Ok folks, I'm at the office and for some reason AOL won't show me Nav's
responses, so I'm using otn's puter.


Nav wrote:
Q: "Which of the dayshapes listed would you show on
the after end of an inconspicuous partially
submerged vessel or object being towed less than
200 meters in length?"


----------- OBJECT BEING TOWED ------------------


Bwahhahahahahah indeed



It really is a shame that you don't know the COLREGS even after I
post them. Here is the rule again:

"e) A vessel or object being towed, other than those mentioned in
paragraph (g) of this Rule, shall exhibit:

(i) sidelights;

(ii) a sternlight;

(iii) when the length of the tow exceeds 200 meters, a diamond
shape where it can best be seen."


Here, let me spell it out for you:

"Vessel BEING towed...shall exhibit... when the length of the two
EXCEEDS 200 m"

Now since the question was about a tow less than 200 m that makes
your answer wrong and me correct. OK?

HELLO!!! KNOCK/KNOCK!!!! ANYBODY HOME?????

HEY NAV!!!! READ THE QUESTION !!!!!

The question regards a "inconspicuous partially submerged" vessel or
object !!!!!!!!!

Read Rule 24 (g)(iv) !!!!! YOU ARE WRONG..... STILL!!!!!!!!!!

Shame you can't read and UNDERSTAND the rules, even when I point you to
the right one!




As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.


Hate being wrong eh?

LOL



If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I
said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing
vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).


RAM does not stand for "restricted maneuverability". Perhaps that is
the cause of your confusion?

Oh gawd, talk about a stupid statement. OK, I'll bite, what does RAM
stand for?



The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of
the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I
stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This
is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a
refresher
course.


Not me, I got both right and would not ever confuse a fishing vessel
with a RAM!

Then you're dumber than I thought. You had none right, and if you don't
think a fishing vessel, engaged in fishing with net/trawls, is not
restricted in it's ability to maneuver, you are one of those clowns I
worry about meeting on the water


Shen