"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
--

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

"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
--

"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.

"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

"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
--

"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

"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

"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
--

"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.