|
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:51:12 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:
"...how could it be that this shy young woman with spiky dark hair and eyes the colour of the Atlantic Ocean on a clear day has amassed a reputation in 27 years that bears comparison with Sir Francis Drake?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../ixothspt.html Great line: "I still think there's this perception that sailing is an elitist sport," she said. "People have this vision of sitting on the deck of a boat with a glass of wine in hand. We've got the ice in the Southern Ocean, but it's not much use for putting in drinks." S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:02:13 -0400, Gerard Weatherby
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:51:12 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote: "...how could it be that this shy young woman with spiky dark hair and eyes the colour of the Atlantic Ocean on a clear day has amassed a reputation in 27 years that bears comparison with Sir Francis Drake?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../ixothspt.html Great line: "I still think there's this perception that sailing is an elitist sport," she said. "People have this vision of sitting on the deck of a boat with a glass of wine in hand. We've got the ice in the Southern Ocean, but it's not much use for putting in drinks." Rubbish. Rum over glacial ice is a real treat. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Rubbish. Rum over glacial ice is a real treat. eewwww It might have mastodon **** in it.... -- katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:06:30 -0400, "katysails"
wrote: Rubbish. Rum over glacial ice is a real treat. eewwww It might have mastodon **** in it.... The water you drink definitely has someone/something's **** in it. Learn to enjoy the flavour. Besides, rum is a disinfectant. Ask Mooron. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:51:12 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote
this crap: "...how could it be that this shy young woman with spiky dark hair and eyes the colour of the Atlantic Ocean on a clear day has amassed a reputation in 27 years that bears comparison with Sir Francis Drake?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../ixothspt.html You sure that's a woman? She looks dykie to me. Ave Imperator Bush! Bush Was Right! Four More Beers! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Sort of like your "girl friend."
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:51:12 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote this crap: "...how could it be that this shy young woman with spiky dark hair and eyes the colour of the Atlantic Ocean on a clear day has amassed a reputation in 27 years that bears comparison with Sir Francis Drake?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...07/26/somott26. xml&sSheet=/sport/2003/07/26/ixothspt.html You sure that's a woman? She looks dykie to me. Ave Imperator Bush! Bush Was Right! Four More Beers! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
You mean, he said in the Spirit of Accuracy, a three dollar bill.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... She's as queer as a two-dollar bill and that's a fact. "Horvath" wrote in message ... You sure that's a woman? She looks dykie to me. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:03:38 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote this
crap: You sure that's a woman? She looks dykie to me. Hey Holly, she just spent over 90 days at sea! 90 days of 24 hours, How many have you spent in your entire life? More than you. Ave Imperator Bush! Bush Was Right! Four More Beers! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:24:52 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: Sort of like your "girl friend." You jealous of my girl friend? I know you want me. Ave Imperator Bush! Bush Was Right! Four More Beers! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
EG See you bailed out of the "Rules" thread, when things got too hard
on ya ..... alas, twas expected..... otn Simple Simon wrote: She's as queer as a two-dollar bill and that's a fact. "Horvath" wrote in message ... You sure that's a woman? She looks dykie to me. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Neal in a fog
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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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 |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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 |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
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! |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
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 |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"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 -- |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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...... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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 |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"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 -- |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "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 Pls don't tell me you have a Ducati. After all these years....or a BMW. Richard |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"Richard Smith" wrote in
: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "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 whahwhahwhahwhahwhahh whah w! Bertie Pls don't tell me you have a Ducati. After all these years....or a BMW. OK, I won't. And it's not faster'n snake ****. And I wasn't out burning up the road a few hours ago. Bertie |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... 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 If the world didn't have you in it, we would have to invent you. R |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"Richard Smith" wrote in
: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... 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 If the world didn't have you in it, we would have to invent you. I see myself as a service. Bertie |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
A very clever misreading of what Farwell's is saying. First of all, this is the forth
time I posted that - are you saying this is the first time you read it? I have said over and over that this concisely states my position - I can only assume that you are really capitulating totally and in full agreement with me. However ... The essential point we have discussed is not that the powerboat must approach the "hampered vessel" with extra caution - that is obviously so and we stated that many times. The question is whether the "hampered vessel" becomes "standon." You have stated many times that this is so - that a sailboat is allowed, even required to continue at full speed - even hull regardless of the requirements of rule 18. Farwell's in no way supports this claim. You conveniently ignore the statement: "Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as any other vessel." This is the point where your argument falls apart. The hampered vessel is specifically NOT a "standon" vessel; they are under the same requirement to slow down as the powerboat. There is absolutely nothing in Farwell's that supports your claim. Indeed there are significant sections that discuss the general intent and wording of the rules. They are quite explicit in claiming that the precise wording must be followed For instance "To avoid liability for a collision, the requirements MUST be obeyed." They go on to describe the limited grounds on which departure is permitted: to avoid imminent collision, and cases where it made no difference in the outcome. They are also quite emphatic that the rules apply equally to all vessels, of all type, all sizes, all ownership. This is one of the fundamental principals of the rules. Your claim that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats because powerboats cause more accidents is ludicrous. Much of the book is devoted to showing how the rules were adjusted over the years, using very precise wording so that misunderstandings are minimized. Your claim that Farwell's wording "there is no such explicit status" somehow proves that the status therefore exists makes a mockery of this. In fact, you went on to simply shift the words around to give them a different meaning. Farwell did not say "the status is not stated as explicitly," he said there "is no such explicit status." You are admitted that the rules don't what you've been claiming; now you're just saying that they must mean it because you want it so badly. Once again you have simply claimed that because a boat should exercise extra caution, a pecking order , along with standon and giveway status is implied. But you still haven't presented anything that supports that claim. And your final statements prove you don't understand the rules at all. No where does it say "motor vessel must not impede ... vessels higher on the pecking order." The phrase "shall not impede" has special meaning and is used in very precise contexts. In particular, smaller vessel are required not to impeded larger vessels in narrow channels and TSS's. It is also used in similar manner wrt CBD's. The rule that you are referring to is actually saying, amongst other things, that the vessel that shall not be impeded may still have giveway obligations. Again, misusing this rule cast serious doubts on whether you actually took the test as you claim. Sorry Neal, you still have a losing position. "Simple Simon" wrote 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..... |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine - 1 attachment
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "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 -- Ah, the Breadth of Donal's knowledge is amazing. If you do not believe it, just ask him. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... A very clever misreading of what Farwell's is saying. First of all, this is the forth time I posted that Better watch it, Berti will report you to your ISP for posting the same thing more than once. |
Ellen MacArthur - Rules discussion
Shall not impede applies in a broader sense than in narrow
channels. It is stated in Rule 8 --- paracraph (f) (i) and prefaced by the statement 'by any of these rules' which means it is not limited to narrow channel situations. Shall not impede applies to the pecking order. It is you, Shen44 and otnmbrd who all refuse to belive Rule 8 because it puts to rest your arguments about specific fog Rules. Specific fog rules are meant to be in addition to and do not supercede the more general rules that apply in all conditions of visibility. This is where you idiots screw up and this is where your understanding is inferior to mine and Farwell's who is stating the very same thing as I am saying yet you three are twisting it around in a lame attempt to support your untenable position. S.Simon Rule 8 cut and pasted below. READ IT until you understand it. RULE 8 Action to Avoid Collision (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship. (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided. (c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation. (d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear. (e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion. (f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. (ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part. (iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... A very clever misreading of what Farwell's is saying. First of all, this is the forth time I posted that - are you saying this is the first time you read it? I have said over and over that this concisely states my position - I can only assume that you are really capitulating totally and in full agreement with me. However ... The essential point we have discussed is not that the powerboat must approach the "hampered vessel" with extra caution - that is obviously so and we stated that many times. The question is whether the "hampered vessel" becomes "standon." You have stated many times that this is so - that a sailboat is allowed, even required to continue at full speed - even hull regardless of the requirements of rule 18. Farwell's in no way supports this claim. You conveniently ignore the statement: "Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as any other vessel." This is the point where your argument falls apart. The hampered vessel is specifically NOT a "standon" vessel; they are under the same requirement to slow down as the powerboat. There is absolutely nothing in Farwell's that supports your claim. Indeed there are significant sections that discuss the general intent and wording of the rules. They are quite explicit in claiming that the precise wording must be followed For instance "To avoid liability for a collision, the requirements MUST be obeyed." They go on to describe the limited grounds on which departure is permitted: to avoid imminent collision, and cases where it made no difference in the outcome. They are also quite emphatic that the rules apply equally to all vessels, of all type, all sizes, all ownership. This is one of the fundamental principals of the rules. Your claim that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats because powerboats cause more accidents is ludicrous. Much of the book is devoted to showing how the rules were adjusted over the years, using very precise wording so that misunderstandings are minimized. Your claim that Farwell's wording "there is no such explicit status" somehow proves that the status therefore exists makes a mockery of this. In fact, you went on to simply shift the words around to give them a different meaning. Farwell did not say "the status is not stated as explicitly," he said there "is no such explicit status." You are admitted that the rules don't what you've been claiming; now you're just saying that they must mean it because you want it so badly. Once again you have simply claimed that because a boat should exercise extra caution, a pecking order , along with standon and giveway status is implied. But you still haven't presented anything that supports that claim. And your final statements prove you don't understand the rules at all. No where does it say "motor vessel must not impede ... vessels higher on the pecking order." The phrase "shall not impede" has special meaning and is used in very precise contexts. In particular, smaller vessel are required not to impeded larger vessels in narrow channels and TSS's. It is also used in similar manner wrt CBD's. The rule that you are referring to is actually saying, amongst other things, that the vessel that shall not be impeded may still have giveway obligations. Again, misusing this rule cast serious doubts on whether you actually took the test as you claim. Sorry Neal, you still have a losing position. "Simple Simon" wrote 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..... |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Shall not impede applies in a broader sense than in narrow channels. It is stated in Rule 8 --- paracraph (f) (i) and prefaced by the statement 'by any of these rules' which means it is not limited to narrow channel situations. Shall not impede applies to the pecking order. Wrong - though amateaurs like you often think this. "A vessel that is required no to impede" refers to vessels that in several of the rules (9 & 10 mainly, also CBD) are required not to impede. It is very specific. This rule is give guidance for the case where "shall not impede" and "shall keep out of the way of" seem to be at odds. It has no bearing on our limited visibility discussion. NOT SO. If this were the case Rule 8 would not state "take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. Sufficient sea room does not exist in a narrow channel so that negates the 'narrow channel only' argument that you seem to hold as the holy grail. Shall not impede exists above and beyond narrow channel situations. This is proven by the wording in Rule eight paragraph (f) (i). Shall not impede exists in all conditions of visibility. This means shall not impede exists in fog. This means the vessel that shall not impede is the burdened vessel. This means there is a pecking order in fog. You are wrong and you continue to be wrong because you attempt to defend an erroneous position that cannot be defended. S.Simon |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Simple Simon wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... 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? Cause he can't It is hardly vain to prove a point using the wording of the Rules themselves. That you cannot accept that Rule 8 paragraph (f) (i) disproves the concept that 'shall not impede' is a term used only in narrow channels defeats your argument, not mine. It supports my argument and is at the heart of the matter when it comes to pecking order. LOL Never thought or said it did apply to narrow channels only. It also applies to Traffic Separation Schemes and "vessels constrained by draft". What does that have to do with Shen's tugboat and your sailboat meeting in fog? As per usual, you have not, can not, and will not address the issue of Shen's tugboat (except with the bogus ploy about RAM) and your sailboat, in fog, with out radar, and what that situation does to your "pecking order". You also can't explain how a vessel in fog can take early and substantial action, when they don't have a clue as to what action they can take or if any action is necessary. The tugboat issue has no bearing on anything other than Shen44's lack of knowledge. A tugboat only sounds a one prolonged/two short blast signal if the tugboat is a RAM and is displayiing the lights and shapes of a RAM. Show me where the "rules" say that ..... don't waste your time, you can't .... No...waste your time. Show all of us where the rules say a tugboat pushing or towing is normally RAM (you've tried that statement in the past) or that a tugboat must be RAM to sound one prolong followed by two short.....show us all....even YOU can't twist the wording of the rules to show that. 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...... You just lost that bet. Ha ha a hh a ha ha hah ah ah h ah ah ! LOL you didn't address any part of it, you just typically tried to dance around the edges with the stupid RAM ploy. NOPE, goes down as a typical lame attempt. ROFL can't do it, can ya? Every angle you look at it, consequently blows all your arguments about fog and pecking order into the trash bin. When's your next renewal? Since I doubt you'll be able to show any time on license, I bet you'll have to take the open book rules test. Hope you got lotsa money so you can buy up all the questions and answers, cause without them, you'll never pass even the open book. otn |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com