"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
So, are you claiming you don't receive actual speed, or wind readings? Or
depth? Compass headings? Buoys passed? Sounds heard?

John E has obviously been through it recently, and I think that he gave a
good answer. I believe him when he says he was given some details about the
buoys passed.

As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff.


I didn't expect you to remember all the details, but you did say "NO external
imputs." Regardless of your memory, you have to admit this is a bit farfetched.




If you don't get any of this, why bother doing it on board; you could do
the
same thing in a class room.

John has also said that you will be given the compass heading if the crew
cannot maintain the course that you request.


John described a quite reasonable procedure.



You made one of your typical outrageous claims, and then have refused to
clarify.

Jeff, what outrageous claim do you think that I made?


You said:
Yachtmasters only have to show that they can navigate without external
inputs to prove that they understand the basic principles of navigation.

You repeated the claim of "no imputs" even after the obvious paradox was pointed
out.

I clarified to the best of my ability.

You had plenty of opportunity say "maybe we had speed and depth," but you
evaded that. That's why it was a troll.



How is this not trolling?

Jeff, every post that asks for a response, is in some way a troll.

Was MC trolling when he pointed out the part of Rule 2 that you had
studiously avoided for the last couple of weeks?

As I recall, when I said rule 2 was relevant to the kayak situation you said
that was ridiculous. Its too much work to look it up now unless you insist.

I didn't suggest rule 2 was relevant to your "25 knots in the fog" case simply
because I never denied that it would be reckless if the was no lookout, and in
any case I wasn't familiar with the area.


Or were you trolling when
you stated that a kayak "had no business" to be in a TSS.

Maybe a bit, but I was willing to back up my claim. However, with the exception
of you and Rick, no one disagreed with me. The only issue in question was the
legality, not the propriety.

Were you
trolling when you suggested [and later retracted] that ships could keep a
lookout by radar alone?

I never said that and you know it. My "retraction" was the very next sentence,
not a later post. This is why I consider you a cowardly liar, and a troll of
the lowest order. I take that back, RB has at times been worse, so I guess its
a tossup.


Let's face facts Jeff. I've done something to upset you, haven't I?

No not at all! I rather enjoy it. Its just that after a while you get to be an
embarrassment!

Was
it the position that I took in last year's "pecking order in fog"
discussion? That was a real Neal classic! I freely admit that I played
devil's advocate in that thread.

You certainly didn't play an intelligent person.

As well as being quite hilarious, the
thread proved very informative, even if you never actually managed to prove
your point.

Prove my point? I didn't have to "prove my point" since everyone except you and
Neal agreed with me. Neal was resorting to claiming that the Naval Academy
textbook was part of a left wing conspiracy! I only persisted because I was
afraid that some naive fool (maybe even you?) might believe Neal's claim that
sailboats are the stand-on vessel in the fog.

BTW, an odd coincidence: I received the Ocean Navigator "Rules of the Road
Newsletter" yesterday and it describes a radar-assisted collision between a ship
and a sailboat. It was a generally confused situation where the sailboat
thought it was the stand-on vessel. On this point the newsletter says:
"regardless of those two possible assumptions, stand-on/give-way do not exist
when the vessels are not in sight."


Just for the record, I *never* troll.

Then why did I respond?

-jeff