Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

Which actually surprises me on both your parts.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

No major disagreements, but you are still losing the "points" race, not
that
that's all that important .....like otn, I have a feeling you are reaching
(we
talk) for points beyond the basic issues.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?

LOL If you and otn agreed, this discussion would have been over long ago!
Actually, this is one of the more informative ones, as it tends to involve
perceptions of different groups of mariners from different areas, and I've
found it interesting as to how the groups/areas can vary as to
perceptions.

You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only
hearing lookout.

I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.


Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!


Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts,
in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only .....

AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!

Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is Joe.....
Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored, as
wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends on
the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? EG


VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
..... not
as a hearing lookout.

Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!

And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could possibly
use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.





I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision,
when
used properly.

What makes you think such a thing?

The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.


Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their
own interpretation to the Regs.

I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.

Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.



I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF.

......and if I was a lawyer, eg I could find links that would demonstrate that
the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
(Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)

Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?

LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we are
employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......

I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain????

Thought you might be working that route......careful, I might liken it to the
"British" sense of humour.....

Shen

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:


BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog?

Wherethe****areweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......

PDW

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25
kts,
in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only .....

AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!

Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said
that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is
Joe.....

Huh??? Please post a link to back up this stupid assertion!


Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored,
as
wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends
on
the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? EG


CollRegs????????




VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
..... not
as a hearing lookout.

Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!

And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could
possibly
use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.


Joe does.


Moreover, you seem to think that Joe's position is correct! How many
brain cells do you possess?









I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact,
they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means"
clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding
collision,
when
used properly.

What makes you think such a thing?

The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.

That is just plain silly. I haven't said that Radar isn't useful. I've
said that the CollRegs stipulate that a lookout must be maintained by
"sight".







Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs.
I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply
their
own interpretation to the Regs.

I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.

Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.

I've read those paragraphs twice. Can somebody pass me the Babel Fish?






I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the
VHF.

.....and if I was a lawyer, eg I could find links that would demonstrate
that
the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
(Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)

If, like Joe, you used the Radar to travel at 25 kts in fog, then you would
be able to find links that proved that your behaviour was dangerous.



Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?

LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we
are
employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......

Then you won't object if I ask you to justify your position.

Joe says that he does 25 kts, in fog, with *NO* lookout, other than a Radar
and VHF watch.


I say that he is breaking the rules. What do you say?



Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message news:c0js79$7rk$3
Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the
different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!


Why is an explanation needed? Surely you aren't claiming that the number
of
toots corresponds to a position in some "pecking order"?

The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed
with)
is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
"prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible
berth.

Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right
of way?

Why do write such nonsense?


Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?



How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same
time?


Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

Donal wrote:


Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right
of way?

Why do write such nonsense?


Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?



How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same
time?


Regards


Donal

I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.

otn

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

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


Donal wrote:


Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special
right
of way?

Why do write such nonsense?


Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?



How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the
same
time?

I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.

Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely.

Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on
vessel?

Wouldn't that just confuse the situation?


I trust that I have posed these questions in an intelligent, and
non-threatening manner.



Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

otnmbrd wrote in message link.net...

Donal wrote:





Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right

of way?



Why do write such nonsense?





Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide

berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?







How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same

time?





Regards





Donal



I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.

Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.

Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.


Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously
lost the plot. Either way, why bother?

I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation
of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the
vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage
way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but
perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are?

Ah well, time to go play on my icebreaker while she's in port. Sailing
at 1700 but not, this time, with me. Maybe next cruise.

PDW

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
om...
otnmbrd wrote in message
link.net...


Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.

Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a
response.


Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously
lost the plot. Either way, why bother?

I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation
of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the
vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage
way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but
perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are?

Dear me, Peter. You really have a cheek to accuse me of trolling. I've
repeatedly said that I understand that ships will do 12 kts in fog.


Your post has made think that the British judicial system has been guilty of
very serious miscarriges of justice. My opinion has been bolstered by
other recent posts from "Down Under". You all seem to share a distinct
lack of humour.


Perhaps your ancestors were deported because juries were unduly influenced
by their tedium???




Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

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


Donal wrote:


Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special

right

of way?

Why do write such nonsense?


Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?



How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the

same

time?


I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.


Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely.

Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on
vessel?

Wouldn't that just confuse the situation?


I trust that I have posed these questions in an intelligent, and
non-threatening manner.

Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner
(at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically,
knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses.
I read this and the other responses, and have to assume
"Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response.

otn