Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Very good Neal. Thanks for absolutely confirming your identity.

So I noticed you posted stuff from a page that's not there any more. Does that make
me him? Y'all are such conspiracy freaks. Why do you think I'm Captain Neal? I've been
to his web pages lots of times. Some of it's educational, some of it's nonsense and some of
it's fun. Some of it's poking fun. I laugh at what he says about women sometimes. He's soooo
old fashioned. (like Katy in lots of ways) Or maybe he never had a fun girl like me to play
with. :-) He could never be me. Shame on you for saying it.....

The change was made today.


| But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that
| embarrassing because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order"
| presentation I've seen has these flaws.

I can only think of one flaw. How's RAM supposed to stay out of the way of NUC?
RAM's unable to maneuver and NUC's unable to maneuver. They should be equals.
Did I get one right?

The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
rules. But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM. There is no logic
that can be applied from individual cases. Although one may deduce
that there was some logic behind the rules, it does not follow that
the same logic applies to each real case.

The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
discrepancies?