat Captains
like Shen44 and Jeff have a mentality that makes
it dangerous for them to operate large motor
boats. There is no telling how many small boats
they have run down because of their insistence
that might makes right.

What kind of a fool does it take to deny there
is a pecking order in a fog when there is one
signal for a motor vessel and another different
signal for sailboats, and those above sailboats
in the pecking order. The fact of the matter
is upon hearing one prolonged and two short
blasts a motor boat captain must assume the
worst. He must assume he is hearing the
signal of a NUC until more information becomes
available. Since a NUC, by definition has some
sort of mechanical or operational problem that
makes it impossible for it maneuver according
to the Rules the motor vessel operator knows
the Rules require him to avoid causing a close
quarters situation. In other words the motor
vessel must give way and that makes the
motor vessel the give way vessel. When there
is a give way vessel there is a pecking order.
End of sentence. Period. End of discussion.

I have stated the facts in the above paragraph
until I am blue in the typing fingers and the
dense duo cannot get it through their thick
skulls that they are wrong and I am right.

There comes a point when it becomes pointless
to continue a discussion with such morons and
dunderheads as Jeff and Shen44. Until and
unless I ever meet them in person where I
can pound some sense into their block heads
and kick their scrawny asses halfway across
the barroom they will have to remain stupid
and ignorant.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...
EG See you bailed out of the "Rules" thread, when things got too hard
on ya ..... alas, twas expected.....

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:42:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

If you shave your dogs on a regular basis, you won't
have the same problem with fleas.

I don't have a dog.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

Horvath wrote in :

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:42:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

If you shave your dogs on a regular basis, you won't
have the same problem with fleas.

I don't have a dog.

Left you, eh?

Bertie

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
posted in message from
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk:
Horvath wrote in :

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:42:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

If you shave your dogs on a regular basis, you won't
have the same problem with fleas.

I don't have a dog.

Left you, eh?

Tsk. Dog abusers should be shot.

--
anonyme mhm 32x19 and 31x11
Smeeter #34 Wee Saul Disciple #29
Imp of Confusion and/or Absurdity

http://members.iinet.net.au/~vannevar/ascii3.html

and if so, do you have any pics?


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You're right. You have two... girlfriend and fiance. Do
they like sniffing each other?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:42:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

If you shave your dogs on a regular basis, you won't
have the same problem with fleas.

I don't have a dog.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

LOL...Neal, you have never been able to show any logical proof, or legal
proof to back up your claims about situations in fog. In all honesty,
you've never even been able to use the wording of the rules, to show
justification for your views.
I especially find it interesting that you always conveniently disappear
or stop posting, whenever the subject of a powerdriven vessel (engaged
in towing) and a sailing vessel making the same signal, in fog, arises.
..... i.e. you are totally unable to verify, prove, explain, document,
etc. any of your self professed nonsense.
You keep spouting about your license (is it current?)....personally, all
your license has ever proved to me, is that a "license" is no guarantee
as to a person's ability or professionalism .... you possess neither.
I did not expect you to try or in any way be able, to answer Shen's
questions and "kicker" about the tug in fog ..... your experience level
(as has become even more obvious with your statement about visibility in
fog) is on the low end of the "totem pole" .... problem is .... your
abilities appear even lower.
The only purpose you serve, in discussing "Rules" questions, is to show
others how easily the "rules" can be misinterpreted and how not knowing
their meaning and/or intent can lead to possible serious problems, from
viewing your responses.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
I tried my best to clue that clueless pair in on the
facts of the matter when it comes to the practical
aspects of the Rules and how they apply to sailboats
but to no avail. I'm afraid trying to instruct Shen44 and
Jeff is like teaching a special education class for Down's
syndrome children. Their attention span is way to
short and their IQ is way too limited. They even
attempted to start a discussion of court cases
and we all know there isn't a judge in the world
who knows what sailing is all about. The bottom
line and unfortunate fact is motorboat Captains
like Shen44 and Jeff have a mentality that makes
it dangerous for them to operate large motor
boats. There is no telling how many small boats
they have run down because of their insistence
that might makes right.

What kind of a fool does it take to deny there
is a pecking order in a fog when there is one
signal for a motor vessel and another different
signal for sailboats, and those above sailboats
in the pecking order. The fact of the matter
is upon hearing one prolonged and two short
blasts a motor boat captain must assume the
worst. He must assume he is hearing the
signal of a NUC until more information becomes
available. Since a NUC, by definition has some
sort of mechanical or operational problem that
makes it impossible for it maneuver according
to the Rules the motor vessel operator knows
the Rules require him to avoid causing a close
quarters situation. In other words the motor
vessel must give way and that makes the
motor vessel the give way vessel. When there
is a give way vessel there is a pecking order.
End of sentence. Period. End of discussion.

I have stated the facts in the above paragraph
until I am blue in the typing fingers and the
dense duo cannot get it through their thick
skulls that they are wrong and I am right.

There comes a point when it becomes pointless
to continue a discussion with such morons and
dunderheads as Jeff and Shen44. Until and
unless I ever meet them in person where I
can pound some sense into their block heads
and kick their scrawny asses halfway across
the barroom they will have to remain stupid
and ignorant.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net...

EG See you bailed out of the "Rules" thread, when things got too hard
on ya ..... alas, twas expected.....