When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

A woman puts a man in his place. What does the man do most of the time? He acts like
it didn't happen. He ignores it. He hides. He tucks tail. Makes himself scarce..... I see it all
the time. Self-proclaimed experts who can't even make their own case. Afraid to admit they
don't know it all.
Is that why certain *men* here ignore my questions? Little dumb blonde Ellen makes them
look impotent?
Where's Jeff? He knows the rules better than anybody here. He'd back me up. I know it.

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

AND HE SULKS!


"Ellen MacArthur" wrote
| A woman puts a man in his place. What does the man do most of the time? He acts like
| it didn't happen. He ignores it. He hides. He tucks tail. Makes himself scarce..... I see it all
| the time. Self-proclaimed experts who can't even make their own case. Afraid to admit they
| don't know it all.
| Is that why certain *men* here ignore my questions? Little dumb blonde Ellen makes them
| look impotent?
| Where's Jeff? He knows the rules better than anybody here. He'd back me up. I know it.
|
| Cheers,
| Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
Where's Jeff? He knows the rules better than anybody here. He'd back me up. I know it.


Sorry Ellen, I can't be that much help.

As for your first claim:
"Sailboats are the stand-on vessel in crossing situations with
powerboats. One little power boat towing another isn't a RAM. The
rule is for big ships tugs and barges. It's not meant for small
recreational power boats."

This is not true; there is very little difference between a
recreational vessel and a small tow vessel. In fact, they could be
virtually identical. Moreover, another boater isn't required to look
inside the tower's wallet and see if he has a towing endorsement. The
rules may have been written with large ships in mind, but the apply to
all vessels.

As for the second claim:
"Towing a fellow power boater who broke down or ran out of gas isn't
part of the definition of work. Work's got to do with laying pipes,
dredging, towing if your licensed to do it, repairing buoys etc. Look
at it this way. What if I decided to do a little dredging. I put
something that dredges in the back of my little recreational runabout."

Again not true. If someone actually shows the RAM signal, you do not
have the freedom to say "I don't think he really has a license so I
don't have to give him room." Frankly, I don't think towing a friend
is in any way illegal, and you can declare yourself a RAM even if you
are not commercial. The court may not support your claim, but that's
a different issue.

And your third point:
"As long as the powerboat that's towing can maneuver OK then it's
not RAM. 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."

Here I would agree, and I said so on my other post. However, you
continued with:

"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."

This, as a generality, is nonsense. There are lots of situations
where amateurs do "serious work." Moreover, towing a boat with a boat
not setup for towing, is not always an easy thing. Further, if the
tow declares itself a RAM, you have to respect that.

And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
limited.

And one more thing: you should listen to Otn, he has more experience
than all of us put together.

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Jeff" wrote

| This, as a generality, is nonsense. There are lots of situations
| where amateurs do "serious work." Moreover, towing a boat with a boat
| not setup for towing, is not always an easy thing. Further, if the
| tow declares itself a RAM, you have to respect that.

No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring" they are
RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says they're RAM. That's
part of what my dredge example is all about. I can tell the marine patrol officer
that I'm a dredging but he's goona arrest me, throw me in jail and I'll stay there
a long time because I'm not dredging. I'm breaking the law.
It's the rule that makes them RAM. Nothing else. Not if they say so, not if God
says so... "Oh officer I say I'm obeying the speed limit so that makes it fact." "Sorry
mam, please sign the ticket here..."

Your like otn. You left out work that severly limits maneuverability. You can't
pick and choose. Both are a necessary part of the rule.... Using only one part or
another is not using the rule...

| And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
| often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
| done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
| and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
| I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
| berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
| not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
| capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
| limited.

So, the rule says nothing about limited options. It says work that severely
limits maneuverabilty. Your whaler loses both ways. It's not work as shown
in the examples, (any court would say doing a favor isn't work) and there's
no severe limitation of maneuverability. You know severe don't you. Look at the
examples. A dredge is stuck to the pipe. It's severly limited. A minsweeper has
to stay on a particular course or it will blow up. It's severly limited. A salvage
or dive operator is attached to the wreck or divers by hoses and cables. And
on it goes. Show me one example in the rule where the boat can turn right,
turn left, go forward, back up, go around in circles, speed up slow down, stop
and drink a beer. All the things it can do normally...

| And one more thing: you should listen to Otn, he has more experience
| than all of us put together.

Maybe so but experience isn't the be all and end all. Lawyers and the courts are.
That's why the rules have to be looked at with a legal eye. Legal and experience are
two different things. The court will call *expert* witnesses but they're only a
small part of the proceedings. Sorry, but I can't seem to have much respect for
otn when it comes to his understanding of this rule. He's wrong. Those little
pleasure boats-neither one is RAM. The one that was broke down was NUC but
that's another story. You seem to be familiar with court cases and the rules.
I bet there's one proving me right.

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Dave" wrote
| But go ahead with your' simple-minded approach if it makes you happy.

It's not simple minded to apply the rules as they're written. Or to understand
them fully.
I just got upset because Scotty assumed he did something wrong. He assumed
the towing boat was RAM. He assumed he had to give way. He felt guilty. He was wrong.
He was a sailboat. The towboat is a motor boat. Sailboat stands on unless its overtaking.
Motor boat gives way. Those motorboat guys tried to intimidate him. He shouldn't
be intimidated. The rules require him to stand on until it's apparent the towboat
isn't taking action to avoid a collision. They tried to intimidate him so he would act
illegally. That's not how it's supposed to work.
It gets me upset when people stop taking a stand. Otn didn't take a stand. What
he said was "maybe so, maybe not". Is that of any value? Might as well shut your yap.
Most of what Jeff said was "maybe so, maybe not." Is that helpful? No it isn't. When
you debate you take sides. You debate your side. You don't try to sit in the middle acting
like a sage because you don't have a stand and think you can't be wrong. Men are a bunch
of wimps anymore. At least most of the men here are. Spineless wimps. Women shouldn't
have to put them to shame like I'm forced to do....

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote

| This, as a generality, is nonsense. There are lots of situations
| where amateurs do "serious work." Moreover, towing a boat with a boat
| not setup for towing, is not always an easy thing. Further, if the
| tow declares itself a RAM, you have to respect that.

No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring" they are
RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says they're RAM.

Not really. On the water, a vessel is a RAM because it declares
itself to be one. After the fact, a judge may say that was not that
was not proper.

A vessel is bound by the signals it sees. If, for example, you see a
sailboat without a steaming light or cone, but with exhaust smoke, you
can't assume it really under power since it may actually be running a
genset. If someone is showing tow lights and RAM lights but the boat
doesn't otherwise look like a commercial tow boat, you cannot assume
he must be lying.


That's
part of what my dredge example is all about. I can tell the marine patrol officer
that I'm a dredging but he's goona arrest me, throw me in jail and I'll stay there
a long time because I'm not dredging. I'm breaking the law.
It's the rule that makes them RAM. Nothing else. Not if they say so, not if God
says so... "Oh officer I say I'm obeying the speed limit so that makes it fact." "Sorry
mam, please sign the ticket here..."

Irrelevant. You can make up all sorts of stories, but you simply
can't say that because a boat looks like a recreational vessel is must
be an illegal tow and you're not bound by the signals it shows.


Your like otn. You left out work that severly limits maneuverability. You can't
pick and choose. Both are a necessary part of the rule.... Using only one part or
another is not using the rule...

I didn't leave it out. Its not for me to say what affects
maneuverability. Its for the skipper of the boat. A judge can say
later that he was wrong, but another boater on the water can't.




| And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
| often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
| done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
| and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
| I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
| berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
| not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
| capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
| limited.

So, the rule says nothing about limited options. It says work that severely
limits maneuverabilty. Your whaler loses both ways. It's not work as shown
in the examples, (any court would say doing a favor isn't work) and there's
no severe limitation of maneuverability. You know severe don't you. Look at the
examples. A dredge is stuck to the pipe. It's severly limited. A minsweeper has
to stay on a particular course or it will blow up. It's severly limited. A salvage
or dive operator is attached to the wreck or divers by hoses and cables. And
on it goes. Show me one example in the rule where the boat can turn right,
turn left, go forward, back up, go around in circles, speed up slow down, stop
and drink a beer. All the things it can do normally...

You know not of what you say. Most of the tows I mentioned were
"work" since I was employed to run the "crash boat" at several sailing
clubs. However, sometimes it did it on a volunteer basis. And
sometimes I did it for boaters not affiliated with the clubs. So does
the observer get to say "he's not on the payroll today so he has no
rights"? Also, the boats we generally had to rescue were not self
bailing, so they came up with a ton of water in them. Also, in colder
weather, we took the "survivors" back to the dock brought in the
capsize singlehanded. Are you still going to claim that towing a 12
foot dink filled with water creates no limitation of maneuverability?
Clearly, you have no experience in this area.


| And one more thing: you should listen to Otn, he has more experience
| than all of us put together.

Maybe so but experience isn't the be all and end all. Lawyers and the courts are.
That's why the rules have to be looked at with a legal eye. Legal and experience are
two different things. The court will call *expert* witnesses but they're only a
small part of the proceedings. Sorry, but I can't seem to have much respect for
otn when it comes to his understanding of this rule. He's wrong. Those little
pleasure boats-neither one is RAM. The one that was broke down was NUC but
that's another story. You seem to be familiar with court cases and the rules.
I bet there's one proving me right.

The issue here is not whether Scotty's tow was a RAM, but whether you
can claim that its impossible for such boats to ever be a RAM. And on
that point, you are clearly wrong.



Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Jeff" wrote
| Ellen MacArthur wrote:
| No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring" they are
| RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says they're RAM.
|
| Not really. On the water, a vessel is a RAM because it declares
| itself to be one. After the fact, a judge may say that was not that
| was not proper

I agree with this. But how do they declare it. They have to use lights and shapes.
The boat Scotty's talking about had no such lights or shapes. How can you know another
boat is RAM unless they identify themselves? You can't. You must use what your eyes and
ears tell you. And Scotty should have used his eyes and ears to tell he was in a crossing
situation with a motorboat. It's the same reason why anchored boats are required to show
lights and shapes. You have to know it's anchored so you can know how to treat it...

| A vessel is bound by the signals it sees. If, for example, you see a
| sailboat without a steaming light or cone, but with exhaust smoke, you
| can't assume it really under power since it may actually be running a
| genset. If someone is showing tow lights and RAM lights but the boat
| doesn't otherwise look like a commercial tow boat, you cannot assume
| he must be lying.

Exactly like I said. It has to identify itself. You can't go around assuming
every boat is RAM or NUC or Fishing, etc. Scotty's little pleasure boat wasn't
showing any shapes or lights.

| I didn't leave it out. Its not for me to say what affects
| maneuverability. Its for the skipper of the boat. A judge can say
| later that he was wrong, but another boater on the water can't.

I disagree. I say it's up to you to know the rule that defines RAM says it must
be *severly* unable to maneuver. You see it going along a hootin' and a hollerin'
having plenty of time to act obnoxious. It ain't hooked to a pipe, it ain't dredging,
it ain't engaged in dive operations and it ain't trawling with nets. It's towing but
it ain's severly unable to maneuver. It's maneuvering for heavens sake. That's enough
to tell you it ain't severly unable to maneuver. It's up to you to choose the rule to
operate under. You say "there's a motorboat. I'm a sailboat the rules say I must stand on until...

| | And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
| | often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
| | done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
| | and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
| | I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
| | berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
| | not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
| | capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
| | limited.
|
| So, the rule says nothing about limited options. It says work that severely
| limits maneuverabilty. Your whaler loses both ways. It's not work as shown
| in the examples, (any court would say doing a favor isn't work) and there's
| no severe limitation of maneuverability. You know severe don't you. Look at the
| examples. A dredge is stuck to the pipe. It's severly limited. A minsweeper has
| to stay on a particular course or it will blow up. It's severly limited. A salvage
| or dive operator is attached to the wreck or divers by hoses and cables. And
| on it goes. Show me one example in the rule where the boat can turn right,
| turn left, go forward, back up, go around in circles, speed up slow down, stop
| and drink a beer. All the things it can do normally...
|

| Are you still going to claim that towing a 12
| foot dink filled with water creates no limitation of maneuverability?
| Clearly, you have no experience in this area.

I'm saying according to the examples in the rule it AIN'T *severely* limited in ability
to maneuver. Good grief!

| The issue here is not whether Scotty's tow was a RAM, but whether you
| can claim that its impossible for such boats to ever be a RAM. And on
| that point, you are clearly wrong.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying in Scotty's case it was clearly not a RAM. Any fool can see it.
Read the examples in the Rules again. They tell you some examples of what it means to be severely
unmaneuverable. They say there are others. But, it follows the others have to be of the same kind.
One little pleasure boat towing his buddy because he ran out of gas can't be called severe.
There might be some things when little pleasure boats are severely unable to maneuver. Towing
another boat of similar size isn't one of them.. That's all.

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Dave" wrote.
| Can you say "shrill?" Of course. I knew you could.
| One of the few things worse than shrill is shrill and dumb.

Are you talking about our next president? Hillary Clinton?

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Sad, but funny...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:34:13 -0400, "Ellen MacArthur"
said:

It's not simple minded to apply the rules as they're written.

Can you say "shrill?" Of course. I knew you could.

One of the few things worse than shrill is shrill and dumb.

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.ne
t...


I just got upset because Scotty assumed he did
something wrong.


no I didn't.


He assumed
the towing boat was RAM.

No I didn't. I didn't even know it was towing till after I
crossed.

He assumed he had to give way.

No I didn't. That is why I didn't.

He felt guilty.


I never feel guilty, even if I am wrong.


He was wrong.
He was a sailboat. The towboat is a motor boat. Sailboat
stands on unless its overtaking.
Motor boat gives way.

That's what I did.

Those motorboat guys tried to intimidate him. He shouldn't
be intimidated.

I wasn't. As I stated before, the only reason I didn't flip
them off was the close proximity to my marina.

Scotty

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Ellen MacArthur wrote:
| No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring" they are
| RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says they're RAM.
|
| Not really. On the water, a vessel is a RAM because it declares
| itself to be one. After the fact, a judge may say that was not that
| was not proper

I agree with this. But how do they declare it. They have to use lights and shapes.
The boat Scotty's talking about had no such lights or shapes. How can you know another
boat is RAM unless they identify themselves? You can't. You must use what your eyes and
ears tell you. And Scotty should have used his eyes and ears to tell he was in a crossing
situation with a motorboat. It's the same reason why anchored boats are required to show
lights and shapes. You have to know it's anchored so you can know how to treat it...

So now you're backpedaling. As I said in my first post, Scotty's case
was likely not a RAM.


| A vessel is bound by the signals it sees. If, for example, you see a
| sailboat without a steaming light or cone, but with exhaust smoke, you
| can't assume it really under power since it may actually be running a
| genset. If someone is showing tow lights and RAM lights but the boat
| doesn't otherwise look like a commercial tow boat, you cannot assume
| he must be lying.

Exactly like I said. It has to identify itself. You can't go around assuming
every boat is RAM or NUC or Fishing, etc. Scotty's little pleasure boat wasn't
showing any shapes or lights.

You were there?



| I didn't leave it out. Its not for me to say what affects
| maneuverability. Its for the skipper of the boat. A judge can say
| later that he was wrong, but another boater on the water can't.

I disagree. I say it's up to you to know the rule that defines RAM says it must
be *severly* unable to maneuver. You see it going along a hootin' and a hollerin'
having plenty of time to act obnoxious. It ain't hooked to a pipe, it ain't dredging,
it ain't engaged in dive operations and it ain't trawling with nets. It's towing but
it ain's severly unable to maneuver. It's maneuvering for heavens sake. That's enough
to tell you it ain't severly unable to maneuver. It's up to you to choose the rule to
operate under. You say "there's a motorboat. I'm a sailboat the rules say I must stand on until...

Total nonsense. Maybe if you stomp your feet and hold your breath it
would be different.



| | And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
| | often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
| | done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
| | and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
| | I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
| | berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
| | not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
| | capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
| | limited.
|
| So, the rule says nothing about limited options. It says work that severely
| limits maneuverabilty. Your whaler loses both ways. It's not work as shown
| in the examples, (any court would say doing a favor isn't work) and there's
| no severe limitation of maneuverability. You know severe don't you. Look at the
| examples. A dredge is stuck to the pipe. It's severly limited. A minsweeper has
| to stay on a particular course or it will blow up. It's severly limited. A salvage
| or dive operator is attached to the wreck or divers by hoses and cables. And
| on it goes. Show me one example in the rule where the boat can turn right,
| turn left, go forward, back up, go around in circles, speed up slow down, stop
| and drink a beer. All the things it can do normally...
|

| Are you still going to claim that towing a 12
| foot dink filled with water creates no limitation of maneuverability?
| Clearly, you have no experience in this area.

I'm saying according to the examples in the rule it AIN'T *severely* limited in ability
to maneuver. Good grief!

Perhaps you should read the rules again. Note in particular the words
"but not limited to."




| The issue here is not whether Scotty's tow was a RAM, but whether you
| can claim that its impossible for such boats to ever be a RAM. And on
| that point, you are clearly wrong.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying in Scotty's case it was clearly not a RAM. Any fool can see it.
Read the examples in the Rules again. They tell you some examples of what it means to be severely
unmaneuverable. They say there are others. But, it follows the others have to be of the same kind.
One little pleasure boat towing his buddy because he ran out of gas can't be called severe.

The rules specifically include "a vessel engaged in a towing operation
such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their
ability to deviate from their course." It doesn't say "but not
including recreational boats." Since you clearly don't have any
experience in this area, you probably don't know that towboats are
setup with the line attached well forward of the rudder. Without
this, the towing vessel has very limited control. For this reason,
recreational tows often have restricted maneuverability.

There might be some things when little pleasure boats are severely unable to maneuver. Towing
another boat of similar size isn't one of them.. That's all.

You just show your ignorance here. Most of the time it should work
out OK, but not necessarily.

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote:

Men are a bunch
of wimps anymore. At least most of the men here are. Spineless wimps.

Amen, brother!

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Dave" wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:34:13 -0400, "Ellen MacArthur"
said:

It's not simple minded to apply the rules as they're written.

Can you say "shrill?" Of course. I knew you could.

One of the few things worse than shrill is shrill and dumb.

One thing worse is an attorney that receives help from 2 other ng members,
but doesn't want to help anyone else in need. I'm very disappointed in you,
Dave.

LP (what goes around, comes around)

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Lady Pilot" wrote
Men are a bunch
of wimps anymore. At least most of the men here are.
Spineless wimps.

Amen, my brother!

LP


Oiy!

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Scotty" wrote
| no I didn't.


Oops! So sorry. I guess I read in more than was there.... Crap like that happens to me all the time.
I guess they see a blonde and think they can get away with murder....


Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Telling... from on guy (LP) to another (Ellen)...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Lady Pilot" wrote
Men are a bunch
of wimps anymore. At least most of the men here are.
Spineless wimps.

Amen, my brother!

LP


Oiy!

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in


Unless you are a
complete idiot,


pot - kettle - black

That just doesn't wash for anyone with an IQ over
60.


see above.

You know virtually nothing about him, or what sort of law
he specializes in.
You don't know what states he can practice in. Totally
bull****. I'm sure Dave
realized that, too. If I was going to start buying
newspapers in NY, I might ask
him to help out with the aquisition. He's a pretty sharp
guy. Believe me, he
doesn't do Slip & Fall, or lumpy liposuction claims.


Awwww ain't that sweet, Chuckles is defending his new
besttest buddy.

SV

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

It was pretty clear that your post was intended to announce that you
thought you
were going to sue somebody for a large amount of money.

Yes, a federal law has been broken, and I thought he could give me 5 minutes
of advice on how to search for a good lawyer.

Unless you are a
complete idiot, you weren't really trying to retain a lawyer based on his
presense in a usenet group.

I never said that I wanted to retain him. I find Dave knowledgeable about
many things, and since he claimed to be a lawyer, he might be intelligent
about that subject too.

That just doesn't wash for anyone with an IQ over
60.

Sorry your IQ isn't over 60. I said earlier in a post that you were smarter
than people here give you credit. Mea culpa.

You know virtually nothing about him, or what sort of law he specializes
in.

That is correct, I have no idea. I assume if he went to law school, he
would know the basics. Dave said in a post as long as it wasn't about
workers comp or a NY case, which this is not. Dave said that his firm had a
large litigation practice, IIRC.

You don't know what states he can practice in.

I don't care, I wasn't asking him to represent me in any shape or fashion.
Just wondering where to start on a federal case. So you're telling me Dave
doesn't know anything about federal law? I thought you two were becoming
friends, but now you are telling me he can't answer a simple question about
where to start on a federal case. Got it!

Totally bull****. I'm sure Dave
realized that, too. If I was going to start buying newspapers in NY, I
might ask
him to help out with the aquisition. He's a pretty sharp guy. Believe me,
he
doesn't do Slip & Fall, or lumpy liposuction claims.

I guess you've had liposuction and are unsteady on your feet, hence know
this information from talking to him? I don't have any idea why you are
going off on me, but you seem to wake up on the wrong side of the bed much
of the time.
All I can gather by his silence is that he doesn't want to be bothered with
simple law questions. That's okay. Dave's a taker and not a giver...his
choice.

Thanks for the clarification!

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote:

Telling... from on guy (LP)

Gaynz, you are so obsessed with me and Mooron. Sorry to disappoint you, but
I'm not a guy and I find homosexuality disgusting. It seems to me that
Capt. Mooron isn't interested in you either, so why don't you kill file him?

Is negative attention better than no attention at all?

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:58:09 -0400, "Scotty" wrote:

Awwww ain't that sweet, Chuckles is defending his new
besttest buddy.

I don't think Dave and I are likely to mistake each other for bestest
buddies.
We get along just fine, and I enjoyed our sailboat delivery. You're safe
because
he doesn't do divorces unless there is money involved.

Nice to know what kind of character Dave has, from someone who has talked
and sailed with him. Birds of a feather...

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Lady Pilot wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

Telling... from on guy (LP)

Gaynz, you are so obsessed with me and Mooron. Sorry to disappoint you, but
I'm not a guy and I find homosexuality disgusting. It seems to me that
Capt. Mooron isn't interested in you either, so why don't you kill file him?

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

Is negative attention better than no attention at all?

Must be, LP. You're still here.....

PDW

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Peter" wrote:

Lady Pilot wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

Telling... from on guy (LP)

Gaynz, you are so obsessed with me and Mooron. Sorry to disappoint you,
but
I'm not a guy and I find homosexuality disgusting. It seems to me that
Capt. Mooron isn't interested in you either, so why don't you kill file
him?

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

Yes, I find it amusing how easy it is to set him off. Not to mention the
hypocrisy.

Is negative attention better than no attention at all?

Must be, LP. You're still here.....

Heh...lucky you!

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

I missed the post where you explained why Dave should help
you. Can you post it again?

Scotty


"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:ase%g.7053$fl.6864@dukeread08...

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

It was pretty clear that your post was intended to
announce that you
thought you
were going to sue somebody for a large amount of money.

Yes, a federal law has been broken, and I thought he could
give me 5 minutes
of advice on how to search for a good lawyer.

Unless you are a
complete idiot, you weren't really trying to retain a
lawyer based on his
presense in a usenet group.

I never said that I wanted to retain him. I find Dave
knowledgeable about
many things, and since he claimed to be a lawyer, he might
be intelligent
about that subject too.

That just doesn't wash for anyone with an IQ over
60.

Sorry your IQ isn't over 60. I said earlier in a post
that you were smarter
than people here give you credit. Mea culpa.

You know virtually nothing about him, or what sort of law
he specializes
in.

That is correct, I have no idea. I assume if he went to
law school, he
would know the basics. Dave said in a post as long as it
wasn't about
workers comp or a NY case, which this is not. Dave said
that his firm had a
large litigation practice, IIRC.

You don't know what states he can practice in.

I don't care, I wasn't asking him to represent me in any
shape or fashion.
Just wondering where to start on a federal case. So
you're telling me Dave
doesn't know anything about federal law? I thought you
two were becoming
friends, but now you are telling me he can't answer a
simple question about
where to start on a federal case. Got it!

Totally bull****. I'm sure Dave
realized that, too. If I was going to start buying
newspapers in NY, I
might ask
him to help out with the aquisition. He's a pretty sharp
guy. Believe me,
he
doesn't do Slip & Fall, or lumpy liposuction claims.

I guess you've had liposuction and are unsteady on your
feet, hence know
this information from talking to him? I don't have any
idea why you are
going off on me, but you seem to wake up on the wrong side
of the bed much
of the time.
All I can gather by his silence is that he doesn't want to
be bothered with
simple law questions. That's okay. Dave's a taker and
not a giver...his
choice.

Thanks for the clarification!

LP

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

I think the key phrase is "in the past." It's been quite awhile since I
either called someone nasty names or complained about anyone calling me
names. Some people are unable to learn from their mistakes. I hope I'm not
one of them. Seems like you might be one of them.

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

I think the key phrase is "in the past." It's been quite awhile since I
either called someone nasty names or complained about anyone calling me
names. Some people are unable to learn from their mistakes. I hope I'm not
one of them.

Hmmm. Explain to me the difference between Mooron calling you 'gay',
when you state emphatically that you aren't, and you calling LP a man,
when she states emphatically that she isn't.

Seems like you might be one of them.

Shrug. Your call, Jon. I'll await your explanation of the above, then
perhaps I'll change my opinion. ATM it looks to me like you still do
what you complain about.

PDW

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Lady Pilot wrote:
"Peter" wrote:

Lady Pilot wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

Telling... from on guy (LP)

Gaynz, you are so obsessed with me and Mooron. Sorry to disappoint you,
but
I'm not a guy and I find homosexuality disgusting. It seems to me that
Capt. Mooron isn't interested in you either, so why don't you kill file
him?

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

Yes, I find it amusing how easy it is to set him off. Not to mention the
hypocrisy.

Is negative attention better than no attention at all?

Must be, LP. You're still here.....

Heh...lucky you!

Generally, this n/g is good for some light amusement on a slow day,
yes. Even more rarely it provides useful information :-)

PDW

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Well, I'm not perfect!

For one thing, I don't go on and on and on about it. Both he and Bob have
been doing this literally for years.

Nor do I initiate threads on the subject of LPs gender.

Seems to me that it's on a totally different scale.

Your call Peter.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's always amusing watching Jon complain about Mooron doing to him
what he's done to others in the past, and is continuing to do to you.

I think the key phrase is "in the past." It's been quite awhile since I
either called someone nasty names or complained about anyone calling me
names. Some people are unable to learn from their mistakes. I hope I'm
not
one of them.

Hmmm. Explain to me the difference between Mooron calling you 'gay',
when you state emphatically that you aren't, and you calling LP a man,
when she states emphatically that she isn't.

Seems like you might be one of them.

Shrug. Your call, Jon. I'll await your explanation of the above, then
perhaps I'll change my opinion. ATM it looks to me like you still do
what you complain about.

PDW

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jeff" wrote

| This, as a generality, is nonsense. There are lots of situations
| where amateurs do "serious work." Moreover, towing a boat with a boat
| not setup for towing, is not always an easy thing. Further, if the
| tow declares itself a RAM, you have to respect that.

No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring" they
are
RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says they're RAM.
That's
part of what my dredge example is all about. I can tell the marine patrol
officer
that I'm a dredging but he's goona arrest me, throw me in jail and I'll
stay there
a long time because I'm not dredging. I'm breaking the law.
It's the rule that makes them RAM. Nothing else. Not if they say so,
not if God
says so... "Oh officer I say I'm obeying the speed limit so that makes it
fact." "Sorry
mam, please sign the ticket here..."

Your like otn. You left out work that severly limits maneuverability.
You can't
pick and choose. Both are a necessary part of the rule.... Using only one
part or
another is not using the rule...

| And using the trawler with its dinghy is not a good analogy. More
| often than not amateur tows involve two equally sized boats. I've
| done hundreds of tows, usually in a 13 foot Whaler, or small launch,
| and many of them I would consider "unruly." Though I never had lights
| I often conveyed with gestures my hope that other would give me a wide
| berth. BTW, try towing a flooded dinghy sometime - slowing down is
| not a good option because the boat will immediately swerve and
| capsize. When the tow has a lot of momentum, the options become very
| limited.

So, the rule says nothing about limited options. It says work that
severely
limits maneuverabilty. Your whaler loses both ways. It's not work as shown
in the examples, (any court would say doing a favor isn't work) and
there's
no severe limitation of maneuverability. You know severe don't you. Look
at the
examples. A dredge is stuck to the pipe. It's severly limited. A
minsweeper has
to stay on a particular course or it will blow up. It's severly limited. A
salvage
or dive operator is attached to the wreck or divers by hoses and cables.
And
on it goes. Show me one example in the rule where the boat can turn right,
turn left, go forward, back up, go around in circles, speed up slow down,
stop
and drink a beer. All the things it can do normally...

| And one more thing: you should listen to Otn, he has more experience
| than all of us put together.

Maybe so but experience isn't the be all and end all. Lawyers and the
courts are.
That's why the rules have to be looked at with a legal eye. Legal and
experience are
two different things. The court will call *expert* witnesses but they're
only a
small part of the proceedings. Sorry, but I can't seem to have much
respect for
otn when it comes to his understanding of this rule. He's wrong. Those
little
pleasure boats-neither one is RAM. The one that was broke down was NUC but
that's another story. You seem to be familiar with court cases and the
rules.
I bet there's one proving me right.

Cheers,
Ellen

Quite a knowledgeable post from such a diminutive blond bimbette.

If only you really looked like those photos, Neal.

Max

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

Maxprop wrote:

Quite a knowledgeable post from such a diminutive blond bimbette.

If only you really looked like those photos, Neal.

Max

And of course, incorrect. More confirmation its Neal.

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Maxprop" wrote
| Quite a knowledgeable post from such a diminutive blond bimbette.
| If only you really looked like those photos, Neal.


People have too much imagination. They don't understand something so they run around
calling it a sock puppet or a lie or a bimbette.... The more you talk the more you show your
ignorance. Maybe your in the wrong news group. This is alt.sailing.asa not ass!

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Jeff" wrote
| And of course, incorrect. More confirmation its Neal.

Totally correct. You said so yourself. You just said it wishy washy. I said it firm.
I even had otn eating outta my hand.... Honestly, you men are awful girly. Is there just
one man here who isn't a wimp? Besides maybe Scotty and Joe.

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

G Your version of "eating out of my hand" and mine seem to vary
considerably.
At any rate, as per usual, your uninformed interpretations of the "Rules"
may sound to some as valid points, but no matter what, you generally always
end up being wrong, not only in those interpretation but also in your
reading comprehension as to who said what.
The best thing I can say about Neal is that he misreads post and
misinterprets rules in such a way that in the end, when people are through
correcting him, those with even less knowledge will easily have gleaned
some usefull info they can use to "correctly" interpret the "Rules".

otn

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


"Jeff" wrote
| And of course, incorrect. More confirmation its Neal.

Totally correct. You said so yourself. You just said it wishy
washy. I said it firm.
I even had otn eating outta my hand.... Honestly, you men are awful
girly. Is there just one man here who isn't a wimp? Besides maybe
Scotty and Joe.

Cheers,
Ellen

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jeff" wrote
| And of course, incorrect. More confirmation its Neal.

Totally correct. You said so yourself. You just said it wishy washy. I
said it firm.
I even had otn eating outta my hand.... Honestly, you men are awful
girly. Is there just
one man here who isn't a wimp?

In your opinion, whom would that be? You, Neal?

Max

When a woman puts a man in his place.....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message

reenews.ne
t...

"Jeff" wrote
| And of course, incorrect. More confirmation its Neal.

Totally correct. You said so yourself. You just said
it wishy washy. I
said it firm.
I even had otn eating outta my hand.... Honestly, you
men are awful
girly. Is there just
one man here who isn't a wimp?

In your opinion, whom would that be? You, Neal?


Gilligan?