"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the
law
says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.



Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.


They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.

You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.




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.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other
vessels will
be there? I suppose I might agree, but it seems rather pointless. But
this
logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit
anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof
that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the
risk"
of a collision.)

Twit!




You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap
that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I
would
ignore the possibility that it might be there. Just the opposite is
true -
because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with
the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing
under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is
an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the
kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore
the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.







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?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.







And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.








Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?


Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

The rules apply to everybody.

Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without interpretation.

They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog (with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong? Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.


I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak has no
business out there.

So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be there.

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?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with hundreds
of thousands of passages. They have the equipment and training to keep them out
of trouble, as long as they use them properly. Most screwups are blatant
blunders, not just running a bit too fast. Knowing that perhaps they are going
a bit too fast, I'm extra cautious when around them. As I'm sure you are.

The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or get
out of the way. Though they would likely become chum in a collision, its
possible someone could be injured trying to avoid them. In a similar case in
the Chesapeake a few years ago, a freighter ran aground avoiding a sail boat the
was drifting in the channel. Rather than starting their engine when it was
clear they were drifting into the channel, they waited until a ship was close,
and then couldn't get the engine started in time. Most people thought "they had
no business being there." The hypothetical kayak situation is far worse - they
can't claim mechanical failure, or that the wind dying.

Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee," its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to avoid
impeding.

And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have someone
think its OK to be out there.


Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25 knots?




Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS, only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much
trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how
the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the
ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without
interpretation.

They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy.
They
don't. Honestly. Look again.


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog
(with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?


The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions. The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.


Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.



Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?






I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe
in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is
talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping
lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?




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?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the
waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the
ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it
shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its
obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical
talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be
going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little
boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede
a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?




Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee,"
its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to
avoid
impeding.





And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this
issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless
issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the
tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know
it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license
to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live
with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look
stupid.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that
I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way
and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by
my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed
that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have
someone
think its OK to be out there.


Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't
have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly
stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that
such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the
COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the
CollRegs
is wrong?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in
accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it
don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill
its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained
its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the
ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25
knots?




Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules,
then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs
is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only
claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my
logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much
from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS,
only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting
oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in
itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly
lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are
specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with
vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?

There are many problems in the world that I overlook - its a little hard to fix
them all at once - I'm only one man!

But if you must: I brought up the kayak because I felt that it so clearly is
unable to fulfill its obligations. The large ship is a different case. If they
choose, the can be compliant. I admit that many stretch the limits, and a few
blatantly disregard the rules. However, there is nothing about them that make
them incapable of being compliant. (Supertankers may be an exception - but
society deems them useful.)

One aspect of nautical law is the court rulings effectively become part of the
law. The are not merely precedents, they have stronger implications and masters
are expected to abide by them. They have ruled that in near zero visibility,
movement is still possible. They have also ruled that with radar, the maximum
speed is somewhat higher. A safe speed is dependent on many variables, but even
in thick fog 5 to 15 knots has been deemed acceptable.

My point is that it is possible for a ship to make progress in thick fog and
still be compliant with the current interpretations. I did not want to comment
on Joe's case because I'm not familiar with it. I have mixed feelings about
some of the New England ferries and tour boats, but for the most part, the
traditional lines do a reasonable job of running at a safe speed. I think it
remains to be seen if the new high speed cats have proper procedures.



The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions.

Absolutely, positively. In spite of what you claimed I never disagreed with
this. All vessels must maintain a proper lookout at all times. The need for a
lookout is greater in the fog, an it should be a dedicated lookout with no other
duties. In clear weather it may be acceptable to for the helm to also be the
lookout (especially on a small boat) but in the fog that is not the case. If
any vessel does not have a proper lookout, it is in clear violation.

A safe speed must also be maintained, but as I said above, it a little harder to
determine what that speed is.


The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.

It also must keep a lookout. In the fog, that's virtually inpossible. This is
one rule that the kayak actively violates and, I beleive, makes it illegal to be
out in the fog.



Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

"Expect" may be too strong a word - they can certainly hope.


In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.


You're trying to define the safe behavior of the ship as one that would allow
the kayak to traverse safely. Since the kayak is effectively invisible to
radar, and lies so low that it could be hidden by a swell, it would be blind
luck that would save it from be hit by a ship traveling a bare steerageway.

You might claim this is proof that the ship was going too fast, but the courts
have held otherwise. Rick is correct that we can't guess how the next ruling
will go, but in the past they have held that this behavior from a small rowboat
is reckless. If the ship did anything deemed contributory, they would be
assessed part of the blame. Speed is, of course, one way to contribute, but
more common is failure to have an appropriate lookout. In particular, if it was
found that a better lookout would have prevented the accident, the ship would be
given a significant portion of the blame.

This concept holds in many situations. A friend who was on Starboard Tack was
hit by a Port Tacker. Because they admitted that they did not see the port
tacker until it was too late to take evasive action, they were accessed 24% of
the blame. It was deemed that the failure to see the other boat was de facto
evidence that the lookout was not proper. We figured that the port/starboard
issue was assumed slightly more important and was worth 52%, both vessels
obviously had a faulty lookout and divided the other 48% of the blame.

But I digress. If the kayak is relying on the ship to do a crash stop to pass
safely, then it is impeding its progress and therefore violating the rules. A
larger vessel, perhaps a 40 foot sailboat with a good radar image, would be seen
on radar from a distance - in this case the minor adjustment the ship makes
would not constitute impeding. This is why I claimed at the beginning that a
vessel has an obligation to be seen.




Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?


The courts have said yes.







I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe
in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is
talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping
lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.


True enough. We once saw a bumper sticker that read "Fog Happens" but have been
unable to find it for sale.

The world isn't perfect; sometimes the weather conspires to make a mess of
things and force us to do things we ordinarily wouldn't. But I claim the most
of the time, the kayaker should be able to take this into account. In a small
TSS or narrow channel, the window needed is short enough that the kayak wouldn't
be caught in the middle, unless its very busy. A large channel, like the Dover
Straights (5 miles across?) is inappropriate if there is a chance of fog.

Frankly, this just brings be back to my original claim, the kayak simple doesn't
belong there. If everything is perfect, it should survive. But there are too
many things that can go wrong, and in just about every case, the kayak must rely
on blind luck to survive.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?


Absolutely not. I never said it, and I'm sticking to that story. Its not safe
to leave the dock without a lookout. With a lookout, 18 knots may be safe,
depending on the situation.

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be
going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little
boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede
a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?


Irrelevant.

However, kayaks have a very poor "fatality" record. And canoes aren't much
better. But that's a topic for a different discussion.

BTW, I have seen kayaks well offshore (in moderate visibility) and in Harbor
channels (in the fog). In all cases I thought the behavior was reckless.



The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.


The standard of Rule 2(a) is the "ordinary practice of seamen." Everyone has
agreed that the kayak in a TSS in the fog is not the "ordinary practice of
seamen." Rick's issue (I think) was that like Rule 10, Rule 2 is not violated
until there is an incident. Without "consequesnces" we can't apply rule 2. My
position, of course, is that I'm still entitiled to say "he has not business
being there," even if it is legal.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Good for you. So have I. I recomend it to everyone.



Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?


Damn. You were being so reasonable until now. So which rule have I ignored?
And don't be pulling the Jaxian trick of claiming that because I didn't condemn
something, I approved of it. You're just ****ed because Joe refused to get
sucked into an argument you though you could win, so you're trying to claim I
endorsed his position.

And what "personal purpose" have I had? That's just claiming that defending
any opinion that differs from yours serving a personal purpose. That's rather
childish, don't you think?

Cheers.