And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible
to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,
only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its
info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?

What is your point here? You've admitted that its legal to proceed even if
there is zero visibility. You've insisted that a lookout must be posted, and
I've agreed wholeheartedly. My only point has been that in the absence of
visual input the helmsman is relying primarily on radar. Are you arguing simply
with my choice of words? If you think "virtually all of its info" or
"essentially on radar alone" are not proper ways to say it I might concede the
point just to end this silly discussion.

Or are you claiming that the helmsman must rely primarily on visual input, even
in limited visibility? If this is your point, I think you need to go back to
your class.

Or are you simply saying that its OK to do rely primarily on radar, but 25 knots
is simply too fast? To this I would claim, it depends on the situation. I said
many times that I couldn't address Joe's situation, but I know of a number of
runs where 7 to 14 knots is considered acceptable in the fog, and I suspect that
some go 35 knots or more away from land. Since the HSC is largely closed to
recreational boats, 25 knots may be accepted there.

So if you have a point here, please state it, and stop lying about what I've
said.

And ???????
 

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it does
an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full stop in
110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

And ???????
 

Donal wrote,

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!

I never once supported Joe's position - I simply commented on a different aspect
of the situation. Are you saying that the only legal thing for me to do is
agree completely with everything you say? Are you going to report me to my ISP?




Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this.

I still claim it does. You've never said how the kayak fulfills its
responsibility - you've only said its not our business to even ask the question.
You're very quick to claim that 25 knots is just too fast and in obvious
violation of the rules, but then you claim that its not our business to even
question how the kayak fulfills its obligation. Don't you see the contradiction
here?


You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone.

You keep lying about this. I said a watch must be posted but in zero visibility
its running essentially on radar alone. Your comments are a blatant, unabashed
lie. I think I'll send a note to .

I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

I stand by my comment - I've even reposted it. You're the one who's quoted it
out of context. And frankly, several people have supported my point, and no one
has come to your defense.


You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout.

No. I've never said that. I firmly believe in lookouts. I've only said radar
permits a faster speed than visual lookouts alone. How much faster is
debatable.

Frankly, I wasn't interested in that side of the argument; I was trying to
comment on a rather different issue, namly the propriety of small boats in
shipping lanes in the fog. You just assumed that because I didn't condemn Joe I
was in full support of everything you imagined he said.


If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.


At my expense? Now I have to pay your ISP bill?


You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


Well, you're the one that thinks Neal is the final authority.

I did look back at the record - I started questioning your knowlege of the
ColRegs when you started suggesting that there are specific speed limits in
them.

And frankly, repeating the same rule over and over does not demonstrate that you
understand it, not does it show much maturity. You've never actually refuted
any of my comments, or even tried to consider my point of view - you've just
taken isolated a phrase out of contest and asserted that I'm claiming that the
ColRegs don't apply.



You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Now I'm in danger? Get a grip, Donal!

Cheers,

Jeff

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:


What the F are you talking about?

He's talking about your posts vs ColRegs and safe navigation practices.


Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities.

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid. When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).


If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there. And a lot of "get used to it." A few
"bwahahaha"s would have been the perfect finishing touch. If you want to
complain about other people's reading level, raise your writing level.

As far as other vessels needing to operate in a safe way considering that
there might be a kayaker in the shipping lanes in fog, I agreed (with the
proviso that commercial traffic is not simply going to stop for bad
visibility).

You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid.

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).

Minimizing the time crossing shipping lanes is part of the requirements
imposed by VTS. That operation is part of adhering to the COLREGS, it is
what a kayaker should do and is one of the stipulation for its being
permitted legally to be there. Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y" because I don't think a kayak has to play by the rules
.... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.
Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error. I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.


Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there.

They were not "assertions" they are flat out statements of fact. Read
this carefully: A kayak is permitted by law to cross the VTS lanes in fog.

As much as that upsets you, it is a fact.


You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

The same way masters have done it for centuries, by looking and
listening. Just because you may not believe that the guy should be there
and you don't believe he can do it safely doesn't change the fact that
he is allowed by law to try.

It might be a less than brilliant activity but it is not illegal, it is
not impossible to do safely, and the existence of a kayak does not
automatically create a hazard or an impediment. If you think it does you
are wrong.

What part of that is so difficult for you? There is a huge difference
between what you think is acceptable and what is legal ... that is what
you had better "get used to."

Rick

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

Correct.


... Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y"

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true. Nothing you post has ever upset me.
Sometimes it makes me laugh.



... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.

More ****iness. Because I disagree, and can back up what I say simply by quoting
COlRegs, you think I "have an agenda." Sorry, my agenda is to
1- learn about sailing & seamanship
2- help others learn
3- enjoy discussions about boats & sailing.



Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.

Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane. Frankly, considering that you have in the past shown pretty good
knowledge of a wide variety of maritime subjects, this is an appalling thing to
say.


I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

DSK

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true.

Which statements? Please quote the "not true" statements.

Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.


Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane.

Please quote that statement. Quote the post where I supposedly stated or
even implied that the kayaker had no obligation to operate in accordance
with COLREGS and VTS rules.

Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area."

If you are going to play this game then you had better work a little
harder at your reading and debating skills. So far all you have done is
to make your position less comprehensible than it was to begin with.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

"Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements."

"I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them."

"I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS."

"You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules."

"The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2. "

How many more do you need?


Rick

And ???????
 

Do you really mean 10 knots to full stop in 110 meters? If so, that's a
fairly gentle stop from a slow 'fast cat'.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it does
an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full stop in
110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

And ???????
 

Doug will not admit he's wrong becuase if he did it would pop his bubble
of delusion.

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets
you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true.


Which statements? Please quote the "not true" statements.

Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.



Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he
pleases in a
shipping lane.


Please quote that statement. Quote the post where I supposedly stated or
even implied that the kayaker had no obligation to operate in accordance
with COLREGS and VTS rules.

Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area."

If you are going to play this game then you had better work a little
harder at your reading and debating skills. So far all you have done is
to make your position less comprehensible than it was to begin with.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the
kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.


"Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements."

"I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them."

"I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS."

"You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules."

"The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2. "

How many more do you need?

For the reocord, you are completely correct and colregs certainly
applies to kyaks. What is astonishing is that DSK cannot get head around
where good seamanship starts and what colregs and other 'rules of the
road' don't cover.

Cheers

And ???????
 

MC wrote:

Doug will not admit he's wrong becuase if he did it would pop his bubble
of delusion.

You must be the deluded one, because I have admitted it when I have been
wrong. Doesn't happen very often, but it has occured a few times over the past
few years.

Now, when are you going to pay me the money you owe me?

Doug King