Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."
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.

It seems to me that by claiming a couple of posts in the dozens
made by you is blustering, etc., and calling me names, you've
made the case quite eloquently that you can't defend your position.
I have not obfuscated one single thing in any of my posts. If you
think I'm wrong, you can simply ignore me, or, if you're game,
talk to a CG office and see what they say.

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Rick asked:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

And stated:

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

To which Ganz replied:

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

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."

Good, that is precisely the point that it was so difficult
to get across.

The original poster ... long since lost in the fog ...
stated categorically that it was illegal, prohibited by
COLREGS. The fact is it is not and that was what I was
trying so hard to get across.

Anyone posting that an act is illegal when it is not is
doing a great disservice to those who come here for information.

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.

There is a big difference between stupid and illegal, most
of the posters here seem to have trouble differentiating.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
The original poster ... long since lost in the fog ...
stated categorically that it was illegal, prohibited by
COLREGS. The fact is it is not and that was what I was
trying so hard to get across.

I never said that - Here's the original quote:

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

I absolutely never "stated categorically that it was illegal"; that is a
boldface, cowardly lie!

There is one place that I said that I didn't think they had the right to do it,
but that was after I said that the ColRegs never talks about "rights," something
we know you understand. And I'll stand by that: I don't think someone has the
right to do something where the inevitable result is breaking the law and
endangering people. They may have the "legal right" to do it, but that doesn't
mean that they have the right to do it. And while you may not agree with me, it
isn't a outrageous position to take. There are many ways to define "rights"
and many legal actions that most would agree someone doesn't have the right to
do.

The only time I mentioned the ColRegs was to claim that rules 9 and 10 (and
possibly 2) imply that the kayak shouldn't be there because they state
responsibilities that the kayak can't fulfill. I've agreed that it isn't
strictly illegal until a vessel is impeded, you've agreed that being there is
probably foolish and foolhardy. Why are you so bent out of shape? Take some
medication, Rick!


Anyone posting that an act is illegal when it is not is
doing a great disservice to those who come here for information.

Where did I say it was illegal? Another lie!


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!


There is a big difference between stupid and illegal, most
of the posters here seem to have trouble differentiating.

There is a big difference between saying some is wrong and something is illegal.
You seem to have missed that.

"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
--

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

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


Donal wrote:


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


Regards


Donal

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

Engineer would be closest.


Regards


Donal
--

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


Donal wrote:


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

being

there" actually means?


Regards


Donal

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


Engineer would be closest.


Regards


Donal
--


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

otn

"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.

"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.
--