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

Not a question of name-calling, Neal. You freely admitted to being a
"troll" in a previous post on some subject, which I believe involved the
Rules.
At any rate, even ignoring your admission, none of your purported
arguments hold any weight, worthy of reasoned discussion, since even a
novice with less experience than you, could punch holes in whatever
point you try to troll your way through.... expect nothing but comments
of disgust for your normal post, unless they hold some valid point (a
rarity).

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
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