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

"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
--

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

"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
--

"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.

"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
--

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

Once again .... nuff said.

otn