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