"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works.
Why
don't you just share it?

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't. Just like you have a right to play in the street or rob a bank.
Interesting.


No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there. How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.


If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

I am not going to assume who will get the most blame or why.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't? And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?
Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?