Let's start from the beginning.

The terms 'these rules' and 'in these rules' appear numerous times
in the body of the Rules.

For example:

Rule 1(a) These rules shall apply . . .
Rule 1(b) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(c) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(d) . . . for the purpose of these rules.
Rule 1(e) . . .provisions of any of these rules . . .

Rule 2(a) Nothing in these rules . . . comply with these rules . .
Rule 2(b) . . . with these rules . . .

Rule 3 For the purpose of these rules . . .

In every case 'these rules' applies to the body of the rules.

How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

Obviously, another troll.
Comments interspersed:
Rule 8 (j) (i) .... what the hell rule is that?
Wait a minute... I just reread this .... Neal, this is more of you're
usual "trolling" junk.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time answering it ....either learn the
rules, or bow out of any discussion on them.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Let's start from the beginning.

The terms 'these rules' and 'in these rules' appear numerous times
in the body of the Rules.

For example:

Rule 1(a) These rules shall apply . . .
Rule 1(b) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(c) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(d) . . . for the purpose of these rules.
Rule 1(e) . . .provisions of any of these rules . . .

Rule 2(a) Nothing in these rules . . . comply with these rules . .
Rule 2(b) . . . with these rules . . .

Rule 3 For the purpose of these rules . . .

In every case 'these rules' applies to the body of the rules.

How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

You lost. You will not reply to a logical essay
which quotes the actual rules to make a valid
point. You and otn are not capable of rational
thinking and cannot even hold a candle to
someone you claim holds a 'baby license'.

Refusing to discuss is an indication of a
realization that one is incapable of making
his point in the face of an argument that
cannot be disproved.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Obviously, another troll.
Comments interspersed:
Rule 8 (j) (i) .... what the hell rule is that?
Wait a minute... I just reread this .... Neal, this is more of you're
usual "trolling" junk.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time answering it ....either learn the
rules, or bow out of any discussion on them.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Let's start from the beginning.

The terms 'these rules' and 'in these rules' appear numerous times
in the body of the Rules.

For example:

Rule 1(a) These rules shall apply . . .
Rule 1(b) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(c) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(d) . . . for the purpose of these rules.
Rule 1(e) . . .provisions of any of these rules . . .

Rule 2(a) Nothing in these rules . . . comply with these rules . .
Rule 2(b) . . . with these rules . . .

Rule 3 For the purpose of these rules . . .

In every case 'these rules' applies to the body of the rules.

How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

ROFLMAO I see you couldn't counter anything I said in my short post.
To counter your post:
There was nothing logical about your initial post.
I AM otn, so how can it be me AND otn. No matter, I don't need to worry
about "holding a candle" to you where licenses are concerned.
As for discussing your post .... we all know it's a troll that has no
valid point, so why waste our time?
Get it through your thick skull, Neal ... you proved yourself to be
nothing more than a troll, with little real knowledge of the rules and
or seamanship .... discussing the subject with you, is a waste of time,
since your post on the issues are nothing more than trolls
......irrelevant and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
It's not a question as to whether I lose .... the statement is YOU'VE
LOST !!! you have ZERO credibility regarding this subject !! My previous
statements, hold.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
You lost. You will not reply to a logical essay
which quotes the actual rules to make a valid
point. You and otn are not capable of rational
thinking and cannot even hold a candle to
someone you claim holds a 'baby license'.

Refusing to discuss is an indication of a
realization that one is incapable of making
his point in the face of an argument that
cannot be disproved.

S.Simon


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

Obviously, another troll.
Comments interspersed:
Rule 8 (j) (i) .... what the hell rule is that?
Wait a minute... I just reread this .... Neal, this is more of you're
usual "trolling" junk.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time answering it ....either learn the
rules, or bow out of any discussion on them.

otn

My mistake it should be rule 8 (f) (i) every place
where (j) was used. So shoot me for the typos.
The validity of the argument is not lessened since
I quoted the rule in question. The actual number of
it being wrong a couple of times is regrettable but
has no real bearing on the argument.

However, I cannot blame you for using it as an
excuse to bow out since you cannot defeat the
argument using logic.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Obviously, another troll.
Comments interspersed:
Rule 8 (j) (i) .... what the hell rule is that?
Wait a minute... I just reread this .... Neal, this is more of you're
usual "trolling" junk.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time answering it ....either learn the
rules, or bow out of any discussion on them.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Let's start from the beginning.

The terms 'these rules' and 'in these rules' appear numerous times
in the body of the Rules.

For example:

Rule 1(a) These rules shall apply . . .
Rule 1(b) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(c) Nothing in these rules . . .
Rule 1(d) . . . for the purpose of these rules.
Rule 1(e) . . .provisions of any of these rules . . .

Rule 2(a) Nothing in these rules . . . comply with these rules . .
Rule 2(b) . . . with these rules . . .

Rule 3 For the purpose of these rules . . .

In every case 'these rules' applies to the body of the rules.

How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
snip meaningless gibberish
How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9 and 10, and of
course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any of these rules." Rule 8(f) is
qualifying the meaning of "shall not impede," as it is used in Rule 9 and 10. I even
quoted the IMO commentary that explained that that is why 8(f) was added.

Only a simpleton would try to read more into this.












You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

Tell me, then, because you ignored the bigger part of
my post, why in the examples I listed 'any of these
rules' means any of these rules while you choose to
assign the same term a specific meaning in the case
of Rule 8 (f)(i) ? Seems to me one needs to be
consistent if one expects to be taken seriously.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
snip meaningless gibberish
How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9 and 10, and of
course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any of these rules." Rule 8(f) is
qualifying the meaning of "shall not impede," as it is used in Rule 9 and 10. I even
quoted the IMO commentary that explained that that is why 8(f) was added.

Only a simpleton would try to read more into this.












You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon

Jeff Morris wrote:

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9
and 10, and of course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any
of these rules."

Doesn't "any of these Rules" apply to the whole set of rules? I notice that
8(f)(i) uses this term, but that 8(f)(ii) and 8(f)(iii), refer to "the Rules
of this part".


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Rule 8(f) is the hardest to understand. Its ironic that it was added to clarify this
situation and was written in such an obtuse way. Rule 8(f) (i) says:

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to
impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, ..."

This means we look in any of the rules for the mention of "impede." You can look all you
want, but you'll only find this mention in Rules 9 and 10, and in 18 International in
reference to vessels "Constrained By Draft," and in reference to Seaplanes. Thus, except
for seaplanes, Rule 8(f)(i) is concerned entirely with vessel restricted by channels, TSS,
or by their draft.

Rule 8(f) (iii) says:
"A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains
fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part ..."

Which means that even though a vessel might enjoy the status of "not to be impeded," it
still must comply with all the other appropriate rules. In particular, it may also be the
give-way vessel. This is the central point of the discussion. For example, a Fishing
boat is allowed to fish in a channel, as long as it allows other vessels sufficient
searoom to pass safely. A sailboat is still the stand-on vessel when tacking up a
channel, but it shouldn't force a powerboat into an unsafe manuever.

Rule 8(f)(ii) balances (iii). Because there is the situation that one vessel is has "not
to be impeded" status, while another has "stand-on" status, both vessels are reminded that
they also have to comply with the other rules, namely, that one is "give-way" while the
other "shall not impede."

Rules 8(f) (ii) and (iii) also imply that all appropriate rules are still in force, such
as a lookout is still required, and collisions must be avoided. The important concept is
that "shall not impede" adds additional responsibilities, it does not replace other rules.

-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9
and 10, and of course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any
of these rules."

Doesn't "any of these Rules" apply to the whole set of rules? I notice that
8(f)(i) uses this term, but that 8(f)(ii) and 8(f)(iii), refer to "the Rules
of this part".


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:54:16 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

Let's start from the beginning.

You have never progressed beyond the beginning, Nil.

Maybe the best way for you to "prove" your command of the COLREGS and
your vessel is to go play in the VTS lanes.

Let us know how you do.

Rick