"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further
discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all.

Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else
must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you?


Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts?
This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost."

More name calling. . .

I guess that's the motorboater's life raft when he has foundered.
Don't forget to activate your EPIRB, Jeff. It looks like you
need to be rescued by your buddies Shen44 and otnmbrd.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Now you're saying that a sailboat can never go fast enough to cause damage!! This is only
true for one boat I know of!

You're even claiming that the rules don't apply to you because you're too incompetent to
handle your boat? You've totally lost it, Neal!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
However, in restricted visibility the rule is different. Your standin at the test
probably knew this, but since you have never read it: "Except where it has been
determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel ... shall reduce her
speed"


I already told you about a billion times that a sailboat
already is operating at a safe speed. Reducing speed
to a safe speed when one is already operating at a safe
speed is not possible.

Thus the presumption is that there is a risk of collision. Since hearing one signal
is
not necessarily enough to determine the situation, it is generally appropriate for all
vessels to reduce speed. There is no mention of different categories of boats.

All vessels that are operating too fast for the condition
of restricted visibility must reduce their speed to a
safe speed. The only vessel that IS ABLE TO operate
at an unsafe speed is the motor vessel. This reduces
your argument to a pile of rubble.


The
only exception is if the motor vessel is higher in the pecking order than
the sailboat, i.e. NUC, RAM, etc. According to your silly statement any
motor vessel could stop in the path of a sailboat on purpose and it would
be the sailboat's responsibility to keep clear.

Rule 19 explicitly requires it: . What part of "She shall if necessary take all her
way
off" do you not understand?

I understand it all and in the case of the sailboat it is not
"necessary because any decent sailboat can turn faster
than she can take all weigh off. How do you expect
a sailboat to stop her foward progress? Does your
sailboat have brakes or something? Again this
rule is for motorboats that can reverse their propeller
and take way off. A sailboat cannot do so so it
cannot be expected to do so.

"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/27/2003 16:35 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"otnmbrd" Gdog Gdog Gdog Gdog G wrote in message
nk.net...
Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up
and he can't read any newsgroups.

Simple Simon wrote:
Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario
of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not
making way while underway because the wind
is calm.

It is now nighttime and . . .

The captain decides to take down his sails so
they won't be slating back and forth in the left-
over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway
and not making way but what is he now? Is he
a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a
sailboat with his sails down? What do you think?

My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can
legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason
is because he has sails even though they are furled.

What say you two?

I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC.

Not under command means some failure of mechanical systems
that means the vessel cannot maneuver. Lack of wind is not
such a circumstance. No, I think even Jeff and Shen44 would
agree with me that NUC is not applicable here

Where does it say that in the Rules?
NUC means a vessel through some exceptional circumstance cannot maneuver as
required by these rules .... a becalmed sailboat with no mechanical power seems
to fit this bill perfectly.

Wrong! Being becalmed is a normal navigational situation for
a sailboat. It cannot be considered an exceptional circumstance.

Exceptional circumstance mostly means a mechanical failure of
some sort. Steering hydraulics kaput on a motor vessel would
make her a NUC. Broken rudder on a sailboat would make
her a NUC. Shen I'm disappointed in your response. You
are clearly ignorant when it comes to sailing.

S.Simon.

"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/28/2003 15:26 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 16:05
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44


Is this is why the rule says: "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" ? So just how
much does a license cost nowadays?

It does not say take all way off so you stop in the path
of the sailboat. First, the motor vessel is required to
take necessary action to avoid a close quarters situation.

Wrong

Taking all way off is only necessary if the motor vessel
fails in its obligation to stay clear of the sailboat. To
further compound its violation of the Rules only an
idiot motor boat operator would come to a stop right
in the path of a sailboat.

If he's in fog and can't see the sailboat, how does he know he's stopped in the
path of the sailboat?

He's got radar, he's got the bearing from the sound signal. He
has plotted a course. Get serious, Shen.

"Shen44" wrote in message
Typically wrong ... If I'm stopped in my powerboat and you hit me in your
sailboat, you were traveling at excessive/unsafe speed

Not if you stopped right in front of me. Sailboats don't have
brakes you know. You were wrong to stop right in front of
me. That makes you the party primarily responsible for the
collision. Your motorboat arrogance is showing again.

You create a situation that causes a collision and then you
seem to think you can blame it on the sailboat. It won't
fly.

Now Shen44 is also reduced to name calling. Shen44,
like his buddy Jeff has admitted he cannot respond
to facts and valid arguments so he resorts to a child's
game. I'm glad you are retired so you cannot run
down any more sailboats because you would
rather call somebody stupid than learn the Rules
as they apply to a sailboat. To do this you would
have to actually sail a sailboat which is something
you probably never have done. One who speaks
through ignorance is often wrong.




"Shen44" wrote in message ...

As Jeff said....stupid

not too good a sailor, are you?

stupid AND wrong

I've refuted everything - but it doesn't make a difference if you simply claim that the
rules don't apply to you.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in
further
discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all.

Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone
else
must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you?


Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts?
This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost."

And you cannot show where they do apply. I
parry your every thrust. You have not thrown
away your sword and resorted to name calling.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message news
I've refuted everything - but it doesn't make a difference if you simply claim that the
rules don't apply to you.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in
further
discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all.

Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone
else
must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you?


Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts?
This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost."

I wasn't name calling, I was just summarizing.

OK, I'll take back what I said about the West Wight Potter 15. I'm sure you can pass one
with no trouble.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I said I raised the boot stripe 8" not that the boat was
eight inches down in the water. Take a tape and measure
8" along the curve of the hull up above the boot stripe.

It might amount to the boat being two or three inches lower
in the water. Again you show your presumptions and resulting
ignorance. Then you take your errors and compound your
folly. It is rather sad really. I'll pray for you.

I'll pray that you somehow can an analytical mind so you
don't always have to resort to name-calling when you
have been defeated in debate.




"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Now your turning the rules into a novel. Sorry Neal, its not worth reading anymore.

This has not been a good week for you, has it?

First, you admitted that your boat is so overloaded its down 8 inches on its lines! 8
inches on a small boat! That makes your boat roughly competitive with a West Wright
Potter 15, and less seaworthy.

Then you admit that not only do you have to power in any wind under 15 knots, you also
have to power to get the boat upwind.

Then you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the rules, insisting, amongst other
things, that no one can force you to start your engine, even to save a life. You've
bragged that your boat is soooo slow, its incapable of moving at an unsafe speed. And
you
actually insist you're such an incompetent seaman that you are totally unable of
slowing
your boat to comply with the rules. Your have some delusion that everyone can see
through
the fog to avoid you, claiming that all powerboats have radar.

This been a pretty pathetic display for some one that claims to be a "master mariner"
with
a "fine bluewater craft!"

Oh, I forgot that English Major thing you have.

Let me explain in simple words: If a sailboat can move 1600 feet between signals, you
have a circle, 3200 feet in diameter, where the boat could be two minutes later. This is
assuming you could pinpoint its position from the first blast, which is impossible. And
you're saying that the other boat is somehow required to know where the sailboat is.


As to your debating style, are you actually claiming you can "disprove the rule" with "one
exception"? This isn't a mathematical theorem, its a law. It isn't required to be
logical, or to conform to your sense of fairness or symmetry; it just is. This explains
a lot: your argument is not what the rules require, its whether they make sense to you.
You're claiming that the rules are "disproved" because you found an exception. And the
exception you found is that they can't require "all vessels" to stop, because some are
stopped already. That's pretty lame, Neal, even for you.







"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Finally we're getting to the heart of it You're admitting that I'm right, but
claiming
that your interpretation of the rules makes more sense. I think you should forward
your
thoughts to the Coast Guard.

The claim you're making is that when they say "all vessels" they really mean "all
vessels
that are moving too fast." However, they don't say "reduce to a safer speed," the say
"shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be held on course." They
clearly
say exactly what I've been saying; clearly refute exactly what you're claiming.

You also make the bizarre claim that powerboats must avoid sailboats that the re
unable to
see. The sailboat must sound its signal every 2 minutes. At 8 knots, the sailboat
travels 1600 feet. By what magical method does the powerboat avoid a sailboat that
could
be 1/4 mile away, or could be dead ahead at 50 feet?

Are your ears so bad that you cannot tell the difference
between a sound signal at fifty feet and one at a quarter
mile? Mine are not.



Your strongest argument is the absurd claim that they didn't really mean "All vessels
...shall reduce speed" because some vessels are already stopped. You know that's a
stupid
argument, but its the best you've got. You lost this one Neal, big time. I got my
quarterly rules fix, and you come out looking like a total buffoon! Just hope the CG
isn't reading this!

It is a stupid argument only to stupid people. Any
individual who knows how to debate knows it only
takes one exception to disprove a rule.