No, Ellen. http://www.badongo.com/pic/291317

SBV


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You mean Neal?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
The little blonde does have some good points!

Scotty


"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message

reenews.ne
t...

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Excuse me, but the "little powerboat" *nature of her
work* was towing the
| other vessel.


That's a hoot. You say *I* have a narrow
interpretation. Instead your the one.
You only use half the rule. The whole rule says nature
of
her work that *severely *
limits her maneuverability. 1) pleasure boat towing
isn't
*work* . The examples in the
rule make that clear. 2) You can't take one part of the
rule and ignore the other. It's
doing that that's narrow... You keep ignoring the
severely
limited maneuverability part.

| As long as
| the powerboat that's towing can maneuver OK then
it's
not RAM.
|
| True, but even you have enough reading comprehension
to
realize I said
| that.

I said you were part right and part wrong. Again,
it's because your
using half the rule and half doesn't get the job
done....

| All it
| had to do to keep outta the way of Scotty was to
throttle down or take
| it out of gear or turn the steering wheel. Duh! It
had no rule on
| it's side to expect a sailboat to give way.
|
| I wasn't there;I don't know what the channel is like;
I
don't know the
| state of the tide; direction and/or strength of
current;
wind; handling
| characteristics of the vessels in question; abilities
of
the towing
| vessel and operator; etc.....

But you do know the rule (or claim you do). It's
plain and black and white.
Why do you insist on making something out of it that's
not
there? Why do you
only use half of it? Why do you ignore the *severely*
limits maneuverability part?
The little pleasure boat is not severely limited. It
has
all it's controls. It has all
the maneuverability it ever has. Tide, current, wind
make
no difference. The only
thing that's different is a rope over the transom. It
might take a little extra time
to turn or stop but that's not *severe.* So stop
ignoring
the severe part of the rule,
please.

| Another thing. You can see from (i) thru (vi)
that work means
| serious work. It doesn't mean playing around
| on a pleasure boat or helping out somebody whose
motor
broke.
|
| Show me where it says that.

Duh, the examples say that. All of them are
serious
work. None of them are
pleasure craft out playing. If the rule was for
pleasure
craft one would have been
put in the examples. If you go to a dinner party that's
"formal attire required" you don't
show up in sneaker and a t-shirt and expect to get in.
If
you read a rule that's all about
serious work you don't expect playing to be part of it.
Your trouble is your trying to hedge your bets. You
won't say the rule says X. Instead
you say the rules says X, Y, Z and sometimes A,B,C.
Duh!
Read the rule and understand
what it says. Stop adding your own stuff so you can
have
an *out* every time.
Maybe you should argue with my instructor Captain
Donna Kirby, She's been teaching
the rules for years and years. She knows them better
than
you and she says two little
recreational boats towing each other are not RAM. How
does
she know? Because it's
consensus. Your wrong.

| G It pleases me to know you are off the water, and
your above first
| sentence is one of the reasons why.....no, I don't
agree
that this is
| always the case.

Too much wiggle room makes a fact a fiction....

|| The fact that you've asked this series of stupid
questions just adds to
| my ongoing confirmation that you are a highly
inexperienced amateur with
| limited powers of intelligent reasoning/thought.

And, your a typical man who wouldn't admit he was
wrong to stick his ass out
of the fox hole even when the bullet make him a second
asshole.... Or, in your case
a third. :-)

Cheers,
Ellen