"Donal" the cowardly liar wrote:
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.

Oooops. I was wrong if I said that. I suspect that I said that it might
be more dangerous to allow the speed to drop below the point where a vessel
can maintain steerage.

You stated in no uncertain terms that traffic proceeds in the Channel at 12
knots even in thick fog. I cited a recent case where 10 knots was not
considered a factor in a collision in zero visibility. Farwell's says "A ship
that is making proper use of radar in, say, the open ocean, cannot be
realistically expected to take all way off when the fog becomes so dense that it
is not possible to see beyond its bows."

Further, although you might be able to claim that the strict wording of the
ColRegs implies any movement in thick fog is imprudent, that is not the current
interpretation of the courts. And, as we now all know, the courts effectively
modify the ColRegs.

And what's this "Oooops" business? Now you're flip flopping on this issue again
with just an "Oooops"? After all the **** you've been giving me when you know I
didn't mean what you claim? You're a real piece of work, Donal, a real asshole!

Further, this stupid reply is to a post 9 days ago!!! What, have you been
stewing about this for 9 days and you now think you have some intelligent to
add? I don't think so.


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.

Nonsense! Your initial argument was that Joe was correct in his assertion
that navigating under Radar alone was acceptable. Do you want me to post
your words again?


No, when you post them you keep leaving out "Of course, one should always have a
visual (and sound) watch". Why is that? Is it because you are a cowardly liar?
Everyone else has no trouble understanding my words. Its only cowardly liars
that don't.

I did imply that in zero visibility, the helmsman is effectively navigating on
radar alone. And there must also be a visual lookout. And we know that the
lookout cannot be the same person as the helmsman - The reason is that the
helmsman must focus on the radar and compass, and therefore cannot serve as the
lookout. Why is this so complicated for you to understand? If you want to make
a case that Joe implied the lookout is not needed, feel free; I would agree that
that is wrong.

I suggest you give it up Donal, you've convinced everyone that you are a
cowardly liar and a fool. You really can't sink any lower without imitating
Jax.





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.

Would you accept the wording of the CollRegs?


I sense a grade school argument coming on ....



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.

Tell us what the CollRegs say.

Then tell us why your opinion outweighs the CollRegs.


I was right; Donal, the fool is using his kindergarten logic again. Sad, truely
sad.



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.

It doesn't depend on the situation. You either accept the CollRegs, or you
don't.


I've asked this question several times - you seem to keep changing your answer.
Do you beleive that all traffic must stop in thick fog? If your answer is yes,
why do you think the courts have ruled otherwise?

You keep making this vague claim that its all in the ColRegs - you even claimed
at one point the ColRegs might have specific speed limits. Perhaps you could
show us where that is.

You keep implying that "Safe Speed" is determined by visibility alone; Rule 6(b)
is pretty clear that radar equipment will change that determination.



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.

Please stop calling me a liar. Just because somebody disagrees with you
does not automatically mean that they are a liar. It *is* possible that you
might be wrong.


I'm wrong? What part of "Of course, one should always have a visual (and
sound) watch" implies that I don't think there should be a lookout? I don't
call you a liar because you're wrong, I call you a liar because you continue to
misrepresent what I said. Frankly, I have no idea what you are trying to claim
other than a lookout is needed, and I not sure anyone has disagreed with that.

Mind you, I never said the Joe's hypothetical actions were OK, I only said that
if you have a visual lookout, navigating effectively on radar alone is not
necessarily prohibited by the rules. I presented a number of court rulings,
investigations, and the standard textbook to support my case.

What have you done? You've repeatedly lied about my position, but you've never
actually stated what your position is, other than claiming that yours is
supported by the ColRegs, and anyone that disagrees with you obviously doesn't
believe in the rules.

Get some rest, Donal. See a professional. Maybe get some medication - this all
seems to be too much for you.

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


Donal wrote:


So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business
being
there" actually means?


Regards


Donal

Could you describe your profession in simple terms ..... engineer,
lawyer, politician, etc., please.

Engineer would be closest.


Regards


Donal
--

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


Donal wrote:


So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business

being

there" actually means?


Regards


Donal

Could you describe your profession in simple terms ..... engineer,
lawyer, politician, etc., please.


Engineer would be closest.


Regards


Donal
--


G Thanks. It helps in understanding how your mind works and how you
may approach an issue/problem.

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
news


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

G Thanks. It helps in understanding how your mind works and how you
may approach an issue/problem.

My grandmother told me, when I was 10, that I should be a lawyer. With
hindsight, I should have taken her advice.

Is this what you are hinting at?


Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Saying "they have no business being there" or "they shouldn't be
there"
is not
the same as claiming its illegal or prohibited. This is all your
fantasy!


So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business
being
there" actually means?


Everyone, including you and Rick have agreed that it is probably foolish
and
foolhardy. It has been generally agreed its not prudent. For the same
reasons
I said "he has no business being there.


The only issue you and Rick raised is that in might be violating ColRegs
until
there is actually an incident. I think it does violate rule 2 and likely
rule
5, but there is no way of proving that.

I think that it is time that we started a new thread about this. See "New
thread".


Regards


Donal.
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
To be honest, you've become Neal, in his absence .

Neal owns a better boat.

10/10 for insult value! 0/10 for originality!

I suppose that I have to give you 4 points for trolling.

Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" the cowardly liar wrote:
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.

Oooops. I was wrong if I said that. I suspect that I said that it
might
be more dangerous to allow the speed to drop below the point where a
vessel
can maintain steerage.

You stated in no uncertain terms that traffic proceeds in the Channel at
12
knots even in thick fog. I cited a recent case where 10 knots was not
considered a factor in a collision in zero visibility. Farwell's says "A
ship
that is making proper use of radar in, say, the open ocean, cannot be
realistically expected to take all way off when the fog becomes so dense
that it
is not possible to see beyond its bows."

Further, although you might be able to claim that the strict wording of
the
ColRegs implies any movement in thick fog is imprudent, that is not the
current
interpretation of the courts. And, as we now all know, the courts
effectively
modify the ColRegs.

And what's this "Oooops" business? Now you're flip flopping on this issue
again
with just an "Oooops"? After all the **** you've been giving me when you
know I
didn't mean what you claim? You're a real piece of work, Donal, a real
asshole!

Further, this stupid reply is to a post 9 days ago!!! What, have you been
stewing about this for 9 days and you now think you have some intelligent
to
add? I don't think so.


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.

Nonsense! Your initial argument was that Joe was correct in his
assertion
that navigating under Radar alone was acceptable. Do you want me to
post
your words again?


No, when you post them you keep leaving out "Of course, one should always
have a
visual (and sound) watch". Why is that? Is it because you are a cowardly
liar?
Everyone else has no trouble understanding my words. Its only cowardly
liars
that don't.

I did imply that in zero visibility, the helmsman is effectively
navigating on
radar alone. And there must also be a visual lookout. And we know that
the
lookout cannot be the same person as the helmsman - The reason is that
the
helmsman must focus on the radar and compass, and therefore cannot serve
as the
lookout. Why is this so complicated for you to understand? If you want
to make
a case that Joe implied the lookout is not needed, feel free; I would
agree that
that is wrong.

I suggest you give it up Donal, you've convinced everyone that you are a
cowardly liar and a fool. You really can't sink any lower without
imitating
Jax.





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.

Would you accept the wording of the CollRegs?


I sense a grade school argument coming on ....



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.

Tell us what the CollRegs say.

Then tell us why your opinion outweighs the CollRegs.


I was right; Donal, the fool is using his kindergarten logic again. Sad,
truely
sad.



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.

It doesn't depend on the situation. You either accept the CollRegs, or
you
don't.


I've asked this question several times - you seem to keep changing your
answer.
Do you beleive that all traffic must stop in thick fog? If your answer is
yes,
why do you think the courts have ruled otherwise?

You keep making this vague claim that its all in the ColRegs - you even
claimed
at one point the ColRegs might have specific speed limits. Perhaps you
could
show us where that is.

You keep implying that "Safe Speed" is determined by visibility alone;
Rule 6(b)
is pretty clear that radar equipment will change that determination.



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.

Please stop calling me a liar. Just because somebody disagrees with you
does not automatically mean that they are a liar. It *is* possible that
you
might be wrong.


I'm wrong? What part of "Of course, one should always have a visual
(and
sound) watch" implies that I don't think there should be a lookout? I
don't
call you a liar because you're wrong, I call you a liar because you
continue to
misrepresent what I said. Frankly, I have no idea what you are trying to
claim
other than a lookout is needed, and I not sure anyone has disagreed with
that.

Mind you, I never said the Joe's hypothetical actions were OK, I only said
that
if you have a visual lookout, navigating effectively on radar alone is not
necessarily prohibited by the rules.

Naughty Jeff. Very, very naughty!

What you actually said was :-

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


That was a really stupid thing to write! Really!

I am amazed that you still want to bring it up. Why don't you realise that
I will forget it as soon as you stop mentioning it?

I don't bear grudges. I respond to each post as I read them. You seem to
be taking something personally. I am unaware of what the real issue is.

Regards


Donal
--






I presented a number of court rulings,
investigations, and the standard textbook to support my case.

What have you done? You've repeatedly lied about my position, but you've
never
actually stated what your position is, other than claiming that yours is
supported by the ColRegs, and anyone that disagrees with you obviously
doesn't
believe in the rules.

Get some rest, Donal. See a professional. Maybe get some medication -
this all
seems to be too much for you.

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Naughty Jeff. Very, very naughty!

What you actually said was :-

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


That was a really stupid thing to write! Really!

No that was a retorical question. It seems it was well beyond your limtied
comprehension. In the very next sentence I said a looout was required.

The complete paragraph 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."

Since it is obvious that you have been misrepresenting my statement over and
over, I think you owe me a rather large large apology. Otherwise you are just
admitting that you're a scumbag of the lowest order, in addition to being a
coward liar!

No go away until you're ready to admit that you've been wrong. Or just go away.

Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
news

Donal wrote:

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
thlink.net...


G Thanks. It helps in understanding how your mind works and how you
may approach an issue/problem.


My grandmother told me, when I was 10, that I should be a lawyer. With
hindsight, I should have taken her advice.

Is this what you are hinting at?

Wasn't hinting at anything, just asking a question, which included some
of the professions I thought you might be in.....actually, I was leaning
towards some sort of politician or lawyer.

otn


Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Naughty Jeff. Very, very naughty!

What you actually said was :-

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


That was a really stupid thing to write! Really!

No that was a retorical question. It seems it was well beyond your limtied
comprehension. In the very next sentence I said a looout was required.


let's define lookout so Lanod can understand: Someone who looks out.


How can a lookout do a proper job when he can not see his own bow
without help?

Answer: He uses radar if he has it. Or he uses his yachtmaster physic
viewing skills that allows him to peer thru the fog and any hull.
Infact lanod this is allowing him to see the future of a person
without viewing skills and change it.

Very mystic indeed.

Lanod,

I'm going to get flir myself, its like a pool of smokey water that
clears.
This most mystical eye allows you to pierce any vail that clokes you.
You just have to know the juju.

Joe
MSV (magic sailing vessel)
RedCloud





The complete paragraph 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."

Since it is obvious that you have been misrepresenting my statement over and
over, I think you owe me a rather large large apology. Otherwise you are just
admitting that you're a scumbag of the lowest order, in addition to being a
coward liar!

No go away until you're ready to admit that you've been wrong. Or just go away.