"otnmbrd" wrote
| Excuse me, but the "little powerboat" *nature of her work* was towing the
| other vessel.


That's a hoot. You say *I* have a narrow interpretation. Instead your the one.
You only use half the rule. The whole rule says nature of her work that *severely *
limits her maneuverability. 1) pleasure boat towing isn't *work* . The examples in the
rule make that clear. 2) You can't take one part of the rule and ignore the other. It's
doing that that's narrow... You keep ignoring the severely limited maneuverability part.

| As long as
| the powerboat that's towing can maneuver OK then it's not RAM.
|
| True, but even you have enough reading comprehension to realize I said
| that.

I said you were part right and part wrong. Again, it's because your
using half the rule and half doesn't get the job done....

| All it
| had to do to keep outta the way of Scotty was to throttle down or take
| it out of gear or turn the steering wheel. Duh! It had no rule on
| it's side to expect a sailboat to give way.
|
| I wasn't there;I don't know what the channel is like; I don't know the
| state of the tide; direction and/or strength of current; wind; handling
| characteristics of the vessels in question; abilities of the towing
| vessel and operator; etc.....

But you do know the rule (or claim you do). It's plain and black and white.
Why do you insist on making something out of it that's not there? Why do you
only use half of it? Why do you ignore the *severely* limits maneuverability part?
The little pleasure boat is not severely limited. It has all it's controls. It has all
the maneuverability it ever has. Tide, current, wind make no difference. The only
thing that's different is a rope over the transom. It might take a little extra time
to turn or stop but that's not *severe.* So stop ignoring the severe part of the rule,
please.

| Another thing. You can see from (i) thru (vi) that work means
| serious work. It doesn't mean playing around
| on a pleasure boat or helping out somebody whose motor broke.
|
| Show me where it says that.

Duh, the examples say that. All of them are serious work. None of them are
pleasure craft out playing. If the rule was for pleasure craft one would have been
put in the examples. If you go to a dinner party that's "formal attire required" you don't
show up in sneaker and a t-shirt and expect to get in. If you read a rule that's all about
serious work you don't expect playing to be part of it.
Your trouble is your trying to hedge your bets. You won't say the rule says X. Instead
you say the rules says X, Y, Z and sometimes A,B,C. Duh! Read the rule and understand
what it says. Stop adding your own stuff so you can have an *out* every time.
Maybe you should argue with my instructor Captain Donna Kirby, She's been teaching
the rules for years and years. She knows them better than you and she says two little
recreational boats towing each other are not RAM. How does she know? Because it's
consensus. Your wrong.

| G It pleases me to know you are off the water, and your above first
| sentence is one of the reasons why.....no, I don't agree that this is
| always the case.

Too much wiggle room makes a fact a fiction....

|| The fact that you've asked this series of stupid questions just adds to
| my ongoing confirmation that you are a highly inexperienced amateur with
| limited powers of intelligent reasoning/thought.

And, your a typical man who wouldn't admit he was wrong to stick his ass out
of the fox hole even when the bullet make him a second asshole.... Or, in your case
a third. :-)

Cheers,
Ellen