One knows he has won the argument and the opponent
is humiliated when said opponent resorts to ad hominem
attacks.
Bwaaaahhahhahahahhahahahahah!
May I offer you a handkerchief so you can dry those
tears?
CN
wrote in message ...
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. NealŪ
wrote:
Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out.
No, it most emphatically does not.
Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . .
Rule 5
Look-out
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well
as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so
as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision."
maintaing a watch at all times is not the same thing as maintaining a
watch constantly without interuption. You breathe "at all times", but
sometimes you are inhaling, sometimes you are exhaling, and sometimes
you are doing neither.
I hope this helps.
You are pretty much beyond help, baby ****er.
BB
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
From: "Capt. NealŪ"
Date: 1999/12/12
Subject: P30 Lowrider
Correction. Those were not electric shocks that made
Bobsprit's boat bounce up and down. They were hydraulic
jackstands.
I think you also need a lesson about flat-chested women.
Flat chested women are, almost without exception, better
lovers. They have had to develop certain skills below the
waistline in order to compensate for their small mammaries.
They know what it takes to please a man because of it. I
don't know about you but I have never had a pair of
mammaries, regardless of how big they were, give me what an
educated vagina can.
There is yet another reason why every man should learn to
love flat-chested women . . . many young women do not grow
them until they are 12 or 13. Would you honestly rule them
out because of it?
Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CN
wrote in message ...
On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan"
wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan"
The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.
In that case there must be some prior cases.
I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one
has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and
listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for
someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that
the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it
would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you
have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is
neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the
colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your
watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case,
would determine whether or not the watch had been proper.
BB
|