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
--

"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
--

"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.

"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
--

"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.

"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
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

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?

The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility. Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent
without radar.

So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to
also function as the lookout. How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, the
courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of the
law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in the
ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip?
Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In fact,
the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout" in
many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said that a
boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.)

The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe speed
is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a
reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision, than
the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel is
permitted to effectively navigate on 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.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you
believe in the ColRegs?

The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat.



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. "


I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the actual
driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar alone.
If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the fog
often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to
contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.")

BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.