That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Neal,
I think you are missing the point that the others are discussing.
It doesn't matter if the "ship" is in a narrow channel or a TSS, the
Rules are still holding them to the stand on/give way status under the
Steering and Sailing Rules.
However, because the vessel which must stay in the narrow channel or
TSS, is working under conditions which potentially limit it's ability to
comply with those rules, they have stated that the vessel which is not
restricted to those confines, shall not impede, even though it may be
the stand on vessel.
They have not relieved the ship of it's obligations, they have just put
the greater obligation onto the smaller vessel to understand those
conditions and give way, no matter what (stand on or give way).

otn

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

No, its just not worth wasting much time on this one. You already lost this same argument
several times over. The rules very clearly define several types of relationships:
stand-on/give-way is one, shall not impede is another. Vessels in heavy fog are a third.
You keep trying to claim that rules specific to one situation should be applied to
another. But there is absolutely nothing in the rules to support this claim. There is
no authority or commentator that supports your point of view. You haven't a leg to stand
on; you don't even have a license anymore.

You should hope that no one in the New Orleans MSO is an ASA lurker.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Try reading my latest stand-alone post titled:

COLREGS - Proving Pecking Order in Restricted Visibility

for all the proof you need.

And, you are wrong about my licenses. They are still current. Why not
check with your friend about it again.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
No, its just not worth wasting much time on this one. You already lost this same argument
several times over. The rules very clearly define several types of relationships:
stand-on/give-way is one, shall not impede is another. Vessels in heavy fog are a third.
You keep trying to claim that rules specific to one situation should be applied to
another. But there is absolutely nothing in the rules to support this claim. There is
no authority or commentator that supports your point of view. You haven't a leg to stand
on; you don't even have a license anymore.

You should hope that no one in the New Orleans MSO is an ASA lurker.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

ROFLMAO Not a question of defending anything. Quote away, Neal, but
until you learn what your quotes mean, they will typically have little
or no meaning.
Try to understand, Neal ....you've lost, you've never won, and you'll
never win. Why? Because you're a wannabe troll with no experience and
less basic knowledge/ability.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...


Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:


That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

So, you'd rather name-call than argue the facts.

I understand. The former gives you a better chance
to feel your oats than the latter.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
ROFLMAO Not a question of defending anything. Quote away, Neal, but
until you learn what your quotes mean, they will typically have little
or no meaning.
Try to understand, Neal ....you've lost, you've never won, and you'll
never win. Why? Because you're a wannabe troll with no experience and
less basic knowledge/ability.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...


Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:


That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:16:34 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view

Don't drag my name into your nautical fantasy life.

I don't argue COLREGS with rank amateurs, Nil. You are so far out of
touch with reality it simply isn't worth the time to play silly games
with the likes of you.

If you sailed half as much as you compose absurd interpretations of
rules you don't use or understand then you wouldn't post near as much
garbage.

If you were really interested in learning about operating your broken
plastic boat safely you would listen to the likes of Shen and OTN and
try to grasp the nuances of ship operations as they apply to you.

You're a loser wannabe, Nil. You will never be a sailor or a seaman,
you just don't have the "right stuff" so to speak.

Rick