in message , Jeff Morris
') wrote:

One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a
lookout is "illegal."Â*Â*AsÂ*farÂ*asÂ*IÂ*know,Â*thereÂ*isÂ*no Â*"law"Â*thatÂ*says
youÂ*must follow the ColRegs in international water.Â*

That's a bit definitional. There _is_ a law, it's the ColRegs, which are
established by international treaty, and it does, as Neal says, require
'a proper lookout at all times'. The fact that there aren't nautical
traffic cops lurking behind every iceberg in the southern ocean doesn't
mean the law doesn't apply. Technically, I think single handing
probably is illegal, and in boats as large, heavy and fast as
B&Q/Castorama, I think it does raise some ethical issues - you really
could be putting other people's lives at risk.

But do you want to live in a world without great solo achievements?
Everything in life involves some degree of risk, and a one and a half
ton motor car travelling at 64 mph has the same kinetic energy - and
the same ability to kill - as a six ton trimaran travelling at 16 mph.
And the southern ocean isn't exactly crowded these days.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

---===*** This space to let! ***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===*** Only $300 per line ***===---

in message , Capt. Neal®
') wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a
lookout
is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must
follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no
penalty
for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In
inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not
having proper lights, etc.

Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a
citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored
in international waters? (outside of a few designated
anchorages, that is.)

Do you know that the Coast Guard (UK, US or whoevers else you like) has
absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in international waters, so they
can write as many citations as they like?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

Did you know the US Coast Guard has jurisdiction over US flagged vessels
anywhere in the world in international waters?

CN


"Simon Brooke" wrote in message ...
in message , Capt. Neal®
') wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a
lookout
is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must
follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no
penalty
for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In
inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not
having proper lights, etc.

Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a
citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored
in international waters? (outside of a few designated
anchorages, that is.)

Do you know that the Coast Guard (UK, US or whoevers else you like) has
absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in international waters, so they
can write as many citations as they like?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

Capt. Neal® wrote:



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote


Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better
than jaxie's.

The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but
most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The
first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before
Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to
the current rules, with many of the same phrases.

Regarding lookouts:
"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to
carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out,
or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the
ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the
case."

This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were
move to Rule 5 in 1972.




But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about
which I made my true statement.

CN


G Lame, Neal ..... real lame.

otn


Why is it lame to point out the truth? Jeff, himself, wrote the
COLREGS were adopted in 1972. That makes my statement about
Slocum and the COLREGS entirely true.

You people need to take a couple remedial English courses. . .

CN

G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame.

COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules
of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea" are a couple others.
Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words
rather than substance.

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Capt. Neal® wrote:



"otnmbrd" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote


Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's.

The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the
1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are
surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases.

Regarding lookouts:
"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect
to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be
required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972.




But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about
which I made my true statement.

CN


G Lame, Neal ..... real lame.

otn


Why is it lame to point out the truth? Jeff, himself, wrote the
COLREGS were adopted in 1972. That makes my statement about
Slocum and the COLREGS entirely true.

You people need to take a couple remedial English courses. . .

CN

G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame.

COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea" are a couple others.
Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words rather than substance.

otn

Words are how we communicate. They must be used as defined
or we no longer communicate . . .

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:
....
It does not! The COLREGS were not even a gleam in some
lawyer's grandfather's eye when the legendary Joshua
Slocum was plying his manly trade.


Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than
jaxie's.

The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most
of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first
international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left
on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current
rules, with many of the same phrases.

Regarding lookouts:
"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry
lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of
the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary
practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were
moved to Rule 5 in 1972.

But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about
which I made my true statement.

You can do better than that, Neal. Didn't you notice the change in
wording? Do I have to do everything for you?

Capt. Neal® wrote:


"otnmbrd" wrote in message

G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame.

COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules
of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea" are a couple others.
Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words
rather than substance.

otn


Words are how we communicate. They must be used as defined
or we no longer communicate . . .

CN

Many words can be defined in a number of ways. To use a definition which
may enhance your argument, but in truth is not the correct definition
within the substance of the argument, is mis-communication.
If you wish to argue a point, then do so without resorting to Jaxonian
nonsense.
Your point is basically valid, as are those in opposition. My own
opinion FWIW, is that she made the voyage without incident, thus she
must have maintained a proper watch.
We could argue the fine points for a few weeks ..... course, then I'd
include Rule 2, and all hell would break loose EG.

otn

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:r3aOd.14517$K54.2604@edtnps84...

"JimH" wrote in message

Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst
of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at
rec.boats?

Geez jimmy... it has to do with boats...
Are all you guys at rec.boats such whiners or is it that jimmy boy is the
group weenie?

CM



*ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin.

Ok folks,
You all have missed it. Little Ellen can not be convicted for violation of
COLREG #5. And I'll show you..

Capt. Neal states that COLREG Rule #5
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well
as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so
as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision."

IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS (Little Ellen WAS solo)

Capt. Neal wrote:
"Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while
they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat."

So by his own admittance, as a USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941 that Little Ellen was exhausted and IN THE PREVAILING
CIRCUMSTANCE AND CONDITIONS of being solo, had to sleep, and could not keep
a proper look out. So did she break the law? Yes. But IN THE PREVAILING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS of being SOLO, She had to.
So good luck trying to find a court that will convict her on not having a
proper look out in the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Now if you want to get picky, You can go give that guy who lasted 2 weeks at
sea on a log raft after the tsunami a ticket. No proper look out, No night
time running lights, Non-registered Vessel, un-seaworthy craft, failing to
file a float plan, and the list goes on. And don't forget to give a ticket
to all those who been stranded at sea in a rubber raft for the same thing.
In The Prevailing Circumstances is in the prevailing circumstance. It does
not state what that circumstance is. It does not state if it is life
threating, a 30ft vessel, log raft, or a rubber raft. And it does not state
what those conditions are to be also.
And besides, it just sounds like Capt Neal is being ****y because the person
he was rooting for didn't win.
Have a great day...
Ship Skipper

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . .


Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot
claim you do not know what the words "sight" and
"hearing" mean.

Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about
it.

sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing
2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense
of which the eye is the receptor and by which
qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color)
are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small
bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming
5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj

hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of
perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which
noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot
3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments
(as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative
committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses

© 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster
Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

"At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is
sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order
to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing
AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states
ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps
is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise.

Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal
if Ellen has a collision argue falsely.

Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance
solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor
anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they
are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat.

Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole
team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about
time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity
which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere.

I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos
to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates
legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only
record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation
of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of
electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays
awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing
twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally.

Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission.

Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You
cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you
attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and
explicitness of Rule 5.


Captain Neal Warren
USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941
--- Safety at sea is no accident.

He's just a troll... forget him. But, nice explanation.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Ship Skipper" wrote in message
...
Ok folks,
You all have missed it. Little Ellen can not be convicted for violation of
COLREG #5. And I'll show you..

Capt. Neal states that COLREG Rule #5
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well
as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so
as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision."

IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS (Little Ellen WAS solo)

Capt. Neal wrote:
"Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing
while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat."

So by his own admittance, as a USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941 that Little Ellen was exhausted and IN THE PREVAILING
CIRCUMSTANCE AND CONDITIONS of being solo, had to sleep, and could not
keep a proper look out. So did she break the law? Yes. But IN THE
PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS of being SOLO, She had to.
So good luck trying to find a court that will convict her on not having a
proper look out in the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Now if you want to get picky, You can go give that guy who lasted 2 weeks
at sea on a log raft after the tsunami a ticket. No proper look out, No
night time running lights, Non-registered Vessel, un-seaworthy craft,
failing to file a float plan, and the list goes on. And don't forget to
give a ticket to all those who been stranded at sea in a rubber raft for
the same thing. In The Prevailing Circumstances is in the prevailing
circumstance. It does not state what that circumstance is. It does not
state if it is life threating, a 30ft vessel, log raft, or a rubber raft.
And it does not state what those conditions are to be also.
And besides, it just sounds like Capt Neal is being ****y because the
person he was rooting for didn't win.
Have a great day...
Ship Skipper

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . .


Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot
claim you do not know what the words "sight" and
"hearing" mean.

Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about
it.

sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing
2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense
of which the eye is the receptor and by which
qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color)
are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small
bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming
5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj

hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of
perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which
noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot
3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments
(as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative
committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses

© 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster
Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

"At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is
sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order
to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing
AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states
ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps
is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise.

Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal
if Ellen has a collision argue falsely.

Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance
solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor
anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they
are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat.

Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole
team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about
time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity
which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere.

I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos
to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates
legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only
record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation
of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of
electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays
awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing
twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally.

Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission.

Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You
cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you
attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and
explicitness of Rule 5.


Captain Neal Warren
USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941
--- Safety at sea is no accident.