Ellen MacArthur wrote:
How can you say totally wrong. It comes straight from the rules. I quoted the Rules word for word.
Up there I just summarized them That's what they say. Duh! If the fishing boat was unable to keep out
of the way it would be RAM. Try reading the three rules again. The rules define the classification.
The activity of the boat does not. You seem to have it backwards.

keep studying.

Stop ignoring what the rules say. The rules classify the vessel. The vessel doesn't make the rule. Now I
think I understand why your so confused all the time. You and otn. BBG

not ignoring. you're reading too much in.



| Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
| in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
| from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
| read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?

*Sort of valid* Is that like being a little pregnant? Either it's valid or it's not.

I'm just agreeing with the observation that the definitions are
similar. But they aren't the pecking order rule.



Here is Rule 18 all of it or the International part at least....

stop copying the rules. I have many copies.
....
Could you be trying to say lumping them all in one list isn't the right thing to do. That making it simple with one
list makes it more confusing? Are you saying the pecking order should be like this.

(a) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL
POWER

snip other lists

Such a list maker you are. but I don't know how to interpret these.
But at least you're looking in the right place. Make one simple list.
Tell me exactly what the rule actually supports.



Now I think I see what your getting at. Is it that one list leaves out CBD till half way through the rule and one list doesn't?
So one big list doesn't accurately describe what the rule really says? And none of the lists, big or small cares about the actual
order of things above the bottom vessel. I think it's starting to get past the blonde roots. :-)

The fog is thinning a bit, but the implication is a very simple one.


| I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
| presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

Maybe I got closer this time?

You've danced around one of my issues.

The other is of a slightly different nature. It involves a
distinction that runs through the rules that is generally ignored by
casual readers.



| I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
| specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

That I find hard to believe. He's a self-proclaimed expert.

But, he didn't really know the rules.