On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.

Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in. But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.

That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.

You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.

Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.



I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

Do the right thing, Jeff, grow up.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.
Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.


Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

Pictures really aren't needed, although I did look at the chart. It
simply isn't relevant. The kids were within their rights to call
starboard (I presume there really was a P/S situation). You were
within your rights to ask for more room. This is easily understood
within the rules. End of story.

You're claim is that the kids should have understood you were "less
maneuverable" and stayed out of your way. This is, at best, delusional.

If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.


And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

Actually the question did give enough information, especially since it
was a hypothetical. The question asked if it was a meeting, crossing,
or overtaking situation. If you knew the rules you would instantly
realize it is none of these. Again, end of story.

If you really want to go deeper - even is it was a "narrow channel"
situation (and there was nothing to imply it was), the sailboat is
still "stand-on" although it may be required to give room for the
powerboat to get by. The only interesting question is whether the
High Speed boat essentially waives it's "narrow channel rights" by not
slowing down, since it might well be impossible for slow sailboat to
give it any room in time. The rules seem pretty clear that a "safe
speed" is required, but it seemed like you were implying that the high
speed boat might be considered "less maneuverable" - this would be
interesting question, certainly more so than what some kids should
have done.


You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, I take
that back - he was correct that that was the historical basis for many
of the rules, you're incorrect in assuming that it is sufficient to
analyze all situations that arise.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.

You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

You're the one who had the problem with the dead engine, do you really
think the kids would know about that? They just assumed that being
under sail you were willing to abide by the rules for boats being
under sail, and would inform them if there was something special going
on. They probably weren't aware that you didn't know the rules.

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.
That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

No! Kids never do that! My kids would certainly never do that! In
fact, I've never heard of a kid playing a dangerous game!

So I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the kids said
"Let's play a dangerous game - we'll ignore the ColRegs!" and they
would have been better off if they said, "we'll abandon common sense"?

BTW, you would have had a much better case if they were adults. Then
you could have started an interesting thread about how sometimes
adults forget common courtesy and insist on strict observance to the
rules. However, I've found that most of the times, those who ignore
courtesy never knew the rules at all.


You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.


The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

So either, the kids refused to give you room and ran you up on the
rocks (which I doubt), or they give you room and the situation was
over. But no one in their right mind would have made such a big deal
over it if they simply backed off when you asked them to. Really
Frank, you're the one who said "I'll ignore colregs and revert to
common sense every time."

and you started it up anew in this thread when you said:

"After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach."

The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.


I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.
You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

We have a lot in common, Frank.

I don't get it. :-)

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:41:50 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Reducing jargon is a fine goal, but this
particular thread is not the place. As a lawyer, you should know that. :^)

Hey, I've spent 35 years trying, sometimes successfully and sometimes not,
not to talk and write like a lawyer. If you can't say it simply, you
probably don't understand the issue.

The problem is not my understanding of the examples.
The problem is that your blond scatterbrain cannot focus on the issue nor
does it understand the potential dangers involved in towing, be it a
designated towing vessel or a recreational craft..... your response as to
what a "towing vessel" can or can not do show that.
Let me state some points, then I'll end this nonsense.
1. A towing vessel is not automatically RAM
2. "A vessel engaged in towing" could be a commercial vessel or a
recreational vessel.
3. Since the average recreational vessel does not have the day shapes or
light signals to designate RAM, this does not mean you can ignore that
possibility he is RAM, while towing.... to do so means you don't know or
understand Rule 2.
4. If you don't think a small underpowered pram towing a 26' boat is more
than likely "severely restricted" under all but the best conditions (if
then), then you don't understand the potential dangers of towing and it's
highly unlikely you can apply these dangers to other vessel
configurations.

In Scotty's case, he did not know the other vessel was towing until he
had passed ahead and I took his questions to be "hypothetical", where he
was trying to think of all the possibilities....rule-wise.... that may
have existed for this incident.

otn




"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:

BG Limited maybe so. But you still don't understand why they
put those examples of
RAM boats in that rule. I'll tell you so listen. Here's a Q tip. Get
that wax outta your ears. Wipe that smirk off your face. I'm not ready
to give up on you yet.
They put those examples in there so everybody would be able to
understand what's meant
by *severe* and *unable*. They are defining those words. They're
examples of what the rule says. Mind pictures. You could think of
other examples. That's why they said not limited to. But any other
examples you think of have to be similar. IOW just as severe and just
as unable.
Your example isn't anyway near it. It's totally NOT similar. It's
a joke. Well intended but
*severely unable* to make your point. :-))))))
BFG I proved you made a mistake. Why not be a man and admit it?
I'm amazed you can be
driving big ships around without fully understanding simple rules.
Even when the rule's written so any old retard can understand it.
Even when I tell you twice why they put the examples in there. Duh!
(You and Jeff brothers?)
Cri-men-ny, otn your hopeless/you really are. Typical bull headed
man..... Stubborn ,obstinate,
self-righteous! Oh! And smug. I'd like to smack ya. BBG (that's
big blonde grin)

Cheers,
Ellen

Neal is now a blonde?

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

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
25.201...


The problem is not my understanding of the examples.
The problem is that your blond scatterbrain cannot focus on the issue nor
does it understand the potential dangers involved in towing, be it a
designated towing vessel or a recreational craft..... your response as to
what a "towing vessel" can or can not do show that.
Let me state some points, then I'll end this nonsense.
1. A towing vessel is not automatically RAM
2. "A vessel engaged in towing" could be a commercial vessel or a
recreational vessel.
3. Since the average recreational vessel does not have the day shapes or
light signals to designate RAM, this does not mean you can ignore that
possibility he is RAM, while towing.... to do so means you don't know or
understand Rule 2.
4. If you don't think a small underpowered pram towing a 26' boat is more
than likely "severely restricted" under all but the best conditions (if
then), then you don't understand the potential dangers of towing and it's
highly unlikely you can apply these dangers to other vessel
configurations.

In Scotty's case, he did not know the other vessel was towing until he
had passed ahead and I took his questions to be "hypothetical", where he
was trying to think of all the possibilities....rule-wise.... that may
have existed for this incident.

otn




"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:

BG Limited maybe so. But you still don't understand why they
put those examples of
RAM boats in that rule. I'll tell you so listen. Here's a Q tip. Get
that wax outta your ears. Wipe that smirk off your face. I'm not ready
to give up on you yet.
They put those examples in there so everybody would be able to
understand what's meant
by *severe* and *unable*. They are defining those words. They're
examples of what the rule says. Mind pictures. You could think of
other examples. That's why they said not limited to. But any other
examples you think of have to be similar. IOW just as severe and just
as unable.
Your example isn't anyway near it. It's totally NOT similar. It's
a joke. Well intended but
*severely unable* to make your point. :-))))))
BFG I proved you made a mistake. Why not be a man and admit it?
I'm amazed you can be
driving big ships around without fully understanding simple rules.
Even when the rule's written so any old retard can understand it.
Even when I tell you twice why they put the examples in there. Duh!
(You and Jeff brothers?)
Cri-men-ny, otn your hopeless/you really are. Typical bull headed
man..... Stubborn ,obstinate,
self-righteous! Oh! And smug. I'd like to smack ya. BBG (that's
big blonde grin)

Cheers,
Ellen

Wait for 'her' to use the term 'pecking order'. That'll clinch it...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Neal is now a blonde?

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

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
25.201...


The problem is not my understanding of the examples.
The problem is that your blond scatterbrain cannot focus on the issue
nor
does it understand the potential dangers involved in towing, be it a
designated towing vessel or a recreational craft..... your response as
to
what a "towing vessel" can or can not do show that.
Let me state some points, then I'll end this nonsense.
1. A towing vessel is not automatically RAM
2. "A vessel engaged in towing" could be a commercial vessel or a
recreational vessel.
3. Since the average recreational vessel does not have the day shapes or
light signals to designate RAM, this does not mean you can ignore that
possibility he is RAM, while towing.... to do so means you don't know or
understand Rule 2.
4. If you don't think a small underpowered pram towing a 26' boat is
more
than likely "severely restricted" under all but the best conditions (if
then), then you don't understand the potential dangers of towing and
it's
highly unlikely you can apply these dangers to other vessel
configurations.

In Scotty's case, he did not know the other vessel was towing until he
had passed ahead and I took his questions to be "hypothetical", where he
was trying to think of all the possibilities....rule-wise.... that may
have existed for this incident.

otn




"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:

BG Limited maybe so. But you still don't understand why they
put those examples of
RAM boats in that rule. I'll tell you so listen. Here's a Q tip. Get
that wax outta your ears. Wipe that smirk off your face. I'm not ready
to give up on you yet.
They put those examples in there so everybody would be able to
understand what's meant
by *severe* and *unable*. They are defining those words. They're
examples of what the rule says. Mind pictures. You could think of
other examples. That's why they said not limited to. But any other
examples you think of have to be similar. IOW just as severe and just
as unable.
Your example isn't anyway near it. It's totally NOT similar. It's
a joke. Well intended but
*severely unable* to make your point. :-))))))
BFG I proved you made a mistake. Why not be a man and admit it?
I'm amazed you can be
driving big ships around without fully understanding simple rules.
Even when the rule's written so any old retard can understand it.
Even when I tell you twice why they put the examples in there. Duh!
(You and Jeff brothers?)
Cri-men-ny, otn your hopeless/you really are. Typical bull headed
man..... Stubborn ,obstinate,
self-righteous! Oh! And smug. I'd like to smack ya. BBG (that's
big blonde grin)

Cheers,
Ellen

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:46:05 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.
Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.

Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.


Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

Pictures really aren't needed, although I did look at the chart. It
simply isn't relevant. The kids were within their rights to call
starboard (I presume there really was a P/S situation). You were
within your rights to ask for more room. This is easily understood
within the rules. End of story.

You're claim is that the kids should have understood you were "less
maneuverable" and stayed out of your way. This is, at best, delusional.

If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.

No Jeff, I mentioned my dead engine in the original post. You
overlooked that fact and responded by indicating I should just have
started my engine, or something to that effect. I then made you aware
that the engine was dead. Repeated emphasis. I don't think so.


And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

Actually the question did give enough information, especially since it
was a hypothetical. The question asked if it was a meeting, crossing,
or overtaking situation. If you knew the rules you would instantly
realize it is none of these. Again, end of story.

If you really want to go deeper - even is it was a "narrow channel"
situation (and there was nothing to imply it was), the sailboat is
still "stand-on" although it may be required to give room for the
powerboat to get by. The only interesting question is whether the
High Speed boat essentially waives it's "narrow channel rights" by not
slowing down, since it might well be impossible for slow sailboat to
give it any room in time. The rules seem pretty clear that a "safe
speed" is required, but it seemed like you were implying that the high
speed boat might be considered "less maneuverable" - this would be
interesting question, certainly more so than what some kids should
have done.

I was not implying either boat had to give way, just commenting that
additional information might be needed to determine what action was
required by what vessel.


You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, I take
that back - he was correct that that was the historical basis for many
of the rules, you're incorrect in assuming that it is sufficient to
analyze all situations that arise.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.

You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

Once again, I never said or implied that I believed that.

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

Would you answer the question, and not ask another. Or can you?

You're the one who had the problem with the dead engine, do you really
think the kids would know about that? They just assumed that being
under sail you were willing to abide by the rules for boats being
under sail, and would inform them if there was something special going
on. They probably weren't aware that you didn't know the rules.

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.
That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

No! Kids never do that! My kids would certainly never do that! In
fact, I've never heard of a kid playing a dangerous game!

So I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the kids said
"Let's play a dangerous game - we'll ignore the ColRegs!" and they
would have been better off if they said, "we'll abandon common sense"?

BTW, you would have had a much better case if they were adults. Then
you could have started an interesting thread about how sometimes
adults forget common courtesy and insist on strict observance to the
rules. However, I've found that most of the times, those who ignore
courtesy never knew the rules at all.


You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.

I have never acted surprised that that was not the case.


The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

So either, the kids refused to give you room and ran you up on the
rocks (which I doubt), or they give you room and the situation was
over. But no one in their right mind would have made such a big deal
over it if they simply backed off when you asked them to. Really
Frank, you're the one who said "I'll ignore colregs and revert to
common sense every time."

and you started it up anew in this thread when you said:

"After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach."

Yes Jeff, that is where you left it.

The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff that is where you left it. It is certainly not what I ever
believed to be the case.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

Well, I guess I've never heard that before on ASA.

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.


I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.
You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

We have a lot in common, Frank.

No Jeff, I don't think we do. You see, I don't know you, don't know
if you are real, don't know the level of your expertise, but, unlike
you I'm not going to attack and insult you, call you stupid,
delusional or in need of medication. I'm not going to draw
conclusions about you or anything you post until I actually know more
about you and/or the situation you post. No, I don't think we have
very much in common. I would actually ask questions until I am
confident I know all the facts.

Maybe RB will be back (he's never left for good before) and you two
can go at it and you will be happy again.

Frank

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Let me state some points, then I'll end this nonsense.
| 1. A towing vessel is not automatically RAM

I agree with you....

| 2. "A vessel engaged in towing" could be a commercial vessel or a
| recreational vessel.

I agree with you again.....

| 3. Since the average recreational vessel does not have the day shapes or
| light signals to designate RAM,

I agree with you on this..... Most of them don't even have an anchor.

| this does not mean you can ignore that
| possibility he is RAM, while towing.... to do so means you don't know or
| understand Rule 2.

I totally disagree with you here. I can't agree because he CAN'T be RAM
unless he's "unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." / rule 3(g).
Your little pram towing IS able to keep out of the way of another vessel. He
can stop, he can turn, he can slow down..... He's able.
Rule 2? W'ere talking about rule 3. Duh!

| 4. If you don't think a small underpowered pram towing a 26' boat is more
| than likely "severely restricted" under all but the best conditions (if
| then), then you don't understand the potential dangers of towing and it's
| highly unlikely you can apply these dangers to other vessel
| configurations.

Even if I agree it's severely restrected I disagree that it's *unable*. It's got to
be both to be RAM. Rule 3 says it. I don't have to be a towing expert to apply the
rule. They wrote it so people didn't have to be experts at everything to understand
it. They wrote it so the average Joe could understand it. They put examples in so
the average Joe could see it in his mind. Your having trouble because your much more
experienced than the average Joe. You read stuff into the rule that ain't there. Your
like a chess player having to play checkers. I'm an average Joe. They wrote the rule
for people like me. That's why I understand it better. I don't complicate it. I don't
know how. I don't have the experience.

| In Scotty's case, he did not know the other vessel was towing until he
| had passed ahead and I took his questions to be "hypothetical", where he
| was trying to think of all the possibilities....rule-wise.... that may
| have existed for this incident.

I guess I had a different take on it. Scotty's a lovable red neck. He just wanted
to make sure he was right to flip them off..... I say he was right but he should have
hit them with an empty Budweiser long neck bottle too. It would've been even better
if he'd mooned them. :-)

Cheers,
Ellen

rank Boettcher wrote:



Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.

That's the qualifications for being married to each other....

Your responses below are exactly the nonsense I'm talking about:

A. You don't understand the potential dangers in any towing situation.
B. You don't know what Rule 2 is nor do you comprehend it's meaning, nor
it's importance when obeying other rules.

otn




"Ellen MacArthur" wrote
reenews.net:


| this does not mean you can ignore that
| possibility he is RAM, while towing.... to do so means you don't know
| or understand Rule 2.

I totally disagree with you here. I can't agree because he CAN'T
be RAM
unless he's "unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." / rule
3(g). Your little pram towing IS able to keep out of the way of
another vessel. He can stop, he can turn, he can slow down..... He's
able.
Rule 2? W'ere talking about rule 3. Duh!

| 4. If you don't think a small underpowered pram towing a 26' boat is
| more than likely "severely restricted" under all but the best
| conditions (if then), then you don't understand the potential dangers
| of towing and it's highly unlikely you can apply these dangers to
| other vessel configurations.

Even if I agree it's severely restrected I disagree that it's
*unable*. It's got to
be both to be RAM. Rule 3 says it. I don't have to be a towing expert
to apply the rule. They wrote it so people didn't have to be experts
at everything to understand it. They wrote it so the average Joe could
understand it. They put examples in so the average Joe could see it in
his mind. Your having trouble because your much more experienced than
the average Joe. You read stuff into the rule that ain't there. Your
like a chess player having to play checkers. I'm an average Joe. They
wrote the rule for people like me. That's why I understand it better.
I don't complicate it. I don't know how. I don't have the experience.


Cheers,
Ellen