Donal wrote,

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!

I never once supported Joe's position - I simply commented on a different aspect
of the situation. Are you saying that the only legal thing for me to do is
agree completely with everything you say? Are you going to report me to my ISP?




Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this.

I still claim it does. You've never said how the kayak fulfills its
responsibility - you've only said its not our business to even ask the question.
You're very quick to claim that 25 knots is just too fast and in obvious
violation of the rules, but then you claim that its not our business to even
question how the kayak fulfills its obligation. Don't you see the contradiction
here?


You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone.

You keep lying about this. I said a watch must be posted but in zero visibility
its running essentially on radar alone. Your comments are a blatant, unabashed
lie. I think I'll send a note to .

I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

I stand by my comment - I've even reposted it. You're the one who's quoted it
out of context. And frankly, several people have supported my point, and no one
has come to your defense.


You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout.

No. I've never said that. I firmly believe in lookouts. I've only said radar
permits a faster speed than visual lookouts alone. How much faster is
debatable.

Frankly, I wasn't interested in that side of the argument; I was trying to
comment on a rather different issue, namly the propriety of small boats in
shipping lanes in the fog. You just assumed that because I didn't condemn Joe I
was in full support of everything you imagined he said.


If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.


At my expense? Now I have to pay your ISP bill?


You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


Well, you're the one that thinks Neal is the final authority.

I did look back at the record - I started questioning your knowlege of the
ColRegs when you started suggesting that there are specific speed limits in
them.

And frankly, repeating the same rule over and over does not demonstrate that you
understand it, not does it show much maturity. You've never actually refuted
any of my comments, or even tried to consider my point of view - you've just
taken isolated a phrase out of contest and asserted that I'm claiming that the
ColRegs don't apply.



You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Now I'm in danger? Get a grip, Donal!

Cheers,

Jeff