|
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"MC" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: "MC" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: I've also forgotton what most lights mean. If they have anything unusual, then I give way. Even to channel markers? No, I know those! I was talking about the lights shown by various types of vessel. Like a test? I knew them when I took the test, or *most* of them. I confess to spending a few hours, shortly after the test, on a night passage wondering what a slow moving flashing yellow might be. It stayed on a constant bearing for several hours, and confused the hell out of us. Interestingly, all of us had done the Yachtmaster together - only a year earlier! It seems to me that we remember the things that we actually use. I've completely forgotten most of the Morse code, apart from S and O, and U. U is important to me because somebody used their foghorn to warn us that we were going to hit rocks about ten years ago. One of the crew, thankfully, recognised the signal. Dit dit dah is "U", which means that you are running into danger. Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... Joe wrote: I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy. Thats OK at night or offshore, but not a good ideal in the day or river.... It's a night vision issue. Fof blindness is somewhat like snow blindness Understand what you are referring to, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In many if not most cases, now, the "daylight" screens tend to solve this problem. The greater problem applies to normal visual lookouts who are staring/concentrating while scanning the horizon, as well as those staring/concentrating on the radar screen ..... they tend to develop a narrowed response to the overall picture, which causes them to miss some things and I have frequently been surprised that when I look away, then look back, that I pick up something that I was missing before .... G not the easiest thing to explain. It may not be easy to explain, but I think that you are describing the same thing that I was referring to, when I said that "14 hours peering into the fog" was very tiring. 5 minutes leaves you wondering if your eyes are working properly. I've now got radar. Not really, though your point is true. In daylight, when you are looking visually into the fog, for a period, then stick your head back into a radar hood, you are basically blind until your eyes adjust. Also, though, for those on lookout (visually), I prefer to see someone who to the casual observer, may appear to be looking at random in different directions. In truth, they tend to spot things more quickly and often, then the person staring on a slow arc over the horizon. If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at 20kts? G One never knows for certain. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating a constant visual lookout, The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks? .....EG As are we. We are just splitting that lookout between visual out the window or just plain outside, and radar. Not all boats/ ships can work effectively/realistically/ safely under a "purest" guidelines for the rules. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... Calling me a faker is accusing me of deception. If I prove, beyond all doubt, that I am not a faker, would that mean that you lied when you said that I was a faker? If you answer "yes", then I will answer all your original questions as soon as I read your post. Are you actually claiming John "lied" when he suggested you are a faker? You should be pleased! You were trying your best to act like a fool, weren't you? As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6 days. You're even trying to out do Boobsprit! Jeff, I find it really odd that you cannot see the real situation. You are going to be part of my proof that JohnE lied. Isn't that wonderful? I'm sorry that you invited yourself into this little debacle. I bore you no ill will. However, it was your choice. It's funny, but I had seen you as a serious poster. Now, I see that you allow your thoughts to be governed by your preconceptions. Let me explain. You tried to say that Joe was right about keeping a "Radar" only lookout, while doing 25 kts in fog. You retracted your position as soon as it was pointed out to you that the CollRegs expressly require a lookout "by sight and sound". That was an incredibly stupid situation to get yourself into. ... Especially for someone who thinks that he understands the CollRegs. How could someone as intelligent as you make such a stupid mistake? I believe that your preconceptions led you to believe that I was bul****ting. If I'm wrong, then please tell us why you think that it is OK to do 25kts in thick fog, using radar as your only means of keeping a lookout. Regards Donal -- Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... Are you actually claiming John "lied" when he suggested you are a faker? You should be pleased! You were trying your best to act like a fool, weren't you? Jeff, I find it really odd that you cannot see the real situation. You are going to be part of my proof that JohnE lied. Isn't that wonderful? So what is the real situation? Are you claiming the John knows that, well I'm not sure, but that he knows something and is therefore "lying" when he called you a faker? Or are you simply claiming you are not really a faker? I tend to believe that John was sincere in his opinion, and thus, right or wrong, he wasn't lying. I think you're a fool because whether you really are a faker or not your behavior has been that of a fool. I'm sorry that you invited yourself into this little debacle. I bore you no ill will. However, it was your choice. Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Its been slow here, what with the world frozen to a stop. It's funny, but I had seen you as a serious poster. Now, I see that you allow your thoughts to be governed by your preconceptions. No preconceptions - if anything I'm reacting too much to the immediate. Frankly, I always assumed you had passed some YM test. Its just that your opinions often make YachtMaster seem the UK equivalent of a Power Squadron class. And lately its seemed like you've just taken a stupid pill. Let me explain. You tried to say that Joe was right about keeping a "Radar" only lookout, while doing 25 kts in fog. You retracted your position as soon as it was pointed out to you that the CollRegs expressly require a lookout "by sight and sound". You lie again! Do you deny that in the same paragraph I said "Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch"? How can you possibly interpret that as meaning I advocate not using a lookout? I didn't have to "retract" anything because I explicitly said that a lookout was required. That was an incredibly stupid situation to get yourself into. ... Especially for someone who thinks that he understands the CollRegs. Yes it would have been. But I didn't. No amount of lying on your part can change that. How could someone as intelligent as you make such a stupid mistake? The only mistake I made was thinking you had some sense of honor. But you've shown yourself to be a cowardly liar. I believe that your preconceptions led you to believe that I was bul****ting. If I'm wrong, then please tell us why you think that it is OK to do 25kts in thick fog, using radar as your only means of keeping a lookout. Ok. I get it now. You're just yanking my chain, aren't you? No one is really as stupid as you? Good one, Donal. |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... snip This not a strange pub. It is a public forum, PUBLIC FORUM being the operative words. If you want to brag and advice in confidence then why post to a public environment? And as for attack the integrity of the participants, yep, but I called you a faker initially (fairly mellow term), I believe you have bandied the phrase LIAR in your earlier posts, provocative or what. For my sins I fell to your level over that one. Oh, pleeeasse! Are you really so naive as to think that "faker" is fairly mellow? Yes. In comparison to shouting LIAR I feel faker pretty mellow. Calling me a faker is accusing me of deception. Yes I am. I am still awaiting proof of your claims. If I prove, beyond all doubt, that I am not a faker, would that mean that you lied when you said that I was a faker? Not in the least. To lie I would need to know beyond doubt that you help a ticket. If you answer "yes", then I will answer all your original questions as soon as I read your post. Not a chance. As I have said above to lie I would need to be in possesion of facts to misqoute. I don't have teh details so how could I lie? That is exactly what you appear to have done here. Even worse, you have incorrectly questioned my integrity. Not at all. You make claims you can not or will not support in a public place. Be prepared to be challanged. I am. Believe me. Why should I when your posts regarding the exam are so flawed? You miss quoted the conditions for the RYA Yachtmaster Offshore blind nav' test. As one who has taken and past this exam I feel I am entitled to correct you and even question the validity of your claims. I accepted your correction almost immediately. Perhaps you missed my post, or you felt like trying your luck at a flame war. No you did not. You only pointed others to my post and then claimed that have taken the exam recently to cover your own disinformation. By the ground rules lay by you this would tar you a liar! Cake and eat it comes to mind! You have behaved with outrageous impertinence, and I feel that you might learn some manners if I treat you the same way. Mmmm. I doubt you could teach me manners, as indeed I doubt you could teach others to sail. To teach one must command respect, for you and your yarns I have little to none. "Yarns"? Are you calling me a liar again? I am truly impressed by your level of stupidity. Yarns offers you the benefit of doubt. Yarns can be truths or falsehoods. I am still waiting your evidence as to which type of yarn you are spinning. As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6 days. I deserve to get a little pleasure from the exercise. Well, I will keep watching, but I am a sceptical as ever abouth the truth of your claims. This scepticism is ever more reinforced byt your total lack of ability to respond to any question put to you with regaurds to the topic under descussion, i.e. Yacht Master Offshore and the RYA exam it entails. It isn't "lack of ability". It is "lack of accountability". I don't owe you an answer. In fact I don't owe you anything at all. I've chosen to answer your questions after a suitable delay because I wanted to see you dig a really deep hole for yourself. I had allowed 7 days for you to demonstrate the true depths of your ignorance. However, it seems that you might have accomplished the task in much less. Congratulations!! Too right, you do not OWE me an answer, not I you. But as I have said before, lack of proof gives me the option to concider you a faker or liar. As to expose the depths of my ignorance, how? I have the ticket, you are at liberty to concider me a faker or liar too, your option. I acknowledging this you have to of course allow the same latitude to other to concder you a faker or liar. Keep the cutlery ready! All ready back in the draw. As I have said, the information you require could probably be extracted from public records in the number of days you wish the group to wait so would in fairness carry little on no weight for myself and possibly others. Am I a faker? From what I read, yes. Though the longer your evasions continue the closer to liar you move IMO. What is the difference between a faker and a liar? A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool who may need the approbation of thier peers. Did you call me a faker? Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above. Regards Donal -- You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction, you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. John |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"John.E" wrote in message ... John, get your knife and fork out. snip Too right, you do not OWE me an answer, not I you. But as I have said before, lack of proof gives me the option to concider you a faker or liar. As to expose the depths of my ignorance, how? I have the ticket, you are at liberty to concider me a faker or liar too, your option. I acknowledging this you have to of course allow the same latitude to other to concder you a faker or liar. Am I a faker? From what I read, yes. Though the longer your evasions continue the closer to liar you move IMO. What is the difference between a faker and a liar? A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool who may need the approbation of thier peers. Honestly, you are re-defining the English language to try to wriggle out of this. Did you call me a faker? Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above. You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction, Rubbish! You made incorrect assumptions, and asked me to prove something that I had never claimed in the first place. you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!! Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... "John.E" wrote in message ... John, get your knife and fork out. On what grounds? None I can find below. snip What is the difference between a faker and a liar? A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool who may need the approbation of thier peers. Honestly, you are re-defining the English language to try to wriggle out of this. I may be redefining language. I used the term faker to give some room to correct me or for you to manouver, which you chose not to do/take. But certainly do not feel that I to wriggle out of anything. Did you call me a faker? Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above. You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction, Rubbish! You made incorrect assumptions, and asked me to prove something that I had never claimed in the first place. Assumption that you were happy to feed. Sounds like trolling to me. I asked a straight forward question, so why not just answer it? 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..." "As far as I can remember", IMO imples you have done this thing? as opposed to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not. You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot (a good one at that). you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of expereince? If not to troll. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you have implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling. Now you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory pass, just the completion certificate. snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to this thread I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now. Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!! On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you should know if you have the shorebased theory pass? Takes more than a classroom docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way. It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop the inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at least 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so. IMO none of us ever stop learing to sail! Regards Donal -- In summary Donal, a good troll, however I feel it is unfourtunate that you use usernet to miss inform many people about matters that you have no first hand experience. If we all can just stick to talking honestly and openly about what we have done or not the world would not be suffering from such a tidal wave of BS as it is at this time. There are many things I wish I could do or have done in this life, I try to keep my gob shut if I don't have the first hand experience when asked for an opinion or at least qualify it with things like 'I have heard' or 'I have read' or IMO. Prehaps you should adopt the same stance and keep stum about issue concering the yachtmaster practical. See you on the water sometime. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"otnmbrd" wrote in message link.net... The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks? ....EG As are we. We are just splitting that lookout between visual out the window or just plain outside, and radar. Not all boats/ ships can work effectively/realistically/ safely under a "purest" guidelines for the rules. otn The thought of being near ANY vessel thrashing around at 20Knts + in fog scares me to death! Coastal or offshore, but the truth of the matter is that this happens all the time and not many crashes occur (aside from the goon who hit our local beach on the plane a couple of years ago) so a lot of folk must be able to use radar effectivly, or just lucky. I have never noticed ships slowing in the English channel or elsewhere just 'cause of a little grey stuff. As I have VERY limited experience using radar I am not the best to judge of its use but my preference is composite. Time on the screen and time in the open. Eyes given a chance to adjust and refocus as well as the mind. I also like silent periods, sound from other sources, though echoing I find can and does help with locating vessels and marks. This is based on sailing and motorsailing on small (under 80ft vessels, most under 40ft). May be flawed but it's my penny worth. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"John.E" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message ... "John.E" wrote in message ... John, get your knife and fork out. On what grounds? None I can find below. snip What is the difference between a faker and a liar? A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool who may need the approbation of thier peers. Honestly, you are re-defining the English language to try to wriggle out of this. I may be redefining language. I used the term faker to give some room to correct me or for you to manouver, which you chose not to do/take. But certainly do not feel that I to wriggle out of anything. Did you call me a faker? Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above. You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction, Rubbish! You made incorrect assumptions, and asked me to prove something that I had never claimed in the first place. Assumption that you were happy to feed. Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions! I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also, I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker, and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble pie if you were proved wrong. Sounds like trolling to me. I asked a straight forward question, so why not just answer it? 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..." "As far as I can remember", IMO imples you have done this thing? It implies absolutely nothing more than it says. as opposed to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not. I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been very clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice. You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot (a good one at that). Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You are a liar. I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions". you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of expereince? If not to troll. Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've said it many times. If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you have implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling. Now you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory pass, just the completion certificate. I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I? I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I? Once again, you are a **LIAR**. snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to this thread I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now. Well done! Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars? Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!! On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you should know if you have the shorebased theory pass? I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it. I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my honesty? What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you? Are you sooo pleased with your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us who only took the theory course? Takes more than a classroom docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way. You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems that you lied! It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop the inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at least 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so. You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an apology. I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity into question. I'm really quite unhappy about that. Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... John, get your knife and fork out. I don't know why - John had you pegged pretty well. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is. You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the "blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to show that you never could have passed it. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it? You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test? Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. What is that? Is that the shore based part? Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice. What's your point? Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation test," now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you seem to prefer looking like a faker. |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message
... Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions! I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also, I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker, and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble pie if you were proved wrong. How about: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required. " Are you referring to the shorebased part or the practical? Sounds like trolling to me. I asked a straight forward question, so why not just answer it? 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..." "As far as I can remember", IMO imples you have done this thing? It implies absolutely nothing more than it says. as opposed to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not. I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been very clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice. You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot (a good one at that). Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You are a liar. I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions". you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of expereince? If not to troll. Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've said it many times. If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem. What makes you think that I have any understanding of the YachtMaster courses or requirements? Frankly, here in the States, there is no concept of getting a "portion" of a license - you either have it all or you don't have it. All portions of the test, plus the other requirements must be completed in one year. So when you mentioned have done part of it 13 years ago, I assuming (to the extent that I thought about it) that you had some minor version, such as the "inland" or "coastal" yachtmaster. but were working towards a real license. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you have implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling. Now you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory pass, just the completion certificate. I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I? I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I? So, is the "blind navigation" part of the shorebased part? Once again, you are a **LIAR**. snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to this thread I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now. Well done! Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars? Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!! On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you should know if you have the shorebased theory pass? I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it. I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my honesty? What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you? Are you sooo pleased with your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us who only took the theory course? Takes more than a classroom docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way. You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems that you lied! But when did he lie? It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop the inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at least 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so. You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an apology. I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity into question. I'm really quite unhappy about that. BWAHAHA! You crack me up, Donal! What a Putz! Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... John, get your knife and fork out. I don't know why - John had you pegged pretty well. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is. You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the "blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to show that you never could have passed it. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it? You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test? Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. What is that? Is that the shore based part? Are you *pretending* to be stupid? Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice. What's your point? Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my point. Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation test," I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description of what it is like. You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme. We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind sailing". For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem, not mine. now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you seem to prefer looking like a faker. You are really taking the **** here. On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster. How can you now claim that I was trying to deceive you? For Gawd's sake, it was only 4 weeks ago???? Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message
... Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions! I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also, I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker, and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble pie if you were proved wrong. I asked you if you were a YM did I not? You are not! 14/01/2004 @ 13:10 - "I've described the test several times." How can describe what you have never performed? 14/01/2004 @ 18:34 - "As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff." But you never have in a practical environment! and teh question was a practical one. 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..." IMO still implies you have done the 'remebered' thing? It implies absolutely nothing more than it says. You can remeber what you have never done. Dammed good going that man. Wish I could, I could then remeber my night of passion with Felicity Kendal, Eather Kit and ZaZa Gabour. Mmmmmmmm as opposed to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not. I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been very clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice. Irrelevant to one who is not familiar with your previous posts, I am only concerned with your responses within this thread. You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot (a good one at that). Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You are a liar. I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions". Reading the thread carefully you are correct. I have indeed be culpable in assuming you meant to knock me down with a sudden display of valid documentation. Liar no, stupid yes. you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to. I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of expereince? If not to troll. Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've said it many times. Not everyone or I would have no reason to kick off on you as I would be already informed. If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem. Yes. Same for anyone else. Not to answer a clear call to clarify the situation can and has been in htuis case, by me, construed as feeding assumption. Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam. Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no obligation to correct them at all. Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you have implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling. Now you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory pass, just the completion certificate. I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I? No you did not. I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I? Yes. Once again, you are a **LIAR**. No. Only guilty of false assumptions, helping to create trolls and then biting on and responding to them. snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to this thread I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now. Well done! Thankyou. I worked hard for it. Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars? Not at all. I take that right just by breathing if I feel the individual concerned deserves it and is making loud noises in a public place. As indeed I feel you do. On occasion through this discourse you have call me a liar. I did in fact go from CC to YMOff practical (blue book) between Feb'93 and Nov '93. So you gonna say sorry to me? After all I too am a complete stranger. Tell you what, don't bother, I can deal with scepticism and rejection. Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!! On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you should know if you have the shorebased theory pass? I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it. I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my honesty? Note my responce to your comments above, mortaly wounded horror, 'How dare YOU'. Tehe!!! You have done all of the above to me but hey, life is a bitch and it is your choice. Deal with it, I have. What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you? No less sick or twisted than you. You baited, I bit. Tough! More fool me, poor sad you. Are you sooo pleased with your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us who only took the theory course? Not at all. You have permitted me to build my uninformed assumptitions, in part fed them. If you wind people up, you must be prepared for the fall out. You strike me as the boy in the playground taht winds up a fight and then calls for the teacher. Takes more than a classroom docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way. You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems that you lied! What have you proved me wrong over aside from being a faker (and that is even still debatable)? I believe I said IMO you we not yachtmaster, and I am right. It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop the inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at least 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so. You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an apology. Only if you apologise to me for branding my claims over the rate at which I collected my qual's. Else I'll tell mummy and she won't like it! I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity into question. As indeed you have mine... dah de dah de dah de dah and on and on and on..... Mindless tedium, wounded looks...... I am just another person in a public forum reading what I concider to be disinformation and questioning the source. No thing more or less, who the are you? This is not your forum, if that is how you see it then I would suggest you start you own and offer subscription only ids and passwords. As I have said time and again, a public place. I'm really quite unhappy about that. More mindless tedium, wounded looks...... Tough. I to have been slightly offended (mainly smiling though) by you calling me a liar over my sail record vis-ve training. Sob sob! You do not know me or my record and yet you have felt informed enought to off my traing as lies. Ah! over these exchanges you to have called me a liar prior to this little tyrade. Has is had me crawling around the floor in to shock and horror? No. You are entiled to your opinions for me as I am of you. If the fact someone does not rate you or your methods or your verbal rot, be it sailing or the use of usernet as a trolling device or what ever, well grow up and smell the roses. Life can be a bitch and not everyone will value your emotions and opinions as highly as you do. As indeed they have no reason to value mine. Regards Donal -- Lets just face it Donal, you and I are not going to be lovers. We have engaged in a game of brinkmanship and for various reasons neither of us can win outright. I posted a question that offened you for whatever reason and you set me up for a fall. Well done, you did a good job and I bit and I applaud your efforts. However, my primary question boiled down to 'are you a YM', and your answer is NO, so no humble pie for me to eat, but I have to add nor are you truly a faker as you have rightly pointed out my query was based on a false assumption I had made, which you permitted to exisist longer than needed to gratify your need to feel good about something and get one over, cool, I can (as is my right) assume this is a chip due to the lack of the full YM coming through! (true or not does not matter) The way you get so offended by being questioned is sad though, you will gladly call another a LIAR and then get all tearful if you are on the recieving end, I feel I have to advise you to get a life and stop throwing stones unless you can deal with the a little broken glass of your own. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... more of Donals usual tut cut Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my point. Only if you complete the shore based theory and the 6-10 hour practical else you are NOT a yachtmaster. You merely hold the YM shorebased certificate. To quote the text from the theory ticket ... "(name here) has atteneded a shore based course of instruction and demonstrated a knowledge of theory up to the standard of RYA DTp Coastal Skipper and Yachtmaster Offshore" This is NOT yachtmaster Certificate Of Competence, i.e. Yachtmaster. To quote the text from the Certificate of Competence Yachtmaster Offshore... "(name here) has been examined to standards approved by the Department of Transport Marine Directorate and teh Royal Yachting Association and found competent to hold this certificate" and on the flip side "This certificate entitles the holder to sail as Master of United Kingdon pleasure yachts not exceeding 200 gross registered tons, subject to the conditions specified in the General Exemption currently in force. The Yachtmaster Qualification Panel reserves the right to withdraw this certificate at any time if due cause is shown" The CoC gives the holder (this is really silly but) the right to wear the YM tie, you can only get the tie if you can provide a CoC to support your purchase, not the shorebased theory ticket. So no Donal, you can not get a YM as a novice unless you can do the biz, I was a novice with only 2500Nm on the book, the absolute minimum, and if you can do the biz to CoC level you really are some novice. A shorebased completion ticket is NOT a YACHTMASTER. Do you understand, we had this chat the other day, and as you claim to hold the shorebased ticket you really should know this? snip. even more rot cut I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description of what it is like. Good description! Rubbish. You got it wrong and refered people to my description. You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme. We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind sailing". Cool. Nice one. Lets blow a trumpet for you. Still does not make you a YM! I created a sailing program for 40 people and got the local government to fund it. Did make me one in the end :-)) For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem, not mine. With BS like the above I don't blame Jeff. Regards Donal -- John |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message
... You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is. You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the "blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to show that you never could have passed it. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it? You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test? Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. What is that? Is that the shore based part? Are you *pretending* to be stupid? No. Why do you assume I have any knowlege of your system? I've said several times that I don't, and whenever I've asked about it you haven't responded. I still don't know if the "blind navigation" test is part of the "shore based" part. It seems not, because you claimed it takes place on a boat underway. But you siad you only did the shorebase part. I'm not trying to be obstuse, you're simply not answering the question. Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice. What's your point? Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my point. So are you claiming you have a yachtmaster? You're going in circles here. Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation test," I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description of what it is like. No, you gave a rather poor description. When pressed you refused to clarify, claiming you couldn't remember. It was John that gave a description that made sense. You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme. We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind sailing". Excuse me for not knowing your life story. If you can't remember it, how can you expect me to? So are you saying that the "blind navigation" text is one that is really part of a license that you don't actually have? Did you take the test for real or for practice? Don't you see why this could be confusing? For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem, not mine. I don't believe or not believe. We've asked you to clarify but you seem to take this as a game. now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you seem to prefer looking like a faker. You are really taking the **** here. On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster. OK, I give up. Just what is the "practical" yachtmaster? Is yours an "impractical" yachtmaster? |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
In article , John.E
wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... [snip] Hey, he offered to answer your questions. You asked what his licence number was. He stalled & didn't answer. All he had to do was say 'sorry, I don't have that licence'. Yeah, he set you up but at the same time shot himself in both feet. Pyrrhic victory at best. Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone else just goes sailing. PDW Lets just face it Donal, you and I are not going to be lovers. We have engaged in a game of brinkmanship and for various reasons neither of us can win outright. I posted a question that offened you for whatever reason and you set me up for a fall. Well done, you did a good job and I bit and I applaud your efforts. However, my primary question boiled down to 'are you a YM', and your answer is NO, so no humble pie for me to eat, but I have to add nor are you truly a faker as you have rightly pointed out my query was based on a false assumption I had made, which you permitted to exisist longer than needed to gratify your need to feel good about something and get one over, cool, I can (as is my right) assume this is a chip due to the lack of the full YM coming through! (true or not does not matter) The way you get so offended by being questioned is sad though, you will gladly call another a LIAR and then get all tearful if you are on the recieving end, I feel I have to advise you to get a life and stop throwing stones unless you can deal with the a little broken glass of your own. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"John.E" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions! I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also, I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker, and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble pie if you were proved wrong. I asked you if you were a YM did I not? Liar! You did not ask anything of the sort. You assumed, in your ignorance, that I was claiming to hold the Practical YM. Not only did I *never* make such a claim, but I actually posted that I did *NOT* have the YM practical qualification - many times. You assumed that I was claiming to be a YM (practical), and you called me a faker. Your assumption was 100% incorrect. You said that you would eat humble pie if you were wrong. Well ... you *are* wrong. Are you a real man? 14/01/2004 @ 13:10 - "I've described the test several times." How can describe what you have never performed? 14/01/2004 @ 18:34 - "As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff." But you never have in a practical environment! and teh question was a practical one. 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..." IMO still implies you have done the 'remebered' thing? It implies absolutely nothing more than it says. You can remeber what you have never done. Dammed good going that man. Wish I could, I could then remeber my night of passion with Felicity Kendal, Eather Kit and ZaZa Gabour. Mmmmmmmm as opposed to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not. I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been very clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice. Irrelevant to one who is not familiar with your previous posts, I am only concerned with your responses within this thread. OK! Can you point out where I have claimed to have the Yachtmaster Practical? Of course you cannot! Because I never made such a claim. I am not a faker. You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot (a good one at that). Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You are a liar. I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions". Reading the thread carefully you are correct. Of course I am. ... As I have been all along. I have indeed be culpable in assuming you meant to knock me down with a sudden display of valid documentation. Liar no, stupid yes. I did mean to knock you down. You called me a "faker". You are a liar. Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've said it many times. Not everyone or I would have no reason to kick off on you as I would be already informed. I've said it many, many times. You called me a faker -- which is the same as calling me a liar. I want a retraction. Believe me. If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem. Yes. Same for anyone else. Not to answer a clear call to clarify the situation can and has been in htuis case, by me, construed as feeding assumption. So what? That really is their problem. I've told them the truth often enough. In fact, I've proved that Jeff has actually read a post where I stated that I only held the "shorebased" Yachtmaster. He responded to it -- and only a few weeks ago!!! I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I? Yes. Once again, you are a **LIAR**. No. Only guilty of false assumptions, helping to create trolls and then biting on and responding to them. Yes, you are guilty of false assumptions. Your false assumptions led you to call me a "faker". You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. All you have to do is say "sorry". snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to this thread I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now. Well done! Thankyou. I worked hard for it. Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars? Not at all. I take that right just by breathing if I feel the individual concerned deserves it and is making loud noises in a public place. As indeed I feel you do. On occasion through this discourse you have call me a liar. I did in fact go from CC to YMOff practical (blue book) between Feb'93 and Nov '93. So you gonna say sorry to me? After all I too am a complete stranger. Tell you what, don't bother, I can deal with scepticism and rejection. You're nuts! Where did I say that you had not accomplished the things that you have claimed? I expressed extreme sceptisism at your apparent claim to have gone from absolute beginner to Yachmaster Ocean in one year. I believe that you confirmed my opinion on the matter. I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it. I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my honesty? Note my responce to your comments above, mortaly wounded horror, 'How dare YOU'. Tehe!!! You have done all of the above to me but hey, life is a bitch and it is your choice. Deal with it, I have. No you haven't. You said that you would eat "humble pie". What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you? No less sick or twisted than you. You baited, I bit. Tough! More fool me, poor sad you. I did *not* try to bait you. Joe, and Jeff were fair bait because they had *both* seen my claim that I had only taken the shorebased exam. Are you sooo pleased with your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us who only took the theory course? Not at all. You have permitted me to build my uninformed assumptitions, in part fed them. If you wind people up, you must be prepared for the fall out. You strike me as the boy in the playground taht winds up a fight and then calls for the teacher. I haven't asked for any help! *You* strike me as a pompous ass who was only too happy to boast about his qualifications. You also seemed happy to bring down some innocent bystander in your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your superiority. The strange thing is, that after your initial post, I immediately bowed to your superiority, and that wasn't enough for you. Why did you feel the need to prove that I was lying? Takes more than a classroom docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way. You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems that you lied! What have you proved me wrong over aside from being a faker (and that is even still debatable)? I believe I said IMO you we not yachtmaster, and I am right. Jeeeeze!!! Do you want me to post your words? You called me a "faker" ---- and you called me out! You really should have the decency to apologise. snip Lets just face it Donal, you and I are not going to be lovers. We have engaged in a game of brinkmanship and for various reasons neither of us can win outright. I posted a question that offened you for whatever reason and you set me up for a fall. Well done, you did a good job and I bit and I applaud your efforts. However, my primary question boiled down to 'are you a YM', and your answer is NO, so no humble pie for me to eat, but I have to add nor are you truly a faker as you have rightly pointed out my query was based on a false assumption I had made, which you permitted to exisist longer than needed to gratify your need to feel good about something and get one over, cool, I can (as is my right) assume this is a chip due to the lack of the full YM coming through! (true or not does not matter) The way you get so offended by being questioned is sad though, you will gladly call another a LIAR and then get all tearful if you are on the recieving end, I feel I have to advise you to get a life and stop throwing stones unless you can deal with the a little broken glass of your own. Why are you writing this nonsense? Why don't you simply say that I wasn't lying? This isn't about me proving that you are wrong. I have no wish to "dance over your grave". I just want to clear my name. Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is. You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the "blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to show that you never could have passed it. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it? You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test? Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. What is that? Is that the shore based part? Are you *pretending* to be stupid? No. Why do you assume I have any knowlege of your system? I've said several times that I don't, and whenever I've asked about it you haven't responded. I still don't know if the "blind navigation" test is part of the "shore based" part. It seems not, because you claimed it takes place on a boat underway. But you siad you only did the shorebase part. I'm not trying to be obstuse, you're simply not answering the question. Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice. What's your point? Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my point. So are you claiming you have a yachtmaster? You're going in circles here. Yachtmaster is nothing special. Are you fooled by the title? Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation test," I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description of what it is like. No, you gave a rather poor description. When pressed you refused to clarify, claiming you couldn't remember. It was John that gave a description that made sense. I've practised it, as I described it. You should try it. You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme. We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind sailing". Excuse me for not knowing your life story. If you can't remember it, how can you expect me to? So are you saying that the "blind navigation" text is one that is really part of a license that you don't actually have? Did you take the test for real or for practice? Don't you see why this could be confusing? Only to someone who wanted to think that I was bul****ting. For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem, not mine. I don't believe or not believe. We've asked you to clarify but you seem to take this as a game. Yes, it is. Wake up, Jeff. You've been here for a number of years. Have you been ignoring me? I have always presented myself as a newbie to the sport of sailing. now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you seem to prefer looking like a faker. You are really taking the **** here. On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster. OK, I give up. Just what is the "practical" yachtmaster? Is yours an "impractical" yachtmaster? No, as I explained before, there is a "theory", or "shorebased" course. There is also a "practical" or boat based element to the "Yachtmaster". I explained this to you on the 24th December, and you replied - so you *did* read it. Furthermore, you recentely made a post which suggested that you understood the difference between the two. Do I need to do a "Google" to find ir for you? Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
In article , OzOne wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:50:21 +1100, Peter Wiley scribbled thusly: Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone else just goes sailing. PDW Nah, actually it's not. It's for people who like a bit of paper to show to their friends. OK, I stand corrected. You do racing & I don't. I thought that for offshore racing there was a requirement for a certain number to have done 'Competent crew' and the like, though, and was assuming the skipper had to be the holder of some piece of paper. Am I wrong on this one too? Pure idle curiosity here, mind you. My guys have to hold limited coxwain at least because our boats are under survey. Power boat licence isn't good enough. We all might go do the full coxwain course at the Maritime College in winter, God knows we have the time up. This year it's refreshers in first aid, survival at sea & firefighting at sea. Lotta fun. Glorious weather here atm. Pity I have to finish building my house but the toy sailboat mast is in my shop while we TIG weld bits to it. It's 3" shorter than it used to be but apart from having to shorten the stays that won't matter and it saved my buying a new one. Maybe February I'll have more free time, probably come up to Sydney in March. Peter Wiley |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , John.E wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... [snip] Hey, he offered to answer your questions. You asked what his licence number was. He stalled & didn't answer. All he had to do was say 'sorry, I don't have that licence'. Yeah, he set you up but at the same time shot himself in both feet. Pyrrhic victory at best. Yep he sure did, but I did too for my sins. Oh, ****, life is so hard on lil' old me;-)) Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone else just goes sailing. 'Everyone else just goes sailing', a bloody good plan :-)) PDW JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:50:21 +1100, Peter Wiley scribbled thusly: Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone else just goes sailing. PDW Nah, actually it's not. It's for people who like a bit of paper to show to their friends. On occasion, why not? It has some other uses too, insurance, charter, work... Handy if you get caught short too ;-)) Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ... all the usual selective memory stuff selectivly snipped Donal -- Jeeeeezes Donal, get a grip fella! I have done all I am going to to clear your name over this issue. I have fessed up to making false assumptions, so let it go.Think back to my original post, 'Do really have a YM? - 14/01/2004 @ 20:55' was the question to which I offered to eat 'humble pie', yet again I point to the fact you eventually answered 'no', how many times do we have to do this. You have an unhealthy preoccupation with the possibility of me lying and there by defaming you, to lie I needed the facts that were not forthcoming! If this will help you move on at all try looking at. http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/l/liar.shtml. 'false witness', do you remember you used the phrase 'As far as I remember, you have no inputs at all'. I urge you to think before replying with yet another wounded tyrade, by your own standards I should be stamping my foot waiting for an apology from you over your dismissal of my sail training timings which you dismissed as lies, also your assumption that I had an Ocean ticket (which I never claimed) which led to you branding me a liar. Your own conduct has been no worse or better than mine, as I said before, a game of brinkmanship, in this case it has ended in stalemate. This is getting so tedious, let it go, move on, we can do this tit-for-tat rubbish till the end of time and it will not change my summing up in my previous post. JohnE By the way, you can't let me have a couple of CT-4600A's cheap could you? |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
Do you have a point to all this drivel? Are you under some delusion that I
"lied" about your YM, or lack thereof? Do you think I actually care? You're one sick puppy, Donal. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is. You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the "blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to show that you never could have passed it. In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following " I've only done the shorebased element.". Here is a link to it on Google. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do...roup:alt.sa i ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm= 6Y GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2 What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it? You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it. So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test? Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits. Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical. What is that? Is that the shore based part? Are you *pretending* to be stupid? No. Why do you assume I have any knowlege of your system? I've said several times that I don't, and whenever I've asked about it you haven't responded. I still don't know if the "blind navigation" test is part of the "shore based" part. It seems not, because you claimed it takes place on a boat underway. But you siad you only did the shorebase part. I'm not trying to be obstuse, you're simply not answering the question. Here is another link from Google http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do....sailing.as a &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bg c3e6%245 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4 Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. " In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there. As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice. What's your point? Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my point. So are you claiming you have a yachtmaster? You're going in circles here. Yachtmaster is nothing special. Are you fooled by the title? Your first post to me contained these words:- "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed but IMO you are a faker!" Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation test," I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description of what it is like. No, you gave a rather poor description. When pressed you refused to clarify, claiming you couldn't remember. It was John that gave a description that made sense. I've practised it, as I described it. You should try it. You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme. We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind sailing". Excuse me for not knowing your life story. If you can't remember it, how can you expect me to? So are you saying that the "blind navigation" text is one that is really part of a license that you don't actually have? Did you take the test for real or for practice? Don't you see why this could be confusing? Only to someone who wanted to think that I was bul****ting. For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem, not mine. I don't believe or not believe. We've asked you to clarify but you seem to take this as a game. Yes, it is. Wake up, Jeff. You've been here for a number of years. Have you been ignoring me? I have always presented myself as a newbie to the sport of sailing. now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you seem to prefer looking like a faker. You are really taking the **** here. On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster. OK, I give up. Just what is the "practical" yachtmaster? Is yours an "impractical" yachtmaster? No, as I explained before, there is a "theory", or "shorebased" course. There is also a "practical" or boat based element to the "Yachtmaster". I explained this to you on the 24th December, and you replied - so you *did* read it. Furthermore, you recentely made a post which suggested that you understood the difference between the two. Do I need to do a "Google" to find ir for you? Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
Donal wrote:
Sounds about right, $34 Can for Tullamore (1.34l), $46 can for the Bush, (1.34l) Our bottles are only 0.7l. [sigh] As in everything else in this country, we try to be bilingual, so we have 0.71, (old 26 oz), 1l, 1.34l (old 40 oz) and the "Texas Mickey", 3.78l (one US gal, 128 UK fl oz I think?) Cheers Marty |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message news:bu9tfb$ese$1$
The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Your the spin doctor again Donal. Visual can be with radar. Infact you can view much more in think fog using radar. I never ever said a lookout was a waste of time. Please tell me why you think a radar is not an effective tool? Is it because you can not even tune your wal-mart special? Is it because you have no faith in your ability and the tools you have? Or is it just because your to inexperienced? Or perhaps it's a combo of all the above. Why do you lie all the time? On-shore yachtmaster....... Thats as impressive as a on the ground pilot. Or how about a tight rope walker suspended 2 inches above the ground. Lanod you have made it crystal clear you have no clue about anything nautical, we will just leave it at that. OK Joe MSV RedCloud Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks? Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
otnmbrd wrote in message thlink.net...
Joe wrote: I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy. Thats OK at night or offshore, but not a good ideal in the day or river.... It's a night vision issue. Fof blindness is somewhat like snow blindness Understand what you are referring to, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In many if not most cases, now, the "daylight" screens tend to solve this problem. Agreed, But when I was running crewboats we had Furuno 110's, you know had the old solid brass wave guides. The greater problem applies to normal visual lookouts who are staring/concentrating while scanning the horizon, as well as those staring/concentrating on the radar screen ..... they tend to develop a narrowed response to the overall picture, which causes them to miss some things and I have frequently been surprised that when I look away, then look back, that I pick up something that I was missing before .. Its a proven fact that your perifeial(SP)side vision is best at picking up and spotting new items. ... G not the easiest thing to explain. If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at 20kts? G One never knows for certain. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating a constant visual lookout, but more of a split visual, radar, hearing, for the designated lookout, in your case..... each case can and will vary. In my case it was on crewboats in fog so thick you could not see the bow. Mostly in the rivers of LA. A split vision system would not help due to blowing your night vision, Heck I'd close my eyes to drink coffee then heads down back in the hood before I'd open them. Most runs if heavy fog was on the delta, Once offshore it opens up a bit, and I agree in switching back from visual to radar, hopefully you can pull your radar hood off. Plotting.... not often unless coming up on a seabouy with inbound traffic or offshore. On the crewboats we did little plotting, but supply and tow boats we plotted most targets, always when we were the lead tow on a jack-up or semi. On a tow, you are apt to have more time ... on the crewboat, you might have to rely on the EBL and VRM unless you have ARPA capabilities. Crews boat off shore just run around any potential problems like nets, siemic cables, fishing gear ect. , and we beat anyone we want to the crossroads, unless it another crew boat. Your right on tows you have all day, Its a great place to learn to plot by radar, and you learn how to wear out the radio keeping everyone out of your way. Something to pass the time as well. 3-5 knots weeks on end get old. Rivers and canals are the best place to do this. With flat water you can tune a radar to see the wake off a canoe. The outline of the banks can be as familiar as seeing it in the day. Tanks on the banks, Hunting shacks, channel markers, islands, bouys, docks, tree clumps, logs and even seagrass clumps can be tuned in to a crystal clear picture if you know what your looking at, and know how to use the tool. Would he argue so strongly if I said the wheelhouse was equiped with FLIR? BG I'm waiting for them to come up with a lightweight, portable, inexpensive unit, that I can carry with me. Raytheon has a real cool unit you see on cop cars all the time now 7 grand. not to portable, but awesome preformance. I know one crewboat the Comet out of Freeport has one. We use to call the owner Capt. Gaget. Totally tricked out boat. Fraid that all the units I've seen to date are too cumbersome and/or expensive for this "poor mans" application. otn Yeah but so were computers in the 80's. Way back when. The price will come down, so will plasma tv, ect.. Joe MSV RedCloud |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"John.E" wrote in message ...
"otnmbrd" wrote in message link.net... The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks? ....EG As are we. We are just splitting that lookout between visual out the window or just plain outside, and radar. Not all boats/ ships can work effectively/realistically/ safely under a "purest" guidelines for the rules. otn The thought of being near ANY vessel thrashing around at 20Knts + in fog scares me to death! Coastal or offshore, but the truth of the matter is that this happens all the time and not many crashes occur Would you be scared doing it with this boat? http://www.tmt-llc.com/crewboats/TM667C.htm This is the typical crewboat. This one is nicer than most-- it has inside stern controls for offloading at the oil platform. Joe (aside from the goon who hit our local beach on the plane a couple of years ago) so a lot of folk must be able to use radar effectivly, or just lucky. I have never noticed ships slowing in the English channel or elsewhere just 'cause of a little grey stuff. As I have VERY limited experience using radar I am not the best to judge of its use but my preference is composite. Time on the screen and time in the open. Eyes given a chance to adjust and refocus as well as the mind. I also like silent periods, sound from other sources, though echoing I find can and does help with locating vessels and marks. This is based on sailing and motorsailing on small (under 80ft vessels, most under 40ft). May be flawed but it's my penny worth. JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Joe" wrote in message om... The thought of being near ANY vessel thrashing around at 20Knts + in fog scares me to death! Coastal or offshore, but the truth of the matter is that this happens all the time and not many crashes occur Would you be scared doing it with this boat? Probably, but that is my imagination getting in the way again ;-) Just as trollling around on a small yacht in fog and meeting it would worry me, looking at the draft I could not even hide shallow water from it :-( This not a reflection on the crew, just my own feelings. I think it is probably totally impractical in a working environment when time is fuel is money but I would rather everyone trolled around at speed to suit conditions that would let them avoid collisions visually. One of my old teachers used to warn us of 'radar assisted collisions', I suppose I carry this concept to this day, probably reinforced by own lack of experience using radar and my lack of exposure to the use of radar at the hands of a really experienced operator. http://www.tmt-llc.com/crewboats/TM667C.htm This is the typical crewboat. This one is nicer than most-- it has inside stern controls for offloading at the oil platform. Joe JohnE |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" wrote in message news:bu9tfb$ese$1$ The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Your the spin doctor again Donal. Visual can be with radar. Infact you can view much more in think fog using radar. I never ever said a lookout was a waste of time. Joe, I apologise for the confusion that I caused by using the term visual The CollRegs state :- "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. " When the rule uses the word "sight", I believe that they mean that someone should look with their own eyes. The "hearing" bit means that someone should use their ears..... and I don't mean the VHF. The phrase "all available means" includes your Radar set. Please tell me why you think a radar is not an effective tool? Oooh nooo. Not again!! I'm being asked to prove something else that I didn't claim. Radar is an extremely effective tool. I use it myself - especially in fog. Is it because you can not even tune your wal-mart special? I only need it to detect big ships. I don't have any need for an expensive set. I'm not charging arount at 25 kts in visibility that is so bad that a lookout would be pointless. I'm doing about 6 kts. Is it because you have no faith in your ability and the tools you have? Or is it just because your to inexperienced? Or perhaps it's a combo of all the above. Why do you lie all the time? Lie? I don't(usually). What happens is quite simple. Your comprehension abilities are not the best. This causes you to jump to the wrong conclusion. I find this funny. So, I help you along. On-shore yachtmaster....... Thats as impressive as a on the ground pilot. Joe, you made incorrect assumptions about my qualifications. Your problem.... not mine! Or how about a tight rope walker suspended 2 inches above the ground. Lanod you have made it crystal clear you have no clue about anything nautical, we will just leave it at that. OK OK. If you can. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. It is interesting that you think that. For once you might be right. Regards Donal -- |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
John.E wrote: Probably, but that is my imagination getting in the way again ;-) Just as trollling around on a small yacht in fog and meeting it would worry me, looking at the draft I could not even hide shallow water from it :-( This not a reflection on the crew, just my own feelings. I think it is probably totally impractical in a working environment when time is fuel is money but I would rather everyone trolled around at speed to suit conditions that would let them avoid collisions visually. One of my old teachers used to warn us of 'radar assisted collisions', I suppose I carry this concept to this day, probably reinforced by own lack of experience using radar and my lack of exposure to the use of radar at the hands of a really experienced operator. Most "radar assisted collisions" occur because someone didn't plot the target. Using the EBL/cursor and range rings or VRM, is not plotting. Problem is, few recreational boaters have the ability to plot, many "work boats" don't either ....no excuse for ships. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: Joe, I've been near run down by ships too many times at night to believe that they can effectively _see_ a yacht. Steaming on at 25kts in poor visibility is just plain dangerous! EG Oz, I've been nearly hit by small boats too many times at night to believe they can effectively see a ship. Steaming on at 25k in poor visibility is just plain dangerous for many, at any time, less so, and much less so, for others at various times under various conditions. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:42:10 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: Most "radar assisted collisions" occur because someone didn't plot the target. Using the EBL/cursor and range rings or VRM, is not plotting. Problem is, few recreational boaters have the ability to plot, many "work boats" don't either ....no excuse for ships. otn But they have to be able to _see_ the other boat. Fiberglass boats are notoriously difficult returns even with reflectors. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Says who? I don't necessarily agree that the "fiberglass" boat is the main culprit. When I've normally been apt to miss a fiberglass boat, it was due to sea conditions, the range scale I was concentrating on, sea return, rain .... in other words a combination of problems/conditions, not just the construction. I've also seen conditions, not only on ships, but, probably more so on smaller boats, where a pure fiberglass boat, was visible on all ranges at good distances. Never expect to be seen ....be happy when you are. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
"Donal" wrote in message ...
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" wrote in message news:bu9tfb$ese$1$ The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a waste of time. Your the spin doctor again Donal. Visual can be with radar. Infact you can view much more in think fog using radar. I never ever said a lookout was a waste of time. Joe, I apologise for the confusion that I caused by using the term visual The CollRegs state :- "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out, by sight and I look at a radar- therfore Im using my sight- and much more effectly for the prevailing circumstances. Hearing..... We all listen to the radio and check traffic everywhere. We talk and make everyone with a radio aware. We say something like "MV Comet in-bound Freeport jetties, turning westbound in the ICW checking for any concerned traffic" And we listen and respone to any concerned traffic, we id each other on radar and we make passing agreements, in a narrow river we would slow to the slowest we could matian steerage and pass. We use our hearing. We do it on the proper channels, and a few improper ones that weekend warriors might feel approate. This is more effective for the prevailing circumstances of 3 12-71TI engines, making at idle enough noise to drown out any other noise. At full speed in a fog bank on deck you would want hearing protection. hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions Like radar, flir,night vision, radio, gps, charts, local knowledge ect.. so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. " I can make a full appraisal of the situation with the proper tools and knowledge. And the risk of collision. When the rule uses the word "sight", I believe that they mean that someone should look with their own eyes. Everything you see is with your eyes. The "hearing" bit means that someone should use their ears..... and I don't mean the VHF. Thats your onshore yachtmaster experience kicking in. You use all tools you have available. If standing on the bow with your hand cupping your ears will not help anything, than it is not part of the "all available means" toolbag. The phrase "all available means" includes your Radar set. Please tell me why you think a radar is not an effective tool? Oooh nooo. Not again!! I'm being asked to prove something else that I didn't claim. Radar is an extremely effective tool. I use it myself - especially in fog. Is it because you can not even tune your wal-mart special? I only need it to detect big ships. A proper radar will detect just about everything, not just big ships to run away from. This again is showing your onshore yachtmaster skills. Any walmart radar should pick up every bouy, channel marker, banks, boats platforms ect. If your does not, toss it overboard, it's junk. I don't have any need for an expensive set. I'm not charging arount at 25 kts in visibility that is so bad that a lookout would be pointless. There you go again spindocter. Show were I ever said a lookout would be pointless. To have someone staring into a thick cloud seeing nothing is pointless. And on the bow of some boats can be dangerious. Again your onshore yachtmaster experience has your ability to understand stifled. I'm doing about 6 kts. Hitting something at 6kts is not going to be fun. Lanod, Your the one with the limited abilty to comprehend. Perhaps when you rise above your current status as an on-shore yachtmaster you will broden your understanding of things nautical. Joe MSV RedCloud |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:36:56 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: Says who? Says me! G Which does not necessarily make it an absolute. I don't necessarily agree that the "fiberglass" boat is the main culprit. When I've normally been apt to miss a fiberglass boat, it was due to sea conditions, the range scale I was concentrating on, sea return, rain .... in other words a combination of problems/conditions, not just the construction. Yep, making steaming on at 25kts dangerous in poor viz From your perspective I don't doubt you believe this. From mine, it depends on conditions and equipment. Where I am, I have no problem picking up all sizes and construction types in most conditions where fog is present ..... this includes jet skies (sp?) and kayaks. I've also seen conditions, not only on ships, but, probably more so on smaller boats, where a pure fiberglass boat, was visible on all ranges at good distances. Uh huh, relatively calm and flat. Not always Never expect to be seen ....be happy when you are. Yep, survival requires that you treat all ships as being a threat. I've gybed to make sure I would stay out of harms way only to find the ship changing course to place us directly in their path. They had very obviously not seen us in light rain at night. G Survival of license requires that you treat all recreational boaters as being a threat. I've made turns to avoid some sailboat, only to have it gybe and try to cut back across my bow .... at least there's no way they could say they hadn't seen this 90,000 ton 900' long tanker coming their way. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: True, but still worth considering. All things are worth considering ....after consideration, some are discarded some are not. I don't necessarily agree that the "fiberglass" boat is the main culprit. When I've normally been apt to miss a fiberglass boat, it was due to sea conditions, the range scale I was concentrating on, sea return, rain .... in other words a combination of problems/conditions, not just the construction. Yep, making steaming on at 25kts dangerous in poor viz From your perspective I don't doubt you believe this. From mine, it depends on conditions and equipment. Where I am, I have no problem picking up all sizes and construction types in most conditions where fog is present ..... this includes jet skies (sp?) and kayaks. In most conditions. How do you know if you haven't picked up that kayak? Can you hear the screams over the engine noise? That could apply to any day or night, good visibility or bad ..... wouldn't have a clue that he'd been there. I've also seen conditions, not only on ships, but, probably more so on smaller boats, where a pure fiberglass boat, was visible on all ranges at good distances. Uh huh, relatively calm and flat. Not always But usually no, not necessarily. There are many conditions and very few absolutes. Never expect to be seen ....be happy when you are. Yep, survival requires that you treat all ships as being a threat. I've gybed to make sure I would stay out of harms way only to find the ship changing course to place us directly in their path. They had very obviously not seen us in light rain at night. G Survival of license requires that you treat all recreational boaters as being a threat. I've made turns to avoid some sailboat, only to have it gybe and try to cut back across my bow .... at least there's no way they could say they hadn't seen this 90,000 ton 900' long tanker coming their way. True, There are many who cannot read a collision course. The freighter that changed course toward us did so quite a few minutes after we had gybed, I can't comment as I don't know enough of the particulars of what you and the ship were doing. I treat all ships with a great deal of respect mainly because I do believe the stories of unmanned or sleeping watches AND have lost friends without trace when there was no weather in the area. I believe few if any of those stories, but consider it a possibility on rare occasions .... as to your lost friends, there can be many possibilities ... getting run over by a ship is one of them, but in most cases I'd be inclined to an alert watch that never saw them. I've had too many near misses at sea to not believe otherwise. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:28:27 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote: True, but still worth considering. All things are worth considering ....after consideration, some are discarded some are not. And the idea that fiberglass boats are not easily seen with radar is not one to be discarded Of course not, but their construction may have nothing to do with the fact that they weren't seen. Fiberglass construction is not a catch all for poor radar visibility, just as steel in not a catch all for good radar visibility. Once again, there are many variables involved, be it a small boat or a big ship, with radar. My point is .... no matter what you are, what your construction, don't expect to be seen, and this is especially true for small boats in open sea conditions and involves many factors. snipped a bunch of items, intended to bolster your position I look at items such as these as examples of possible problems, not absolutes ... you remember these things, and work around them, apply them to your conditions, find them in error at times, find them true at other times, etc. In most conditions. How do you know if you haven't picked up that kayak? Can you hear the screams over the engine noise? That could apply to any day or night, good visibility or bad ..... wouldn't have a clue that he'd been there. Ahh sarcasm :-) Not at all .... reality. I've also seen conditions, not only on ships, but, probably more so on smaller boats, where a pure fiberglass boat, was visible on all ranges at good distances. Uh huh, relatively calm and flat. Not always But usually no, not necessarily. There are many conditions and very few absolutes. So there are conditions where you wouldn't notice a small boat or yacht! Of course ..... in good visibility, bad visibility, day or night. G Survival of license requires that you treat all recreational boaters as being a threat. I've made turns to avoid some sailboat, only to have it gybe and try to cut back across my bow .... at least there's no way they could say they hadn't seen this 90,000 ton 900' long tanker coming their way. True, There are many who cannot read a collision course. The freighter that changed course toward us did so quite a few minutes after we had gybed, I can't comment as I don't know enough of the particulars of what you and the ship were doing. Fair enough, but I can assure you that if we were visible on his radar or by the watch, he, in open waters, paid absolutely no heed to our alteration of course to avoid him and instead altered course forcing us to then make an urgent alteration back onto our original course to avoid coming waay to close for comfort. Why did he change course? (can think of any number of possibilities) I treat all ships with a great deal of respect mainly because I do believe the stories of unmanned or sleeping watches AND have lost friends without trace when there was no weather in the area. I believe few if any of those stories, but consider it a possibility on rare occasions .... as to your lost friends, there can be many possibilities ... getting run over by a ship is one of them, but in most cases I'd be inclined to an alert watch that never saw them. I've had too many near misses at sea to not believe otherwise. Yep, the belief of most of those investigating their loss. Checks were made on the ships believed to be in the area between their last sked and the time the alarm was raised to see if there were any signs of a collision. I don't recall anything being found. There are a number of cases where this has worked out. I would guess that in most cases, those on the ship did not have a clue, but naturally, there will be those cases where this is not true. ... the old story of the ship coming into port where the Mate went forward to prepare the anchor for letting go. When he looked over the bow, he found the mast sail and rigging of a small boat, snagged in the anchor .... end of story, so to speak. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:44:53 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: And the idea that fiberglass boats are not easily seen with radar is not one to be discarded Of course not, but their construction may have nothing to do with the fact that they weren't seen. Fiberglass construction is not a catch all for poor radar visibility, just as steel in not a catch all for good radar visibility. True, but being in a fiberglass boat will make you less visible To whom, under what conditions? A small boat with a low output radar, or a ship with 25KW radar? Calm conditions or rough conditions? On what relative heading? snipped a bunch of items, intended to bolster your position I look at items such as these as examples of possible problems, not absolutes ... you remember these things, and work around them, apply them to your conditions, find them in error at times, find them true at other times, etc. OK, I surrender, fiberglass small boats will paint just as well as a steel hul in the same conditions Yeah right!! LOL keep trying .... some fiberglass hulls will paint better than some steel hulls under some conditions..... THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES!!!!!! So there are conditions where you wouldn't notice a small boat or yacht! Of course ..... in good visibility, bad visibility, day or night. Yep, that's what you said, I was just confirming it so that we'd understand that in conditions where you don't have the added ability of clear vision then its inherently dangerous to be steaming around at 25kts. Once Again .... LOL... WRONG ! Clear vision is no guarantee of safety. It may be just as dangerous to travel at night or daylight, at 25k, as it is in fog .... it depends on the conditions and available equipment, as to whether this is safe, or at least, minimizes the danger. Why did he change course? (can think of any number of possibilities) Who knows. but if you were driving the sucker and you'd seen us would you have altered your course onto a collision course in open ocean? Nope I'd have held my course and speed till extremis. When dealing with small boats, experience has taught me that this is my safest course. (G know you won't like that one..... there is an exception to this rule. ) otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:47:39 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: True, but being in a fiberglass boat will make you less visible To whom, under what conditions? A small boat with a low output radar, or a ship with 25KW radar? Calm conditions or rough conditions? On what relative heading? Aaaargh, you didn't read those links did you? I read them, but that does not mean I agree with them 100%. My experiences could and frequently are at variance under different conditions. I don't automatically expect to see or not see something on radar, and/or visually, in all conditions of visibility. OK, I surrender, fiberglass small boats will paint just as well as a steel hul in the same conditions Yeah right!! LOL keep trying .... some fiberglass hulls will paint better than some steel hulls under some conditions..... THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES!!!!!! Grrrr, of course not...and it's not the fiberglass, it's the spars,engine,metalwork, paint, even radar reflector. It is unimportant, in a practical sense, as to what technical aspect may cause that return. Most ships, at sea, will be monitoring a higher range scale, than most boats (12m or 24m) to give early warning and plotting of traffic. On these scales, a small boat (of whatever material) will tend to be a smaller target, frequently similar in size to scattered sea return. It is here that the operators abilities become more important. It should also be noted, that when on these range scales, it is common practice to turn down the "sea return" , a good deal, to improve the overall picture ( some newer sets are handling this better) which means that those smaller targets may be more readily confused with sea return and be lost sooner in the center "plume" of that return, which makes range scanning important. So there are conditions where you wouldn't notice a small boat or yacht! Of course ..... in good visibility, bad visibility, day or night. Yep, that's what you said, I was just confirming it so that we'd understand that in conditions where you don't have the added ability of clear vision then its inherently dangerous to be steaming around at 25kts. Once Again .... LOL... WRONG ! Clear vision is no guarantee of safety. It may be just as dangerous to travel at night or daylight, at 25k, as it is in fog .... it depends on the conditions and available equipment, as to whether this is safe, or at least, minimizes the danger. OK, so being able to see makes no difference...OK....? G Since not all collisions occur in restricted visibility, if I follow your logic I would have to say yes. However, I don't follow your logic, so I will say .... not always. Why did he change course? (can think of any number of possibilities) Who knows. but if you were driving the sucker and you'd seen us would you have altered your course onto a collision course in open ocean? Nope I'd have held my course and speed till extremis. When dealing with small boats, experience has taught me that this is my safest course. (G know you won't like that one..... there is an exception to this rule. ) Yep, I like that.....he altered course toward us. Which I wouldn't understand, so assume that there may have been more going on. otn |
A Tachtmaster wanna be said
OzOne wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:44:53 GMT, otnmbrd scribbled thusly: And the idea that fiberglass boats are not easily seen with radar is not one to be discarded Of course not, but their construction may have nothing to do with the fact that they weren't seen. Fiberglass construction is not a catch all for poor radar visibility, just as steel in not a catch all for good radar visibility. True, but being in a fiberglass boat will make you less visible snipped a bunch of items, intended to bolster your position I look at items such as these as examples of possible problems, not absolutes ... you remember these things, and work around them, apply them to your conditions, find them in error at times, find them true at other times, etc. OK, I surrender, fiberglass small boats will paint just as well as a steel hul in the same conditions Yeah right!! No, really that's why radomes are often made of it ;-) Cheers |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com