On 2 Aug 2003 02:51:24 GMT, Bertie the Bunyip wrote this
crap:




What the hell was that? It looks like the motorcycle from Rollerball,
only without the engine.




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

Horvath wrote in :

On 2 Aug 2003 02:51:24 GMT, Bertie the Bunyip wrote this
crap:




What the hell was that? It looks like the motorcycle from Rollerball,
only without the engine.


It's a motorcycle, fjuckwit.

Are you blind?

there are other motorcycles in the world aside from that moped you have,
you know.

Real motorcycles.




Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
It's a motorcycle, fjuckwit.

Are you blind?

there are other motorcycles in the world aside from that moped you have,
you know.

Real motorcycles.

Ooooooh!

Bertie has a Harley! He must be a real Man!



Regards


Donal
--

I have used the wording of the Rules to PROVE that there
is a pecking order in fog until I'm blue in the face yet you
stubborn, motorboat, collision causers refuse to see the
light. I no pressing need to continue to **** into the wind.

Your responses have proven to any sane man who reads
them that you are dangerously irresponsible and seek only
to hold onto your misconceptions and your powerboat
pride. Rather than see reason you would rather go on
killing and maiming.

Look at the statistics is you don't wish to believe the
facts I have presented until I'm weary of it. The statistics
are enough to prove that the fault lies with the motor
vessel 98 percent of the time. This means the motor
boat operater is at fault 98 percent of the time. Rather
than argue with someone who is your superior in
every way - IQ, knowledge, time at sea in a sailboat,
better scores on the written Master's license test,
superior college education (beats your GED every time)
etc. etc. etc. - you should just stop your stubborn
refusal to believe the facts and listen to the reason
and logic which I have presented probably a dozen
or more times.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

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

And yet, when we look in the standard textbook on the topic, written by Annapolis
professors (both chairmen of the Navigation Department), it agrees completely with what
Shen and I have been saying. OK, since you insist, we'll repeat it again:

From "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road," Naval Institute Press:

"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"

Neal is now trying to tell us that these gentlemen are completely wrong, and he's staking
his reputation as a letter carrier on it.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I have used the wording of the Rules to PROVE that there
is a pecking order in fog until I'm blue in the face yet you
stubborn, motorboat, collision causers refuse to see the
light. I no pressing need to continue to **** into the wind.

Your responses have proven to any sane man who reads
them that you are dangerously irresponsible and seek only
to hold onto your misconceptions and your powerboat
pride. Rather than see reason you would rather go on
killing and maiming.

Look at the statistics is you don't wish to believe the
facts I have presented until I'm weary of it. The statistics
are enough to prove that the fault lies with the motor
vessel 98 percent of the time. This means the motor
boat operater is at fault 98 percent of the time. Rather
than argue with someone who is your superior in
every way - IQ, knowledge, time at sea in a sailboat,
better scores on the written Master's license test,
superior college education (beats your GED every time)
etc. etc. etc. - you should just stop your stubborn
refusal to believe the facts and listen to the reason
and logic which I have presented probably a dozen
or more times.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

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

Does the pecking order still stand in a mental fog?

Scotty

"Simple Simon" wrote


But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions.

Simple Simon wrote:
I have used the wording of the Rules to PROVE that there
is a pecking order in fog until I'm blue in the face yet you
stubborn, motorboat, collision causers refuse to see the
light. I no pressing need to continue to **** into the wind.

LOL NO, you have attempted to use only those parts of the rules that
some might find agreement with, to no avail, in a vain attempt to prove
your point ....and we all note that you still and always fail to address
the issue of the tugboat Shen described and your sailboat making the
same signal which blows away your malarkey about some bogus pecking
order. Why is that Neal?

Your responses have proven to any sane man who reads
them that you are dangerously irresponsible and seek only
to hold onto your misconceptions and your powerboat
pride. Rather than see reason you would rather go on
killing and maiming.

ROFL considering your total lack of experience in fog and minimal
understanding of the "Rules", it's lucky for all of us you generally
stay at anchor.

Look at the statistics is you don't wish to believe the
facts I have presented until I'm weary of it. The statistics
are enough to prove that the fault lies with the motor
vessel 98 percent of the time. This means the motor
boat operater is at fault 98 percent of the time.

Where'd ya get these supposed statistics?

Rather
than argue with someone who is your superior in
every way

LOL
- IQ (mebbe, mebbe not), knowledge (about things maritime?....NOT),
time at sea in a sailboat
( started sailing at 8 ..sailed considerably till 33 on sailboats ....
doubtful)
,
better scores on the written Master's license test,

LOL that beginners exam you took? you should have tried the old test,
when Inland rules were really different .... only remember once when I
scored less than 100% .... course, in your case, you're proof that
anyone can buy the questions and answers and pass the test and still not
have a clue as to meaning.

superior college education (beats your GED every time)
LOL careful..we "Maritimers" have strong alumni

etc. etc. etc. - you should just stop your stubborn
refusal to believe the facts and listen to the reason
and logic which I have presented probably a dozen
or more times.

LOL you'd make a good politician .... you think you know and understand
everything yet, in truth, you know and understand little. To you, facts
are just woids to be manipulated to your advantage when possible ....as
for reason and logic.....anyone with an ounce of common sense,
understands fully, your total lack of ability to apply and/or use reason
and logic.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

Sorry .....(knock on wood) never had a collision.

Tell me Neal ..... are you really so stupid, that you believe your BS?

otn


PS I've got a bet with Shen, that there is NO WAY you will Ever address
his scenario of the tugboat in fog, versus your sailboat and the pecking
order, stand on condition you say exist .... Ya see, I don't think
you're quite that stupid....he, on the other hand......

LOL
- IQ (mebbe, mebbe not), knowledge (about things maritime?....NOT),
time at sea in a sailboat
( started sailing at 8 ..sailed considerably till 33 on sailboats ....
doubtful)

Why you amateur, you .....course.....if Neal sailed for the rest of his life,
he'd still never get close to you on actual sea time.
,


LOL you'd make a good politician .... you think you know and understand
everything yet, in truth, you know and understand little. To you, facts
are just woids to be manipulated to your advantage when possible ....as
for reason and logic.....anyone with an ounce of common sense,
understands fully, your total lack of ability to apply and/or use reason
and logic.

Neal thinks that IQ means ability ....he has neither the basic intelligence nor
common sense to realize it only means potential, just like a college degree
only means amount of formal education or a license means (well, the beginners
licenses at his level) ability to pass a test.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

Sorry .....(knock on wood) never had a collision.

Tell me Neal ..... are you really so stupid, that you believe your BS?

otn


PS I've got a bet with Shen, that there is NO WAY you will Ever address
his scenario of the tugboat in fog, versus your sailboat and the pecking
order, stand on condition you say exist .... Ya see, I don't think
you're quite that stupid....he, on the other hand......


EG Neal THINKS he's more intelligent and educated than most ..... his ego
will take over and he'll give it a go, one of these days ......and fail.

Shen

"Donal" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
It's a motorcycle, fjuckwit.

Are you blind?

there are other motorcycles in the world aside from that moped you have,
you know.

Real motorcycles.

Ooooooh!

Bertie has a Harley! He must be a real Man!

I'm sorry, I must have given the impression that I was a hairdresser.

A Harley?

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhwhahhahwhahwhahh whahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhah
w!

Bertie



Regards


Donal
--

Thank you Jeff for proving I am right. Though this Farwell
is no ultimate authority in my opinion he does speak the truth
when he says.

"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"

He says there is no such 'explicit' status in restricted visibility.

The definition of explicit is 'clearly and precisely expressed'.

So, what Farwell is saying is "There is no such clearly and
precisely expressed pecking order in restricted visibility".

But, simply because it is not clearly and precisely expressed
does not mean it does not exist. On the contrary, saying it
in not AS CLEARLY AND PRECISELY EXPRESSED
implies that it IS EXPRESSED but less clearly and precisely.

Note that he does NOT state there is no pecking order at all.
He merely maintains that the pecking order in restricted visibility
is not as clearly and precisely expressed - meaning a pecking
order exists but is not as clearly delineated. The reason being
that the pecking order is basically broken down into two
main groups - motor boats vs. all other vessels above them
in the in sight pecking order combined into one big group of
vessels sounding the fog signal of one prolonged/two short
blasts.

This is exactly as I have maintained from the start when I
said there IS a pecking order in restricted visibility although
it is an abbreviated pecking order of motorboats giving
way to all vessels sounding the fog signal of one prolonged/
two short blasts.

Farwell backs me up when he says: "the distinctive signals
for them have the obvious purposes of causing ordinary
vessels to approach them with greater caution"

"Them" meaning all vessels sounding one prolonged/two
short blast fog signal.

So, since ordinary vessels (motor boats) must approach
with GREATER caution (sailboats, RAMS, NUCs, etc.) it
means motor boats are the burdened vessels. Burdened
vessels must give way. Give way means there is a pecking
order.

Furthermore it is stated in the Rules covering all conditions
of visibility that motor vessels must not impede and must
avoid a close quarters situation with those vessels above
them in the pecking order then it follows that motor vessels
are the give way vessel in ALL CONDITIONS OF VISIBILITY,
ONE INSTANCE OF WHICH IS RESTRICTED VISIBILITY.

You guys lose yet again.

S.Simon.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
And yet, when we look in the standard textbook on the topic, written by Annapolis
professors (both chairmen of the Navigation Department), it agrees completely with what
Shen and I have been saying. OK, since you insist, we'll repeat it again:

From "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road," Naval Institute Press:

"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"

Neal is now trying to tell us that these gentlemen are completely wrong, and he's staking
his reputation as a letter carrier on it.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I have used the wording of the Rules to PROVE that there
is a pecking order in fog until I'm blue in the face yet you
stubborn, motorboat, collision causers refuse to see the
light. I no pressing need to continue to **** into the wind.

Your responses have proven to any sane man who reads
them that you are dangerously irresponsible and seek only
to hold onto your misconceptions and your powerboat
pride. Rather than see reason you would rather go on
killing and maiming.

Look at the statistics is you don't wish to believe the
facts I have presented until I'm weary of it. The statistics
are enough to prove that the fault lies with the motor
vessel 98 percent of the time. This means the motor
boat operater is at fault 98 percent of the time. Rather
than argue with someone who is your superior in
every way - IQ, knowledge, time at sea in a sailboat,
better scores on the written Master's license test,
superior college education (beats your GED every time)
etc. etc. etc. - you should just stop your stubborn
refusal to believe the facts and listen to the reason
and logic which I have presented probably a dozen
or more times.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

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