Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

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

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.


Well, I assumed that you were taking an intelligent approach to this
discussion. Obviously, I was incorrect!

I say this with confidence for *one* simple reason.


All along, my only assertion has been that Joe was breaking the CollRegs by
doing 25 kts, in fog, using his Radar as his means of keeping a visual
lookout.


I have posted a link to the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency's advice on
the subject, to back up my position.

You have posted no evidence whatsoever.


You sounded fairly reasonable when you entered this discussion, so I made
extra efforts to be polite. However, you have not offered any evidence to
back up your position. I'm beginning to wonder if you are as stupid as the
two "J"'s????

Regards

Donal

ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to
your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and
giving a wide berth, in fog.
To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working
knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog.
Nuff said!

otn

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

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

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.

Well, I assumed that you were taking an intelligent approach to this
discussion. Obviously, I was incorrect!

I say this with confidence for *one* simple reason.


All along, my only assertion has been that Joe was breaking the CollRegs by
doing 25 kts, in fog, using his Radar as his means of keeping a visual
lookout.


I have posted a link to the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency's advice on
the subject, to back up my position.

You have posted no evidence whatsoever.


You sounded fairly reasonable when you entered this discussion, so I made
extra efforts to be polite. However, you have not offered any evidence to
back up your position. I'm beginning to wonder if you are as stupid as the
two "J"'s????




Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

I go away for a few days and come back to the same silliness. I've combined
Donal's two posts ...

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?

In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's limitations, we
only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats with
gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such a
vessel.



Why do write such nonsense?


To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom.


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?

There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog. Have you
not learned anything about the rules?




"Donal" wrote in message
...

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?

There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about
"restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another." In
this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel."

Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the
instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing your
ignorance.

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

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


ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to
your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and
giving a wide berth, in fog.
To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working
knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog.
Nuff said!

That isn't fair!!

Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.

My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer
that I gave Shen?

Really!!!!



Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
....
Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.

My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer
that I gave Shen?

Really!!!!

This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered reply.

But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher percentage of
idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly isn't so
in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having only
about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers.

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
...
Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.

My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the
answer
that I gave Shen?

Really!!!!

This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered
reply.

Ill considered?? I thought that it was funny!!


But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher
percentage of
idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly
isn't so
in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having
only
about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers.

Statistics are notoriously difficult to decipher.

My comment is based on personal experience.

Fatalities are more likely to result from a high speed collision, than from
a "meeting" of two sailboats that are doing 5 kts.



Are the statistics hiding the true facts?



Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

I reread the post.....my response was fair AND warranted.

Once again .... nuff said.

otn

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I go away for a few days and come back to the same silliness. I've
combined
Donal's two posts ...

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?

In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's
limitations, we
only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats
with
gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such
a
vessel.

Would it?




Why do write such nonsense?


To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom.

Why didn't you say that you were an experienced mariner? If I'd realised
that you knew much more than I did, then I would have respectfully touched
my cap and backed away in embarrassement.

If you don't believe that last statement, then do a Google. Look for an
instance where I've openly disagreed with Ole Thom, Nav, Oz, Capt American,
Mooron, Katy, Wally, Peters(various), Matt Colie, Seahag, Martin, Roy,
John, or Jon!

I may disagree with them on non-sailing issues, but I've never argued with
any of them on sailing related issues. Don't you find that a bit strange?
Why is it that, in *5* years, I've never had a serious, sailing,
disagreement with anybody who knows anything about the subject? I've always
backed off when confronted by someone who has more experience than me. Why
is it that you think that I am




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?

There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog.
Have you
not learned anything about the rules?

Read my statement again! I *know* that there is no such thing as a "give
way" boat.

Furthermore, I am 90% certain that you are aware that I know this.

Do you "give way" when you encounter a "stand on vessel"?
If you do, then you understand what I am saying. If you don't, then you
are in breach of the CollRegs. Perhaps you could now explain why you are
saying that I know nothing because I think that I must "give way"?




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?

There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about
"restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another."
In
this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel."

Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the
instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing
your
ignorance.

Did Neal say that? I thought that it was *me* that made that particular
point!!


Regards


Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

ROFL I vote Troll ..... Donal's trying to take over from Neal.

Shen

Joe, the dangerous Redneck
 

Its a pretty poor troll. I vote drunk.


"Shen44" wrote in message
...
ROFL I vote Troll ..... Donal's trying to take over from Neal.

Shen