And ???????
 

Or not...

"Rick" wrote in message
nk.net...
otnmbrd wrote:

A bunch of stuff with which I can find little to disagree.

So, can we all have a nice group hug, it is getting dark and
foggy here and I want to go kayaking in the Lake Union Ship
Canal.

Rick

And ???????
 

James Johnson wrote:
Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good, even using the astern throttle to
stop the shaft won't stop it before the ship runs over the kayaker.


Rick wrote:
Why do you think the shaft has to be stopped?

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

DSK

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

Yes it is. It is clearly a violation of ColRegs on several counts. Does that
mean they'll lock somebody up for doing it? No, AFAIK violating COlRegs does
not carry mandatory sentencing.



This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

IIRC nobody said it was insane, either. For a person who is very quick to
accuse others of poor reading comprehension, you have a dim grasp of the
preceding posts in this thread.

We said it was stupid & dangerous, not insane and/or illegal.

One of the things that I see all too often is racing sailboats playing chicken
with commercial traffic. Often, the skipper with the lack of sense to cross in
front of a barge or freighter will be rewarded by a better finish while those
who practice seamanship will come in behind. Not only is it against ColRegs
and good seamanship, it is against the racing rules too. So far I have only
once seen one DSQ awarded for this behavior.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

You seem to be disagreeing with my claim that the courts have the right to
interpret, modify, and even augment the rules, so I'm re-posting this snip from
Farwell's, 6th edition. This makes it pretty clear that the "law" is not just
the specific words in the ColRegs.

As for specific references to cases involving Kayays in TSS's reviewed by higher
courts, I never seen such a case in Farwell's, so I can only extrapolate from
other examples. Most of the citings involving small boats in the fog are along
the lines of "Although the rowboat was reckless in its attempt the cross the
river, the tug was assigned liability for not posting a lookout on its hip tow."
Because the legal texts are advising ship's masters, they don't focus much on
the responsibilities of kayaks.

Texts advising the paddler usually focus on the stupidity of being in traffic in
the fog, including the limited effectiveness of radar reflectors, not the
legality. (Although recently I've seen the "shall not impede" rule quoted more
often.) One problem, however, is that the rules in non-ColRegs waters are
often quite different. In many states, in inland lakes and rivers, rowboats,
canoes, and kayaks are given absolute right-of-way over powerboats. While this
may be appropriate, some kayakers will claim that this rule extends out onto the
ocean.

However, the legal point the Rick has been bringing up has to do with whether we
can say that something is illegal before an incident has occurred. After there
has been a "consequence" of an action, almost everyone has agreed that the kayak
would likely be assigned a significant portion of the blame (unless, of course,
the tanker really screwed up!).

Other comments interspersed.

From the chapter on Principals of Marine Collision Law:

Rules Modified by Court Interpretation
A fourth principle of the rules too often overlooked by the mariner in
his seagoing practice of collision law is that to avoid liability he must know
not only what the rules applicable to a given situation provide but what the
federal courts have interpreted them to mean. Judicial interpretation has,
in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it
has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the
rules themselves, such as efficient whistle or siren, flare-up light, proper
lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of
seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus
established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has
filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this.
...
Third, judicial interpretation has
been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to
the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or con-
flicts in the latter.
....
Whatever the mariner thinks of the legal setup, which has the effect
giving the courts more authority over the rules of the road than the
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, who enforces them through the
inspectors, the mariner must obey the law as he finds it- and that means
in practice, as the admiralty judges interpret it. Notwithstanding the
that in this country we do not have special admiralty courts, but
federal judge may be required to hear a collision case, it will be found
the decisions have been, as a whole, sound in seamanship as well as in law.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

snip

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by
the
ColRegs.

It isn't my usual style to respond like this, but I feel that in this
instance it is necessary to let you know my true feelings.
"Awww for F*cks sake!!"

The CollRegs do not discuss suitability!

So what do you think they mean when they say:

2(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all
dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including
the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these
Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

I don't think its too far-fetched to think that this is saying that because of
the "limitations" of a kayak, and the "immediate danger" of a TSS, the kayak
should not exercise its right to cross.

And aside from this, the courts have definitly ruled on suitable manning.
Undermanning is one of the issues that comes up often. One that I remember
involved a ship that had a bad passage and the crew was debilitated. Rather
than wait until they recovered, or ask for relief, they came into port claiming
NUC status. The courts held them fully liable for the consequences.



This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

Rubbish.

see above.




And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I
design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

Read the CollRegs. It is covered.


Putz. This was hyperbole! The fact that a vessel is physically capable of
doing something, doesn't mean that it can always comply with the rules when
doing it. Just as a fast boat should refrain from going fast in many
situations, a vessel with limited means for posting a watch should avoid heavily
trafficked areas in limited visibility.

Rick was claiming that a boat designed for one person is exempt from the
criteria normally applied; I don't believe that's true.


And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role
of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have
stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that
they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared
with
the helmsman.

You are the person who started this by thinking that a Radar watch was
sufficient.


No. You're reading into my comments something that isn't there, and certainly
not intended. I said that a lookout must be posted, but the helmsman is driving
effectively based on radar alone. In fact, the interpretations of the courts
have been specific that in the fog, the helmsman has to focus on the radar
and/or compass and is not a suitable lookout, therefore a second person on watch
is mandatory.



And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

Please quote an instance where the courts have suggested that a kayak needed
somebody standing on the bow to keep a lookout. I suspect that you have
really gone off the deep end in your attempts to keep your ludicrous
position alive.


Well, as I said, I don't have any legal precedents that specifically mention
kayaks, but there are numerous case where insufficient lookout has been deemed
the primary cause of a collision. As early as 1833 a sailboat was held liable
for having no one on deck except the helmsman, and that was in clear weather.
(The "Rebecca" NY 1833, I assume you don't need the federal case number). The
lookout must be specifically charged (The "Harry Lynn" Washington 1893). It
has been often held that the duties cannot be shared with the helmsman or
officer of the deck ("Kaga Maru" 1927; "Donau 1931). There is a long list of
cases on this point.

The requirements in the fog are stricter. Kayaks may not be mentioned, but I
believe they are covered as "every vessel." From Farwell's:
"Under the general admiralty rules it is the duty of very vessel, when
navigating in the fog, to maintain a lookout in proper position, who shall be
charged with no other duty. A local custom cannot excuse a vessel from
observing this rule" (citings to several cases removed).

Farwell's goes on in this vein for a number of pages on the various
implications, with comments as "such a lookout must have no other duties, such
as conning or steering the vessel," but is summed up nicely with "The law
contemplates that every vessel underway shall exercise vigilance which is
continuous and unbroken."

The obvious question here is do the standards for larger vessels apply to small?
I readily agree that small boats are given a lot of leeway in this regard in
good weather, and in very protected environments. But there is no justification
for this in the fog, in areas trafficked by large ships. I believe you've
already agreed with me that fog is not a condition where the recreational
skipper tells his crew "go on below, I'll handle this on my own." On the
contrary, the often relaxed atmosphere is replaced with increased vigilance and
dedicated lookouts.

Is there something about a kayak that implies they need less vigilance then
other vessels? Operating one, especially promptly crossing a channel in chop,
swells, and wakes, maintaining a course in the fog would seem to require a
virtually fulltime effort. Its hard to see how a singlehand kayak even begins
to fulfill its responsibility to maintain a proper lookout in adverse
conditions. You might be able to argue that a two-man kayak can do it, but that
would reduce their ability to quickly transit the zone. You've argued often
that ALL vessels must follow the rules, why are you claiming in this case that
kayaks are exempt?




And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the
law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go
over
your head?

As I have already asked - please provide specific references.


Was the Farwell's quote sufficient? Or are you claiming, like Neal, that
they're part of a great liberal conspiracy?


Perhaps it is time that you took me up on my offer to let you off the
hook???
Trolling, or ignorant???


I'm not trolling. I've stood by everything I've said, shared my logic, provided
references, and explained which parts are simply my opinions. What have you
done, other than to blatantly lie about what I've said, and make vague
assertions that the ColRegs support your vague claims?

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS? I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short lived.

TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected. Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being there.

The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues. For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker, its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

And what of the responsibility of the kayak? Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right - the
kayaker has no business doing it.

But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

Why would the prop "chop the kayaker to bits" and why would
he go under the hull of a ship?

Ricfk

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and
suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS?

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.





If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to
a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred
yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the
basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short
lived.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???


Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected.

It depends upon the climate.


Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on
crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out
there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their
capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being
there.

And, as you can guess, I




The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.


For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak







Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?




And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!


Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.

You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Ours does.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I think
you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is.


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.


I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and before we
got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I had the
radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes.

Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We had
gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would hold off
until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we left
during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of Outward
Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig, used by
the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not stay that
night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have had a
serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on the
"main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside, where they
only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he took the
"main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.


Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards wide,
but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see kayaks out
there?



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said "people do
it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion.


That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.

Of course its true. But what's the point?




For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar
(or visually, until its too late), and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.


Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing,
such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper
is in the head!






And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!

Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should spring
for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in practice
has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships gotta do.
We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its really
the needs of society and global economics that are running the show. We need
oil so we permit supertankers to exist. The interpretation of the ColRegs gets
adjusted to take this into account.



Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.


sure.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.


I never denied it.


You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.


I agree, the obligations of the ship are unchanged - sort of. At the risk of
opening this back up, I'll say what's been in the back of my mind all the time:

A powerboat in a harbor, say, in an anchorage, should be expecting a small
dinghy. To be prudent, it should be going dead slow in a thick fog, and be
assuming that a dink could appear at any moment. A ship that does not have this
capability, "has no business" being in the anchorage in the fog.

So while the fundamental obligations remain unchanged, the location and
circumstances mean that the details have changed. So in a sense, the
obligations do change - the changing parameters in the ""safe speed" equation
yield a different safe speed.

The test of Rule 2(a) can be applied - is this the behavior the "ordinary
practice of seamen"? If the answer is "Yes" then if everyone fulfills their
obligations under the ColRegs and the court interpretations, everything should
work out. But if one vessel does something out of the ordinary, then we have to
look carefully at the prudence of the actions. A big ship in a small boat
anchorage is not "ordinary practice," neither is a kayak in a shipping lane.
Both may be legal, but they are not prudent.

-jeff

And ???????
 

Just commenting on the state you live in where decisions about 'safety'
is removed from the list of responsibilities of the master and taken by
the state. This promotes a lack of _real_ 'safety' IMHO.

Cheers

MC wrote:

poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

And ???????
 

Rule 2b:

"In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to
all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special
circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which
may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger."

Seems to me to cover it.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Donal wrote:


Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?


It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?


IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs or
for that matter good seamanship.

DSK

And ???????
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:35:03 GMT, Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

Because the suction generated by a propeller of a large commercial ships have
been known to suck small sail and power boats into them, let alone a kayak.
You really have no conception of the forces and effects generated by a 25 foot
propeller turning 100 RPM.

JJ

Why would the prop "chop the kayaker to bits" and why would
he go under the hull of a ship?

Ricfk

James Johnson
remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply

And ???????
 

James Johnson wrote:

Because the suction generated by a propeller of a large commercial ships have
been known to suck small sail and power boats into them, let alone a kayak.

When there is no power to the prop there is no "suction" ...
You did write: "Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good
...."

You really have no conception of the forces and effects generated by a 25 foot
propeller turning 100 RPM.

Oh, I think I do.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot recall any post by any
poster claiming kayaking in dense fog across a busy shipping
channel or VTS was prudent. Every single poster other than
myself claimed without qualification that there was one
reason or another that it was illegal, prohibited, or a
violation of some such clause of some law or another.


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?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"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.

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'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?




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?



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.



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 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.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

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.

otn

And ???????
 

Donal, read rule 7. Every vessel shall use ALL available means
appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine
if risk of collision exist.
To be honest, you've become Neal, in his absence ..... unable to
understand and apply the variables which encompass most of the "Rules".

otn

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

"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.


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'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?





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?



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.



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 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.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"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.

And ???????
 

To be honest, you've become Neal, in his absence .

Neal owns a better boat.

RB

And ???????
 

"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.

And ???????
 

"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
--

And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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


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
--

And ???????
 

"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.
--

And ???????
 

"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
--

And ???????
 

"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.

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"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.

And ???????
 

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


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
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"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.

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"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.

The complete paragraph was:
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

What about the bit that says "a lookout by sight and hearing"?
You portray yourself as an expert on the CollRegs.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the relevant rule - *in full*.
Then you can tell us how your ridiculous statement can be justified?



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."

Just how do you square this with your belief that you may run on Radar
alone?


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!

Oh dear, oh dear.

You've called me a liar again. You really shoundn't do that.


Please post proof that I lied.

I told you that I only held the "shorebased" qualification. You read, and
replied, to that post.


What did I lie about?



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


Jeff, you are beating a dead horse.


I'd be grateful if you would apologise for calling me a liar. I don't need
a big apology. A simple acknowledgement that I didn't lie will suffice - at
this point!!!!



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...


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.


I would have preferred either.

However, teenagers know best! ............. So I rebelled. C'est la vie!


Regards


Donal
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

Sorry Donal, its not worth takling to someone who will just take comments out of
context.

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Sorry Donal, its not worth takling to someone who will just take comments
out of
context.

Jeff,

Did I lie?


Regards


Donal
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

Do you have to ask?

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Sorry Donal, its not worth takling to someone who will just take
comments
out of
context.

Jeff,

Did I lie?


Regards


Donal
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Sorry Donal, its not worth takling to someone who will just take
comments
out of
context.

Jeff,

Did I lie?


Do you have to ask?


Not really.

I'm surprised by Jeff's behaviour, and I'd like to try and understand what
his view *really* is.


I cannot figure out how he can think that I was pretending to be a Practical
Yachmaster. He replied to me on Xmas Eve, which proves that he read my
claim that "I only have the shorebased" version.

Regards

Donal
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'm surprised by Jeff's behaviour, and I'd like to try and understand what
his view *really* is.


I don't think I stated an opinion one way or another about whether you had a YM.
I didn't know for sure what you actually have, not do I care.

Frankly, I wasn't sure John was specifically addressing that when he suggested
you were a faker. The bottom line is that you suggested you had taken a certain
test but described it so badly it seemed clear to everyone you never had. when
pressed you said:

"It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics
of what is required."

From this I assumed you where claiming to have taken the "blind navigation"
test, but your poor description showed that you hadn't. I'm guessing John made
the same assumption, but possibly also assumed that since this is part of the
YM, you were claiming to have that also.

Now you're claiming (I think, you still a bit vague) that you never really took
the test, you were only practicing it with friends. While you may not have lied
about your YM (something I never claimed), you're still a Putz!




I cannot figure out how he can think that I was pretending to be a Practical
Yachmaster. He replied to me on Xmas Eve, which proves that he read my
claim that "I only have the shorebased" version.


No, I never cared enough to be concerned about it. This is all your stupid
fantasy.

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'm surprised by Jeff's behaviour, and I'd like to try and understand
what
his view *really* is.


I don't think I stated an opinion one way or another about whether you had
a YM.
I didn't know for sure what you actually have, not do I care.

Frankly, I wasn't sure John was specifically addressing that when he
suggested
you were a faker. The bottom line is that you suggested you had taken a
certain
test but described it so badly it seemed clear to everyone you never had.
when
pressed you said:

"It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics
of what is required."

From this I assumed you where claiming to have taken the "blind
navigation"

Assumptions are dangerous.

test, but your poor description showed that you hadn't. I'm guessing John
made
the same assumption, but possibly also assumed that since this is part of
the
YM, you were claiming to have that also.

Lots of assumptions there!

OK. I'll explain. I was lucky enough to do the shorebased course with a
group of people who all got on very well together. The course consisted of
evening classes in a school room, and it was supposed to take about 6
months. Our teacher's work commitments meant that he postponed many of the
classes, and so the course stretched into a whole year.

During that year, we did two cross channel trips, and a couple of weekends
in the Solent. These trips were much more "educational" than a normal
weekend sail. All sorts of exercises were done, including "blind
navigation", man overboard drills, etc. On the first trip the crews all
swapped boats between each of the three legs so that the non-boat owners
could gain experience.

On the last night of the course, we decided to set up our own club - which
is still going strong. We still occasionaly do "exercises", but the focus
is now firmly on cruising.



Now you're claiming (I think, you still a bit vague) that you never really
took
the test, you were only practicing it with friends.

I never claimed anything else.
I've said repeatedly that I did not take the Practical test. I don't see
what is vague about it.


While you may not have lied
about your YM (something I never claimed), you're still a Putz!


Pah! Look at the subject line!

Are you proud of it?


Regards


Donal
--

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I don't think I stated an opinion one way or another about whether you had
a YM.
I didn't know for sure what you actually have, not do I care.

Frankly, I wasn't sure John was specifically addressing that when he
suggested
you were a faker. The bottom line is that you suggested you had taken a
certain
test but described it so badly it seemed clear to everyone you never had.
when
pressed you said:

"It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics
of what is required."

From this I assumed you where claiming to have taken the "blind
navigation"

Assumptions are dangerous.

You were asked to clarify many times - you prefered to be obscure. You invited
"assuptions." Frankly no one cared - it was only your reputation on the line.


test, but your poor description showed that you hadn't. I'm guessing John
made
the same assumption, but possibly also assumed that since this is part of
the
YM, you were claiming to have that also.

Lots of assumptions there!

It was only your reputation on the line - everyone asked you to clarify!



OK. I'll explain. I was lucky enough to do the shorebased course with a
group of people who all got on very well together. The course consisted of
evening classes in a school room, and it was supposed to take about 6
months. Our teacher's work commitments meant that he postponed many of the
classes, and so the course stretched into a whole year.

During that year, we did two cross channel trips, and a couple of weekends
in the Solent. These trips were much more "educational" than a normal
weekend sail. All sorts of exercises were done, including "blind
navigation", man overboard drills, etc. On the first trip the crews all
swapped boats between each of the three legs so that the non-boat owners
could gain experience.

On the last night of the course, we decided to set up our own club - which
is still going strong. We still occasionaly do "exercises", but the focus
is now firmly on cruising.


Good for you. That's a lovely story.



Now you're claiming (I think, you still a bit vague) that you never really
took
the test, you were only practicing it with friends.

I never claimed anything else.
I've said repeatedly that I did not take the Practical test. I don't see
what is vague about it.


So, are you saying that "blind navigation" is part of the practical test? Why
do you insist I should have understood this? You could have taken that portion
of it.

Are you actually claiming that when you said "its been 13 or 14 years since I
took the course" you meant that you took a course that explains what the test
would be if you took a different course? Well, excuse me for not following!



While you may not have lied
about your YM (something I never claimed), you're still a Putz!


Pah! Look at the subject line!

Are you proud of it?


Well, it does sum up your behavior succinctly. Are you denying that you
misrepresented my comments? You lied repeatedly about the "lookout" issue; and
you even lied about this YM thing, since I never questioned whether you had it
or not.

Frankly, your behavior has been that of a jackass, Donal, for which you owe
everyone an apology. You made deliberately vague comments, implying that you
had done "blind navigation"; now 2 weeks later you're saying you never really
did take the test. you just practiced it with friends.

I call you a coward because you deliberately misrepresented what I said, even
when it was pointed out that you were completely wrong. Even if you could claim
that my original words could be misconstrued, I made every effort to clarify
them. But you persisted in lying. For this, I call you a Cowardly Liar. If
the truth bothers you, perhaps you should consider adjusting your behavior.

And Donal the Coward liar responds again
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I don't think I stated an opinion one way or another about whether you
had
a YM.
I didn't know for sure what you actually have, not do I care.

Frankly, I wasn't sure John was specifically addressing that when he
suggested
you were a faker. The bottom line is that you suggested you had taken
a
certain
test but described it so badly it seemed clear to everyone you never
had.
when
pressed you said:

"It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics
of what is required."

From this I assumed you where claiming to have taken the "blind
navigation"

Assumptions are dangerous.

You were asked to clarify many times - you prefered to be obscure. You
invited
"assuptions." Frankly no one cared - it was only your reputation on the
line.


test, but your poor description showed that you hadn't. I'm guessing
John
made
the same assumption, but possibly also assumed that since this is part
of
the
YM, you were claiming to have that also.

Lots of assumptions there!

It was only your reputation on the line - everyone asked you to clarify!

Only people whose names began with "J" asked me to reply.




OK. I'll explain. I was lucky enough to do the shorebased course with
a
group of people who all got on very well together. The course consisted
of
evening classes in a school room, and it was supposed to take about 6
months. Our teacher's work commitments meant that he postponed many of
the
classes, and so the course stretched into a whole year.

During that year, we did two cross channel trips, and a couple of
weekends
in the Solent. These trips were much more "educational" than a normal
weekend sail. All sorts of exercises were done, including "blind
navigation", man overboard drills, etc. On the first trip the crews all
swapped boats between each of the three legs so that the non-boat owners
could gain experience.

On the last night of the course, we decided to set up our own club -
which
is still going strong. We still occasionaly do "exercises", but the
focus
is now firmly on cruising.


Good for you. That's a lovely story.

You don't respond very well to openness, do you?

*Now* do you see why I was circumspect??





Now you're claiming (I think, you still a bit vague) that you never
really
took
the test, you were only practicing it with friends.

I never claimed anything else.
I've said repeatedly that I did not take the Practical test. I don't
see
what is vague about it.


So, are you saying that "blind navigation" is part of the practical test?
Why
do you insist I should have understood this? You could have taken that
portion
of it.

Oh dear! Are you pretending to be stupid? How could you sail a boat in a
classroom?




Are you actually claiming that when you said "its been 13 or 14 years
since I
took the course" you meant that you took a course that explains what the
test
would be if you took a different course? Well, excuse me for not
following!

No. I learned about blind navigarion 13 or 14 years ago. I also
practised it (outside of the official course).

I'm really trying very hard to give you straight answers here. In case you
haven't noticed, I've stopped trying to let you, and Joe, carry on with
your absurd misunderstandings.





While you may not have lied
about your YM (something I never claimed), you're still a Putz!


Pah! Look at the subject line!

Are you proud of it?


Well, it does sum up your behavior succinctly. Are you denying that you
misrepresented my comments? You lied repeatedly about the "lookout"
issue;

OK! Let's try to rewind a bit.

Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate
under Radar alone?

That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


and
you even lied about this YM thing, since I never questioned whether you
had it
or not.

Frankly, your behavior has been that of a jackass, Donal, for which you
owe
everyone an apology. You made deliberately vague comments, implying that
you
had done "blind navigation";

I did!


now 2 weeks later you're saying you never really
did take the test. you just practiced it with friends.


Jeff, really!!!



I call you a coward because you deliberately misrepresented what I said,
even
when it was pointed out that you were completely wrong. Even if you could
claim
that my original words could be misconstrued, I made every effort to
clarify
them. But you persisted in lying. For this, I call you a Cowardly Liar.
If
the truth bothers you, perhaps you should consider adjusting your
behavior.

So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you can't
run on radar alone?"

What did you mean by that?

This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is.
" Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is
moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. "




Regards


Donal
--