|
in message , Jeff Morris
') wrote: One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal."Â*Â*AsÂ*farÂ*asÂ*IÂ*know,Â*thereÂ*isÂ*no Â*"law"Â*thatÂ*says youÂ*must follow the ColRegs in international water.Â* That's a bit definitional. There _is_ a law, it's the ColRegs, which are established by international treaty, and it does, as Neal says, require 'a proper lookout at all times'. The fact that there aren't nautical traffic cops lurking behind every iceberg in the southern ocean doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. Technically, I think single handing probably is illegal, and in boats as large, heavy and fast as B&Q/Castorama, I think it does raise some ethical issues - you really could be putting other people's lives at risk. But do you want to live in a world without great solo achievements? Everything in life involves some degree of risk, and a one and a half ton motor car travelling at 64 mph has the same kinetic energy - and the same ability to kill - as a six ton trimaran travelling at 16 mph. And the southern ocean isn't exactly crowded these days. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ---===*** This space to let! ***===--- Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig! ---===*** Only $300 per line ***===--- |
in message , Capt. Neal®
') wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored in international waters? (outside of a few designated anchorages, that is.) Do you know that the Coast Guard (UK, US or whoevers else you like) has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in international waters, so they can write as many citations as they like? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs. |
Did you know the US Coast Guard has jurisdiction over US flagged vessels
anywhere in the world in international waters? CN "Simon Brooke" wrote in message ... in message , Capt. Neal® ') wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored in international waters? (outside of a few designated anchorages, that is.) Do you know that the Coast Guard (UK, US or whoevers else you like) has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in international waters, so they can write as many citations as they like? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs. |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. CN G Lame, Neal ..... real lame. otn Why is it lame to point out the truth? Jeff, himself, wrote the COLREGS were adopted in 1972. That makes my statement about Slocum and the COLREGS entirely true. You people need to take a couple remedial English courses. . . CN G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame. COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" are a couple others. Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words rather than substance. otn |
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Capt. Neal® wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. CN G Lame, Neal ..... real lame. otn Why is it lame to point out the truth? Jeff, himself, wrote the COLREGS were adopted in 1972. That makes my statement about Slocum and the COLREGS entirely true. You people need to take a couple remedial English courses. . . CN G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame. COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" are a couple others. Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words rather than substance. otn Words are how we communicate. They must be used as defined or we no longer communicate . . . CN |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
.... It does not! The COLREGS were not even a gleam in some lawyer's grandfather's eye when the legendary Joshua Slocum was plying his manly trade. Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were moved to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. You can do better than that, Neal. Didn't you notice the change in wording? Do I have to do everything for you? |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message G Lamer, Neal .... or should that be.... more lame. COLREGS is a new name for an updated version of the same rules. "Rules of the Nautical Road", "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" are a couple others. Typically, your trying to carry your argument through, based on words rather than substance. otn Words are how we communicate. They must be used as defined or we no longer communicate . . . CN Many words can be defined in a number of ways. To use a definition which may enhance your argument, but in truth is not the correct definition within the substance of the argument, is mis-communication. If you wish to argue a point, then do so without resorting to Jaxonian nonsense. Your point is basically valid, as are those in opposition. My own opinion FWIW, is that she made the voyage without incident, thus she must have maintained a proper watch. We could argue the fine points for a few weeks ..... course, then I'd include Rule 2, and all hell would break loose EG. otn |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:r3aOd.14517$K54.2604@edtnps84... "JimH" wrote in message Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at rec.boats? Geez jimmy... it has to do with boats... Are all you guys at rec.boats such whiners or is it that jimmy boy is the group weenie? CM *ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin. |
Ok folks,
You all have missed it. Little Ellen can not be convicted for violation of COLREG #5. And I'll show you.. Capt. Neal states that COLREG Rule #5 "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS (Little Ellen WAS solo) Capt. Neal wrote: "Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat." So by his own admittance, as a USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 that Little Ellen was exhausted and IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCE AND CONDITIONS of being solo, had to sleep, and could not keep a proper look out. So did she break the law? Yes. But IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS of being SOLO, She had to. So good luck trying to find a court that will convict her on not having a proper look out in the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Now if you want to get picky, You can go give that guy who lasted 2 weeks at sea on a log raft after the tsunami a ticket. No proper look out, No night time running lights, Non-registered Vessel, un-seaworthy craft, failing to file a float plan, and the list goes on. And don't forget to give a ticket to all those who been stranded at sea in a rubber raft for the same thing. In The Prevailing Circumstances is in the prevailing circumstance. It does not state what that circumstance is. It does not state if it is life threating, a 30ft vessel, log raft, or a rubber raft. And it does not state what those conditions are to be also. And besides, it just sounds like Capt Neal is being ****y because the person he was rooting for didn't win. Have a great day... Ship Skipper "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot claim you do not know what the words "sight" and "hearing" mean. Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about it. sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing 2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense of which the eye is the receptor and by which qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color) are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming 5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot 3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments (as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated "At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise. Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal if Ellen has a collision argue falsely. Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere. I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally. Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission. Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. |
He's just a troll... forget him. But, nice explanation.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Ship Skipper" wrote in message ... Ok folks, You all have missed it. Little Ellen can not be convicted for violation of COLREG #5. And I'll show you.. Capt. Neal states that COLREG Rule #5 "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS (Little Ellen WAS solo) Capt. Neal wrote: "Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat." So by his own admittance, as a USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 that Little Ellen was exhausted and IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCE AND CONDITIONS of being solo, had to sleep, and could not keep a proper look out. So did she break the law? Yes. But IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS of being SOLO, She had to. So good luck trying to find a court that will convict her on not having a proper look out in the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Now if you want to get picky, You can go give that guy who lasted 2 weeks at sea on a log raft after the tsunami a ticket. No proper look out, No night time running lights, Non-registered Vessel, un-seaworthy craft, failing to file a float plan, and the list goes on. And don't forget to give a ticket to all those who been stranded at sea in a rubber raft for the same thing. In The Prevailing Circumstances is in the prevailing circumstance. It does not state what that circumstance is. It does not state if it is life threating, a 30ft vessel, log raft, or a rubber raft. And it does not state what those conditions are to be also. And besides, it just sounds like Capt Neal is being ****y because the person he was rooting for didn't win. Have a great day... Ship Skipper "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot claim you do not know what the words "sight" and "hearing" mean. Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about it. sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing 2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense of which the eye is the receptor and by which qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color) are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming 5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot 3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments (as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated "At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise. Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal if Ellen has a collision argue falsely. Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere. I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally. Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission. Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. |
|
"JimH" wrote in message *ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin. If you can't take the heat Jimbo... don't cross post! BTW - even your Plonk sounds Gay! You whiner!! *Can some kind soul repost this so lil jimmy can read it.. thanx!* CM |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot claim you do not know what the words "sight" and "hearing" mean. Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about it. sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing 2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense of which the eye is the receptor and by which qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color) are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming 5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot 3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments (as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated "At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise. Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal if Ellen has a collision argue falsely. Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere. I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally. Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission. Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. You are an idiot & pretty typical of the nay sayers who have & will never amount to anything. Merchant Marine Officer??? a hoot; sad, jealous, little uneducated coward more likely:-) With your limited IQ you "need" rules to mindlessly obey for every minute of your endless boring days, so you can feel safe & we can from you. After all your misfortune is always "someone elses fault". K Speaking of idiots:-) & the Krause lie of the day is........ from what we call the "father" series, this is a sad collection of lies about the mythical father, much the same as immature school kids make up. The sad part is that a man in his 50s would be so ashamed of his father's real achievements that he besmirches his memory with such infantile lies. My father, who died in the 1970s, was a fairly well known boating sportsman in the New England-New York area. He was a boat dealer and marina operator. For grins, he raced hydroplanes and utility outboards in the late 40's and early 50's, and won the Albany to New York race twice and a number of other races. For many years, he always had the *fastest* boat on Long Island Sound. I don't know whether that was true, but I don't recall anyone with a faster boat, and he drove all over looking for them. The boat, which changed from year to year, was always called "Bob's Hope." Later, he drove a twin 50-hp Evinrude powered Swedish boat across the North Atlantic in winter as a publicity stunt for a line of Swedish boats he was distributing in New England. Came over the lee of a tanker. He owned a *lot* of boats, including a PT boat for a while and a DUCK. I don't know that I have more experience with boats than anyone in here. I've been boating since I was about 7 or so, and that was 50 years ago. I've owned a *lot* of different kinds of boats. What *you* believe is your business. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Also of course, note the "in winter":-) My father and his chief mechanic once crossed the Atlantic in winter in a 22' boat powered by twin outboards. Yes, it is possible, even the fuel. Got a "fireboat" welcome in NYC. |
wrote:
I guess for some, ignorance is bliss, even if they have to work very hard at it. Trust, but verify. |
Graham Frankland wrote:
Try being on the bridge of a sub whilst submerged. I think the rule says something about all possible means. I presume subs have their methods to keep watch otherwise they'd keep bumping into things. |
Capt. Mooron wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message *ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin. If you can't take the heat Jimbo... don't cross post! BTW - even your Plonk sounds Gay! You whiner!! *Can some kind soul repost this so lil jimmy can read it.. thanx!* CM I would but then he might "ploink" me. |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message I would but then he might "ploink" me. Somehow Jeff... I doubt that would be a great loss in sailing related contributions. :-) CM |
wrote You have run into the end of a dock on your starboard side. You were keeping a CONSTANT ear and eyeball watch , but not a "proper watch at all times". When you get to court, what portion of the blame do you suppose will be alloted to the dock? Do you usually provide scenarios which defy logic to substantiate logic?? CM It's a true story, it actually happened to me. BBob |
wrote in message The problem is that you don't understand the information, which is right in front of you. You are looking for a concrete ruling, and there isn't one for exactly the reasons I stated several times in several ways. You either don't want to understand it, or you are unable to understand it. Bubba... you've been vague, evasive and trite in your miserable attempts at an explanation of the subject matter you profess to be familiar with..... deciphering the mumbo jumbo you've attempted to pass off as answering a legitimate question seems to elicit an understanding that you have no idea of the subject matter. You were asked for an example and have been unable to provide one.... which of course only underlines your inability to grasp the topic. I believe that Dan has been very patient with you and has made every attempt to guide you into providing an answer to his question. As usual you have failed miserably.... let's face it Bubba.... outside of providing a target to vent a spleen on ... you have no nautical value on this newsgroup. Stick to being a miserable prick... it's what you know best. CM |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
... Duh! Go to the back of the class, Vito! "Proper" is defined by the content of Rule 5. Here's your lesson for today. Study it hard and please forego the wanking. Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Hey, that says that if I look and listen and determine there is no reasonable risk of collision then I can hit the hammock, right? It does not say a continuos lookout. Since Ellen did not collide with anything her lookout must have been adequate and proper. Go to Naples (c: |
wrote in message I'm not surprised to hear that you are as ignorant as Dan when it comes to the colregs, NNeal. See Bubba.... that's much better... no annoying facts... just vitriol and assumption! Being the newsgroup Idiot suits you too a "T".... you're a natural at it Bubba! Just please stay out of actual sailing related threads.... you have nothing to contribute to the subject. CM |
wrote in message Sure Neal, anything you say! Good Boy Bubba!! ..... good boy! CM |
Capt. Mooron wrote: wrote in message I'm not surprised to hear that you are as ignorant as Dan when it comes to the colregs, NNeal. See Bubba.... that's much better... no annoying facts... just vitriol and assumption! Typical BB style. Being the newsgroup Idiot suits you too a "T".... you're a natural at it He was indeed born that way. Bubba! Just please stay out of actual sailing related threads.... you have nothing to contribute to the subject. He has never contributed anything here. He's just a total asshole. But I must admit he has set the standard of what a true asshole is. Joe CM |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:r3aOd.14517$K54.2604@edtnps84... "JimH" wrote in message Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at rec.boats? Geez jimmy... it has to do with boats... Are all you guys at rec.boats such whiners or is it that jimmy boy is the group weenie? CM *ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin. Well done, JimH! I've been tempted to ploink Mooron for a long time. Those of us who have no sense of humour at all need to be protected from people like Mooron. Thank God for the killfile. Like you, I didn't get a very good education -- so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to killfile someone without making a public declaration. Would it be very cowardly if I killfiled him without making it public? Regards Donal -- |
"Donal" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:r3aOd.14517$K54.2604@edtnps84... "JimH" wrote in message Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at rec.boats? Geez jimmy... it has to do with boats... Are all you guys at rec.boats such whiners or is it that jimmy boy is the group weenie? CM *ploink* Another asshole joins Krause in the bozo bin. Well done, JimH! I've been tempted to ploink Mooron for a long time. Those of us who have no sense of humour at all need to be protected from people like Mooron. Thank God for the killfile. Like you, I didn't get a very good education -- so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to killfile someone without making a public declaration. Would it be very cowardly if I killfiled him without making it public? Regards Donal -- I have done most of my killfiling privately...normally no need to make it public....but with folks like Krause, Capt. Moron and Popeye the Sailor Man (Binary Bill), sometimes it just feels better to announce it. *Ploink*....*Plonk*....*Plink*....*Plunk*.....*Fiz z-Fizz*.......whatever way you want to say it they are in my bozo bin and deserve each other. |
wrote I guess for some, ignorance is bliss, even if they have to work very hard at it. BBob as opposed to you where it just comes naturally. SV |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? Regards Donal -- |
"Donal" wrote
"Capt. Neal®" wrote I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? |
Vito wrote:
"Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Vito wrote: "Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? Climb the friggin' mast..... like I do! CM |
Capt. Mooron wrote:
I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? Climb the friggin' mast..... like I do! I don't know about a friggin' mast, but for most masts, climbing to the spreaders get you (maybe) 36 feet about the water, which gives you a 7 mile horizon. Do you do better with your friggin' mast? |
Jeff Morris wrote:
Climb the friggin' mast..... like I do! I don't know about a friggin' mast, but for most masts, climbing to the spreaders get you (maybe) 36 feet about the water, which gives you a 7 mile horizon. Do you do better with your friggin' mast? Don't forget that you can see other peoples's friggin' masts over the horizon, add another 7 miles for 36 feet. If the other guys friggin' mast is shorter than that he's likely way smaller than you and you can safely run him down. ;-o Cheers Marty |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Capt. Mooron wrote: I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? Climb the friggin' mast..... like I do! I don't know about a friggin' mast, but for most masts, climbing to the spreaders get you (maybe) 36 feet about the water, which gives you a 7 mile horizon. Do you do better with your friggin' mast? Jeez... you have a 6 mile horizon on an average deck .... at aprox 3 ft above sea level.... I get 49 ft on my friggin' mast! CM |
"Jeff Morris" wrote
How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? Bridge of my rich uncle's bird farm? |
Capt. Mooron wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Capt. Mooron wrote: I read it. It says that if I look/listen and see boats all around me close aboard then I need to maintain constant lookout. OTOH, if there is nothing between me an the 20-mile horizon I can sack out for an hour or so. Right? How do you get a "20 mile horizon"? Climb the friggin' mast..... like I do! I don't know about a friggin' mast, but for most masts, climbing to the spreaders get you (maybe) 36 feet about the water, which gives you a 7 mile horizon. Do you do better with your friggin' mast? Jeez... you have a 6 mile horizon on an average deck .... at aprox 3 ft above sea level.... Sorry Cap, from 4 feet above the water you have a horizon of about 2.4 miles. The formula is roughly the square root of the height in feet times about 1.2 yields the horizon in nautical miles. Of course, if the distant object is also 4 feet above the waterline, then you can see it at 5 miles. I get 49 ft on my friggin' mast! That gives you less then 10 miles. Of course, it takes a while to get back down (safely), so this is not a good way for a singlehander to get a quick look around before going below. |
Donal wrote:
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? Regards Donal -- G Out of what context did you grab THAT pearl? otn |
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Donal wrote: But your bosom buddy, Joe(backed up by Shen and otn), claims that it is not necessary to keep a visual lookout. Is he right, ... or is he wrong? G Out of what context did you grab THAT pearl? Didn't you support Joe's contention that it was OK to do 35kts in a busy waterway, in fog, using the radar as your "lookout"? Regards Donal -- |
Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message G Out of what context did you grab THAT pearl? Didn't you support Joe's contention that it was OK to do 35kts in a busy waterway, in fog, using the radar as your "lookout"? Regards Donal Nope. otn |
Quote:
Shen |
"otnmbrd" wrote in message .net... Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message G Out of what context did you grab THAT pearl? Didn't you support Joe's contention that it was OK to do 35kts in a busy waterway, in fog, using the radar as your "lookout"? Nope. My memory must be slipping. Sorry. Does that mean that you agree that Joe is a dangerous, rule breaking, lunatic when he speeds around in fog using his Radar as his only means of "lookout"? Regards Donal -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com