See my post elsewhere in this thread where I discussed
the facts of the case and the narrow channel scenario was
mentioned once or twice. Note also the time stamp that
proves I mentioned it before you posted the nonsense below.

You must enjoy taking a beating . . .

"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Ahhh, then you ignored the fact that the vessels could have been in a
narrow channel in which case the sailboat should not have been
"impeding" the ferry .....s'ok ....we know you have limited experience
on these issues

Here we go - another in a long line of motorboat
butt buddies catering to motorboat bias.

You could be right about the collision occuring
in a narrow channel and I have already mentioned
that possibility but I also said it was not stated
in the report so to assume that was the case is
rather dumb.


wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote:

To those like you who have no imagination it is
not difficult to understand why you would say
something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun.
snipped BB garbage posing for rational thought

G Nicely and accurately/logically done. But Neal will be unable to
comprehend that fact

otn

wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote:


To those like you who have no imagination it is
not difficult to understand why you would say
something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun.

In a case like this there are more known facts
than you can imagine. Here are a few:

1) the newspaper got it wrong.


It was the wire service, not a newspaper.


2) the newspaper is biased toward motor boats


You are demented at the very least. I hope you didn't scrape up your hemmoroids
too badly as you pulled this out of your ass.


3) the sailboat was probably motoring


If it was in the PJ Harbor, it really should have been.


4) the sailboat operator was probably not legally drunk.


That must be why he was arrested for operating under the influence! It's more
than likely that he was passed out, or at least completely plastered.


5) the ferry was probably not operating in a narrow channel


Ever been to PJ? I was there last week. Had dinner at Pace's, and docked at
Danfords.


5) the ferry was 'entering' the harbor which means it
was probably out of the marked channel already.


Please at least have someone look at a chart and explain it to you before making
an even bigger ass of yourself.


6) the sailboat was probably sailing around in the harbor


It would be a pretty rare sight for a 40 foot sailboat to be "sailing around" in
this particular harbor. Especially if the harbor police spotted it. It's a
crowded, tight, and busy place.


7) the ferry was probably in violation of the Rules


HIGHLY unlikely


8) the sailboat was probably in violation of the Rules


For openers, he was arrested for operating under the influence. Being away from
his slip would be a violation of the rules.


9) the collision could have and should have been prevented
by the ferry giving way as required by the Rules.


You are laughable in your ignorance of everything conected with boats, sailing
and life in general.


10) I am correct more often than not.


WRONG AGAIN!


BB

ROFL more Neal "cover thy butt" crap

Simple Simon wrote:

Here we go - another in a long line of motorboat
butt buddies catering to motorboat bias.

You could be right about the collision occuring
in a narrow channel and I have already mentioned
that possibility but I also said it was not stated
in the report so to assume that was the case is
rather dumb.


wrote in message ...

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote:


To those like you who have no imagination it is
not difficult to understand why you would say
something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun.

snipped BB garbage posing for rational thought

Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few
(Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are
about to have a collision .
Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would
hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included
slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance
of this to the story.

otn

The Cappys Master wrote:

It appears to me that the ferry captain may be have a problem.
Signalling and attempting to turn are no defence.
No mention of slowing or stopping to avoid the collision!


On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:49:43 -0400, "Simple Simon"
wrote:


It is a good thing for the ferry boat operater that the
sailboater was drunk or it would have been the ferry
boat operator who was at fault for hitting a sailboat.

The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep
clear of a sailboat. I would like more information
on this collision because I suspect the sailboat was
motoring along on autopilot. The headline probably
should have read "Motorboats collide".


wrote in message ...

(watch the wrap)

http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/stat...nes-local-wire




Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in
reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental
block against it and that's a fact.


"otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net...
Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few
(Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are
about to have a collision .
Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would
hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included
slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance
of this to the story.

otn

Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a
complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in
reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental
block against it and that's a fact.


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few
(Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are
about to have a collision .
Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would
hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included
slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance
of this to the story.

otn

Had you not been in violation of the Rule that states
you must not create a close-quarters situation you
would not have found it necessary to take drastic
action.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a
complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh?

And which rule is that, Neal?

Remember, it was 150 yard visibility, the ferry was going several knots faster than I, and
I was in full reverse within a few seconds after their first fog signal.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Had you not been in violation of the Rule that states
you must not create a close-quarters situation you
would not have found it necessary to take drastic
action.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a
complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh?

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:03:33 -0400, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required
by the Rules to hold course and speed until and
unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is
not taking the required action and a collision will
ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the
collision. Then the sailboat can take such action
as it deems necessary to avoid the collision.


Don't ever try sailing in Sydney Harbour and doing this to a ferry.
You'll need a new boat and pay for the ferry damage.

PDW