"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

Forget your post with Jeff and Joe .... there are many conditions we all
deal
with that don't work all the time, work sometimes, and are greatly
influenced
by our individual experience for a particular area of operation.
Never forget Rule 2 .... apply it to your area and conditions, and always
know,
that what you may know or have used as normal conditions, may not apply to
a
particular area or condition that you now find yourself, in.
Many modern vessels rely on radar, as their main source of information for
the
routes they travel. Conditions may say that this is sufficient, or not,
and in
the case of a collision, it will easily be proved .... not.
The point of this whole discussion, is the reality of what one can expect
.....
the reality of what one must deal with .... the reality of .... Oh
Chit...I
didn't think of that and should have.
No system is perfect, will guarantee safety, can be relied on solely .....
Rule
2.....You are responsible for what you do, don't do, what you should do,
what
you shouldn't do.......etc.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?


I understand why Joe is upset with me. I *really* don't understand why
Jeff decided that I was wrong. otn seems to be conducting a rational
discussion, and I hope that I am responding in kind. Our differences are
are remarkably small. We seem to be discussing slightly different
interpretations of the CollRegs. There won't be a "winner" or a "loser".
There might even be two winners.


There's nothing wrong with these "confrontational" discussions. They are
educational.



Regards


Donal
--