Peter Wiley wrote:

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities, and a responsibility that
can't be met reduces/eliminates the corresponding right, or they're
trolling.

What the F are you talking about? Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities. If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

And you wonder if someone else is trolling?

Rick

Rick wrote:


What the F are you talking about?

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Rick

Rick wrote:

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

Correct.


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

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



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

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



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

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


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

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

DSK

DSK wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many more do you need?


Rick

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

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

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


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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

How many more do you need?

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

Cheers

MC wrote:

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

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

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

Doug King

MC wrote:

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

Thank you very much. I was beginning to think that stating the obvious
here is a futile exercise. It seems these guys just can't let go of the
idea that their version of nautical right and wrong is not supported by
maritime law and practice no matter how much they want to believe otherwise.

Rick

Rick wrote:


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

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

Uh huh. Where's the headers? Did you post that in *this* thread? If you had said that
to start with, you'd have looked a lot smarter.... of course, how you back up from a
hissy fit is another matter. As for agenda, your continued accusations are more like
posts from JAXAshby... what's next for you, imitating Boobsprit?

I did not see this (or any of the other quoted statements) in your posts in this
thread. Perhaps you think we can read what you meant to say?

That's a long long shot away from your statements (which I have already quoted) about
how "kayakers have every right to be in a shipping lane in the fog, so get used to it."

It also is a long long shot away from a serious discussion of what conditions apply to
& what actions are suitable for a small boat in poor visibility. Maybe that sort of
discussion doesn't fit your agenda?

DSK wrote:

Uh huh. Where's the headers? Did you post that in *this* thread? If you had said that
to start with, you'd have looked a lot smarter.... of course, how you back up from a
hissy fit is another matter. As for agenda, your continued accusations are more like
posts from JAXAshby... what's next for you, imitating Boobsprit?

You are truly dumber than a stump, thicker than 2 sort
planks. Your statement shows you to be a total fool,
illiterate, and a complete ass.

Read the damn thread fool, read my posts, moron.

What a f-in idiot, you make Nil look good.

Rick