Oh, I forgot that English Major thing you have.

Let me explain in simple words: If a sailboat can move 1600 feet between signals, you
have a circle, 3200 feet in diameter, where the boat could be two minutes later. This is
assuming you could pinpoint its position from the first blast, which is impossible. And
you're saying that the other boat is somehow required to know where the sailboat is.


As to your debating style, are you actually claiming you can "disprove the rule" with "one
exception"? This isn't a mathematical theorem, its a law. It isn't required to be
logical, or to conform to your sense of fairness or symmetry; it just is. This explains
a lot: your argument is not what the rules require, its whether they make sense to you.
You're claiming that the rules are "disproved" because you found an exception. And the
exception you found is that they can't require "all vessels" to stop, because some are
stopped already. That's pretty lame, Neal, even for you.







"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Finally we're getting to the heart of it You're admitting that I'm right, but
claiming
that your interpretation of the rules makes more sense. I think you should forward
your
thoughts to the Coast Guard.

The claim you're making is that when they say "all vessels" they really mean "all
vessels
that are moving too fast." However, they don't say "reduce to a safer speed," the say
"shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be held on course." They
clearly
say exactly what I've been saying; clearly refute exactly what you're claiming.

You also make the bizarre claim that powerboats must avoid sailboats that the re
unable to
see. The sailboat must sound its signal every 2 minutes. At 8 knots, the sailboat
travels 1600 feet. By what magical method does the powerboat avoid a sailboat that
could
be 1/4 mile away, or could be dead ahead at 50 feet?

Are your ears so bad that you cannot tell the difference
between a sound signal at fifty feet and one at a quarter
mile? Mine are not.



Your strongest argument is the absurd claim that they didn't really mean "All vessels
...shall reduce speed" because some vessels are already stopped. You know that's a
stupid
argument, but its the best you've got. You lost this one Neal, big time. I got my
quarterly rules fix, and you come out looking like a total buffoon! Just hope the CG
isn't reading this!

It is a stupid argument only to stupid people. Any
individual who knows how to debate knows it only
takes one exception to disprove a rule.