| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Simon rules - Rules discussion
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... I recall the first time the "sailboats have right-of-way in the fog" issue came up, several regulars here thought Neal's arguments were plausible. (We won't mention names ...) Feel free to name me. I had great *fun* in that thread *and* I learned quite a bit. Regards Donal -- |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon rules - Rules discussion
That is true of most any thread. I read a lot of our resident "sea
lawyers." But depending on them for legal advice is akin to depending on RB for sail trim advice. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... I recall the first time the "sailboats have right-of-way in the fog" issue came up, several regulars here thought Neal's arguments were plausible. (We won't mention names ...) While some of his comments, taken in isolation, seem reasonable, such as the wind is often light in the fog, you can't use that to prove that sailboats have right of way in thick fog. Neal has taken the extra step of asserting that sailboats are obligated to maintain full speed, in thick fog, even after they hear a fog signal dead ahead. This is the moral equivalent of giving children matches and gasoline to play with. I know that almost every reading this understands that Neal is just a buffoon, but there may be a few people out there that only see one post and are sucked in by it. "Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:37:04 GMT, otnmbrd wrote: The only reason I continue to answer your post, is to be sure that some neophyte who is lurking in the background here, does NOT believe that what you say is gospel, but is, instead, gibberish garbage. Surely after the first back and forth this hypothetical neophyte lurker will have sufficient information to draw the necessary conclusions. Why not just post links to the rules? The downloadable version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm and the online version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon rules - Rules discussion
jlrogers wrote:
Thrashing around on his hook like that will certainly keep the neophyte fishes away. Besides its BOR-ing. otnmbrd wrote: Although I find considerable errors in many of Neal's Post, in this thread, at least he is on topic, whereas most of what I see YOU post, is not only OFF Topic, but ALSO boring. Hard to figure out what's going on. JL used to post a lot of good sailing stuff. I wonder if it's not really him, or if there's something in the water. DSK |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon rules - Rules discussion
I think we all realize that Neal is "trolling". However, with each new
troll we are apt to find a new possibility of "misinterpretation" that needs to be addressed. Since the subject is at least "On topic" and does tend to bounce around all aspects of the "rules" it does serve a purpose for the group at large. For myself, it keeps me on my toes. I used to read the rules book from cover to cover, once or twice a year, to spark some memory cells ..... BORING!! This gives me a chance to do much the same thing and have some fun at the same time. Frequently, because of my background, I will get people coming to me with rules question (either for test purposes or just for general information), and I've been amazed at times, with some of the interpretations people have, from reading the rules ( much like the stuff in Neal's trolls) so, there's a good chance, BG if there's a rules thread, you'll see me stick to it, because a read through of the rules by a neophyte may end up creating more questions than answers. otn Gerard Weatherby wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:37:04 GMT, otnmbrd wrote: The only reason I continue to answer your post, is to be sure that some neophyte who is lurking in the background here, does NOT believe that what you say is gospel, but is, instead, gibberish garbage. Surely after the first back and forth this hypothetical neophyte lurker will have sufficient information to draw the necessary conclusions. Why not just post links to the rules? The downloadable version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm and the online version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon rules - Rules discussion
I'll second that - reading the rules is, by itself, nearly useless. If anyone doubts me,
they should spend a few hours reading the book, then take a sample test. I would be very surprised if anyone did better than 65% - passing is 90%. In fact, getting better than 80% is difficult even open book. With repetition, its possible to memorize enough of the answers to pass the test. But it requires extended period of study, hopefully assisted by others to truly understand the rules. BTW, it is startling how many people don't understand the rules, or grossly misinterpret them. Fortunately, they usually err on the conservative side, claiming, for instance, that large ships always have right of way. However, I was recently trying to determine the status of rowboats and found many sites, including some official sites and handbooks, that claimed that "human powered vessels" have right of way over all others. It turns out that there is no explicit mention (other than appropriate lights) of rowboats in the ColRegs - which means that they are simply governed by Rule 2 (ordinary practice of seamen ....) and the other basic rules, and enjoy no special status. Also, rule 9 and 10 specify "all vessels under 20 meters ... shall not impede" and for non-US waters the CBD rule applies to all vessels. The major exception to this is that inland lakes, not covered by the ColRegs, often have state regs that give rowboats special status. In MA, for instance, there are 4 such lakes, ME has a lot of them, etc. But these rules do not apply (as far as I know) in the waters covered by ColRegs. -jeff "Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c) "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... I think we all realize that Neal is "trolling". However, with each new troll we are apt to find a new possibility of "misinterpretation" that needs to be addressed. Since the subject is at least "On topic" and does tend to bounce around all aspects of the "rules" it does serve a purpose for the group at large. For myself, it keeps me on my toes. I used to read the rules book from cover to cover, once or twice a year, to spark some memory cells ..... BORING!! This gives me a chance to do much the same thing and have some fun at the same time. Frequently, because of my background, I will get people coming to me with rules question (either for test purposes or just for general information), and I've been amazed at times, with some of the interpretations people have, from reading the rules ( much like the stuff in Neal's trolls) so, there's a good chance, BG if there's a rules thread, you'll see me stick to it, because a read through of the rules by a neophyte may end up creating more questions than answers. otn Gerard Weatherby wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:37:04 GMT, otnmbrd wrote: The only reason I continue to answer your post, is to be sure that some neophyte who is lurking in the background here, does NOT believe that what you say is gospel, but is, instead, gibberish garbage. Surely after the first back and forth this hypothetical neophyte lurker will have sufficient information to draw the necessary conclusions. Why not just post links to the rules? The downloadable version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm and the online version http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
As usual, that idiot Shen44 is saying I 'disappeared'. Hey, can't
a fellow go sailing without the peanut gallery engaging in wishful thinking? Of course Shen44 wishes his nemesis would just go away but that is not to be his fate, and yours either, Jeff Morris! But, it is you, Jeff , whom I am addressing here. Fact: there is no such classification in the pecking order of a towboat. A towboat has no status in and of itself. A vessel towing is just another motor vessel until and unless it is restricted in its ability to maneuver. Need I remind you of the pecking order which represents ALL classifications of vessels. New NUC Reels RAM Catch CBD Fish Fishing So Sailing Purchase Power Some Sailplane Now, tell me, Mr. Morris, which of the above does a towboat fit into? Huh? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Oh! You admit that a towboat fits nowhere in the pecking order? Well, good! Because that's a fact. A towboat has no special status in the pecking order. Until and unless a towboat is restricted in its ability to maneuver it remains just another motorboat. Once it becomes restricted in its ability to maneuver it then becomes a RAM. I have to wonder just what about the pecking order do you, Shen44 and otnmbrd not understand? "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... OMIGOD! Neal, What A HORRENDOUS BLUNDER!!! I come back from a day of dodging t'storms and find that you committed your biggest screw-up yet! What happened, did you get your first three stupid responses out before you even glanced at rules? My God, how embarrassing for you!!! Now of course, you can't resist making a complete fool of yourself by claiming that a "vessel engaged in towing" is not a "towboat," and that its really a RAM instead and therefore the rules don't mean what they say, they mean what you would like them to say. Are you actually claiming that because towboats are not listed in the "pecking order" that no rule that mentions them is valid? Is that your point? Are you totally daft? Have you no pride whatsoever?? You claim to have a PhD in English, but you show the logic skills of a fourth grade dropout. (I apologize to any 4th grade dropouts who may be insulted by this.) pathetic ... truly pathetic ... "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Shen44" wrote in message ... Read rule 35 (c) and explain to me why they (tugboats) are included in there if they are RAM .... i.e. there would be no need. Here is Rule 35 (c) (c) A vessel not under command, a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver, a vessel constrained by her draft, a sailing vessel, a vessel engaged in fishing and a vessel engaged in towing or pushing another vessel shall, instead of the signals prescribed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule, sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes three blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by two short blasts. The key phrase is "engage is pushing or towing ANOTHER VESSEL" If the rule stated just plain pushing or towing I might agree with you but if there is another vessel involved it is assumed that the combination is Restricted in its Ability to Maneuver. That this rule clarifies a point about differences in some tow boats that are RAMs and some that are not has no bearing on our discussion of motorboats who give one signal taking action to avoid a close quarters situation with those vessels that sound the signal delineated in the above Rule. The Rule that names the classes of vessels does not include a class of vessels called towboats. New NUC Reels Ram Catch CBD Fish Fishing So Sailing Purchase Power Some Seaplane This Rule is the Rule that describes pecking order and not Rule 35. 35 is a specific rule that talks about fog signals. It does not change the fact that a towboat does not sound the fog signal of or show the lights and shapes of a RAM unless it is a RAM. The only thing Rule 35 does is says a towboat pushing or towing another vessel may sound the same sound as a RAM, sailboat, NUC. etc. Another argument won. S.Simon |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon's superior understanding
"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. 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. '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? 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. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Oh, I see your problem ... you memorized a mnemonic and now think that everything in the
rules depends on the pecking order. Well surprise! There is no pecking order! There happens to be one rule where several relationships are described. These standon/giveway relationships have been dubbed the "pecking order" but only apply in certain situations - In particular, they only apply in conditions of normal visibility. You are correct that towboats are not mentioned, and thus, in normal visibility towboats have no priority unless the declare themselves a RAM, often referred to as an "unruly tow." BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below) and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to Farwell. What could be clearer than that? But we then enter the "Neal Zone" where nothing is clear. Because you forgot about this rules and insisted that towboats are not hampered, and you're not man enough to admit that you momentarily forgot rule 35, you're now trying to defend it with meaningless word play. First you claim that "towing other vessels" is different from being a towboat, and is always a RAM. However, "vessel" is defined pretty much as anything that floats - in particular, barges and everything else the towboats normally tow, are vessels. The rule is simply talking about all towboats. Then you switch to claiming that because towboats are not mentioned in the "pecking order" they can't exist as a category, and rules that mention them don't really exist. What about Rule 24 - lights for towing and pushing, the longest rule in the book? Are you saying that towboats shouldn't show any towlights, because they aren't in your pecking order? Perhaps in the Neal Zone, but not in the real world that most of us inhabit. -- -jeff "Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c) "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... As usual, that idiot Shen44 is saying I 'disappeared'. Hey, can't a fellow go sailing without the peanut gallery engaging in wishful thinking? Of course Shen44 wishes his nemesis would just go away but that is not to be his fate, and yours either, Jeff Morris! But, it is you, Jeff , whom I am addressing here. Fact: there is no such classification in the pecking order of a towboat. A towboat has no status in and of itself. A vessel towing is just another motor vessel until and unless it is restricted in its ability to maneuver. Need I remind you of the pecking order which represents ALL classifications of vessels. New NUC Reels RAM Catch CBD Fish Fishing So Sailing Purchase Power Some Sailplane Now, tell me, Mr. Morris, which of the above does a towboat fit into? Huh? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Oh! You admit that a towboat fits nowhere in the pecking order? Well, good! Because that's a fact. A towboat has no special status in the pecking order. Until and unless a towboat is restricted in its ability to maneuver it remains just another motorboat. Once it becomes restricted in its ability to maneuver it then becomes a RAM. I have to wonder just what about the pecking order do you, Shen44 and otnmbrd not understand? "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... OMIGOD! Neal, What A HORRENDOUS BLUNDER!!! I come back from a day of dodging t'storms and find that you committed your biggest screw-up yet! What happened, did you get your first three stupid responses out before you even glanced at rules? My God, how embarrassing for you!!! Now of course, you can't resist making a complete fool of yourself by claiming that a "vessel engaged in towing" is not a "towboat," and that its really a RAM instead and therefore the rules don't mean what they say, they mean what you would like them to say. Are you actually claiming that because towboats are not listed in the "pecking order" that no rule that mentions them is valid? Is that your point? Are you totally daft? Have you no pride whatsoever?? You claim to have a PhD in English, but you show the logic skills of a fourth grade dropout. (I apologize to any 4th grade dropouts who may be insulted by this.) pathetic ... truly pathetic ... "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Shen44" wrote in message ... Read rule 35 (c) and explain to me why they (tugboats) are included in there if they are RAM .... i.e. there would be no need. Here is Rule 35 (c) (c) A vessel not under command, a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver, a vessel constrained by her draft, a sailing vessel, a vessel engaged in fishing and a vessel engaged in towing or pushing another vessel shall, instead of the signals prescribed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule, sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes three blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by two short blasts. The key phrase is "engage is pushing or towing ANOTHER VESSEL" If the rule stated just plain pushing or towing I might agree with you but if there is another vessel involved it is assumed that the combination is Restricted in its Ability to Maneuver. That this rule clarifies a point about differences in some tow boats that are RAMs and some that are not has no bearing on our discussion of motorboats who give one signal taking action to avoid a close quarters situation with those vessels that sound the signal delineated in the above Rule. The Rule that names the classes of vessels does not include a class of vessels called towboats. New NUC Reels Ram Catch CBD Fish Fishing So Sailing Purchase Power Some Seaplane This Rule is the Rule that describes pecking order and not Rule 35. 35 is a specific rule that talks about fog signals. It does not change the fact that a towboat does not sound the fog signal of or show the lights and shapes of a RAM unless it is a RAM. The only thing Rule 35 does is says a towboat pushing or towing another vessel may sound the same sound as a RAM, sailboat, NUC. etc. Another argument won. S.Simon |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simon's superior understanding
"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? |
Linear Mode
