On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know. Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish. You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored. To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting. I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

Frank



Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I'm going to make the assmumption that you just can't be as dumb
as your response sounds.

Sorry Frank, I was serious about everything. What part did you think
was dumb? The part where I suggested you learn the rules?

Making up rules and then being ****ed when other people don't follow
them is not a very good way to go through life.

So you must want to take over RB's position
at the side of the boat throwing over that rotten chum to bait up what
you can.
low blow! But pretty wimpy if that's all you got!

Good luck on that one. I'll still go with common sense when it is
appropriate. That is what the thread was about.

Common Sense is what you need to apply the rules. It is not a
substitute for the rules. Please Frank, learn the rules before you
kill someone with your "common sense."

Here's two links:
http://www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm

Read especially Rule 2:
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to
comply with these Rules 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.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be
had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special
circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved,
which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid
immediate danger.

Therein lies all the "common sense" you need to handle any situation
not explicitly covered in the rest of the rules. But it only works
*if* you know the rest of the rules.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.
Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.
I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored
I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.
Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.

and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.
Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.
So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!

While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?
I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.
Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.

Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.
So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.
Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

...
I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.
So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.
What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

...
Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.
No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.
I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.

Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.

That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.

You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.

Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said "I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.

Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in. But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.

That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.

You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.

Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.



I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

Do the right thing, Jeff, grow up.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.
Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.


Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

Pictures really aren't needed, although I did look at the chart. It
simply isn't relevant. The kids were within their rights to call
starboard (I presume there really was a P/S situation). You were
within your rights to ask for more room. This is easily understood
within the rules. End of story.

You're claim is that the kids should have understood you were "less
maneuverable" and stayed out of your way. This is, at best, delusional.

If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.


And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

Actually the question did give enough information, especially since it
was a hypothetical. The question asked if it was a meeting, crossing,
or overtaking situation. If you knew the rules you would instantly
realize it is none of these. Again, end of story.

If you really want to go deeper - even is it was a "narrow channel"
situation (and there was nothing to imply it was), the sailboat is
still "stand-on" although it may be required to give room for the
powerboat to get by. The only interesting question is whether the
High Speed boat essentially waives it's "narrow channel rights" by not
slowing down, since it might well be impossible for slow sailboat to
give it any room in time. The rules seem pretty clear that a "safe
speed" is required, but it seemed like you were implying that the high
speed boat might be considered "less maneuverable" - this would be
interesting question, certainly more so than what some kids should
have done.


You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, I take
that back - he was correct that that was the historical basis for many
of the rules, you're incorrect in assuming that it is sufficient to
analyze all situations that arise.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.

You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

You're the one who had the problem with the dead engine, do you really
think the kids would know about that? They just assumed that being
under sail you were willing to abide by the rules for boats being
under sail, and would inform them if there was something special going
on. They probably weren't aware that you didn't know the rules.

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.
That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

No! Kids never do that! My kids would certainly never do that! In
fact, I've never heard of a kid playing a dangerous game!

So I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the kids said
"Let's play a dangerous game - we'll ignore the ColRegs!" and they
would have been better off if they said, "we'll abandon common sense"?

BTW, you would have had a much better case if they were adults. Then
you could have started an interesting thread about how sometimes
adults forget common courtesy and insist on strict observance to the
rules. However, I've found that most of the times, those who ignore
courtesy never knew the rules at all.


You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.


The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

So either, the kids refused to give you room and ran you up on the
rocks (which I doubt), or they give you room and the situation was
over. But no one in their right mind would have made such a big deal
over it if they simply backed off when you asked them to. Really
Frank, you're the one who said "I'll ignore colregs and revert to
common sense every time."

and you started it up anew in this thread when you said:

"After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach."

The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.


I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.
You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

We have a lot in common, Frank.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:46:05 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:12 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.
Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

And you've made my point. A mature individual would have sought
additional information. An arrogant, immature, know-it-all would
project the information at hand, develop a conclusion, and then defend
it to the bitter end.

yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.

Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.


Easy to get additional information. You could ask. You could go to a
drill down chart to see the site. Since this is a post Katrina site,
you could actually see the sat pictures because it is a before and
after site. I had the link at one time but not any more. You could
simply back off and say I don't have enough information about the
situation.

Pictures really aren't needed, although I did look at the chart. It
simply isn't relevant. The kids were within their rights to call
starboard (I presume there really was a P/S situation). You were
within your rights to ask for more room. This is easily understood
within the rules. End of story.

You're claim is that the kids should have understood you were "less
maneuverable" and stayed out of your way. This is, at best, delusional.

If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.

No Jeff, I mentioned my dead engine in the original post. You
overlooked that fact and responded by indicating I should just have
started my engine, or something to that effect. I then made you aware
that the engine was dead. Repeated emphasis. I don't think so.


And as you might recall that was what the original post (sailboat,
sport fisherman) was all about. Do you have all the information
necessary to determine right of way and obligation. In that case, In
my opinion the information was incomplete.

Actually the question did give enough information, especially since it
was a hypothetical. The question asked if it was a meeting, crossing,
or overtaking situation. If you knew the rules you would instantly
realize it is none of these. Again, end of story.

If you really want to go deeper - even is it was a "narrow channel"
situation (and there was nothing to imply it was), the sailboat is
still "stand-on" although it may be required to give room for the
powerboat to get by. The only interesting question is whether the
High Speed boat essentially waives it's "narrow channel rights" by not
slowing down, since it might well be impossible for slow sailboat to
give it any room in time. The rules seem pretty clear that a "safe
speed" is required, but it seemed like you were implying that the high
speed boat might be considered "less maneuverable" - this would be
interesting question, certainly more so than what some kids should
have done.

I was not implying either boat had to give way, just commenting that
additional information might be needed to determine what action was
required by what vessel.


You might also recall that I posted that the basis for "least
manueverable" was from a piloting class and I had no idea wether the
instructor knew what he was talking about. It was in the context that
many sailors, who are not educated properly, automatically assume they
have the right of way over power, but that the regs are primarily
based on "least manueverable" all other factors being equal.

You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, I take
that back - he was correct that that was the historical basis for many
of the rules, you're incorrect in assuming that it is sufficient to
analyze all situations that arise.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.

You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

Once again, I never said or implied that I believed that.

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?

Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

Would you answer the question, and not ask another. Or can you?

You're the one who had the problem with the dead engine, do you really
think the kids would know about that? They just assumed that being
under sail you were willing to abide by the rules for boats being
under sail, and would inform them if there was something special going
on. They probably weren't aware that you didn't know the rules.

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.
That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

Sounds that way to you possibly. The kids were not picking on me but
playing a dangerous game.

No! Kids never do that! My kids would certainly never do that! In
fact, I've never heard of a kid playing a dangerous game!

So I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the kids said
"Let's play a dangerous game - we'll ignore the ColRegs!" and they
would have been better off if they said, "we'll abandon common sense"?

BTW, you would have had a much better case if they were adults. Then
you could have started an interesting thread about how sometimes
adults forget common courtesy and insist on strict observance to the
rules. However, I've found that most of the times, those who ignore
courtesy never knew the rules at all.


You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

Not what I said. Simply imflamatory. Some of that RB chum thrown
over the side.

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.

I have never acted surprised that that was not the case.


The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

Are you making the assumption that I didn't? Another projection to a
conclusion that might possibly be erroneous?

So either, the kids refused to give you room and ran you up on the
rocks (which I doubt), or they give you room and the situation was
over. But no one in their right mind would have made such a big deal
over it if they simply backed off when you asked them to. Really
Frank, you're the one who said "I'll ignore colregs and revert to
common sense every time."

and you started it up anew in this thread when you said:

"After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach."

Yes Jeff, that is where you left it.

The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said


"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff that is where you left it. It is certainly not what I ever
believed to be the case.

Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way and no
obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it. That
was the reason for my statement.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

Well, I guess I've never heard that before on ASA.

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.


I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.
You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.

We have a lot in common, Frank.

No Jeff, I don't think we do. You see, I don't know you, don't know
if you are real, don't know the level of your expertise, but, unlike
you I'm not going to attack and insult you, call you stupid,
delusional or in need of medication. I'm not going to draw
conclusions about you or anything you post until I actually know more
about you and/or the situation you post. No, I don't think we have
very much in common. I would actually ask questions until I am
confident I know all the facts.

Maybe RB will be back (he's never left for good before) and you two
can go at it and you will be happy again.

Frank

rank Boettcher wrote:



Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.

That's the qualifications for being married to each other....

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:46:05 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
yada yada yada. You've had, what, 5 posts now to supply additional
info, yet you didn't.

Yes, I should anticipate all the conclusions you might draw and read
your mind about what you don't know.

As I said. The information wasn't relevant. If you wanted to add
more info, you could have, but you didn't want to. So don't complain now.

BTW, have you told us yet whether you ran aground? Did you ask the
kids to give way? did they comply? (really, I can't remember now!)
You keep accusing me of making unfounded assumptions, but you've never
really said went happened past the point where they legitimately
called starboard.


If it's common for boats to tack up the channel, and its really that
difficult, they should have been instructed to give more room - they
could have even been told the rules require it! If it's not common,
if most boats power up the channel as you seemed to imply by
repeatedly emphasizing your dead engine, then this might have been
outside their experience.

No Jeff, I mentioned my dead engine in the original post. You
overlooked that fact and responded by indicating I should just have
started my engine, or something to that effect. I then made you aware
that the engine was dead. Repeated emphasis. I don't think so.

Yes Frank, we all know your engine was dead. The question is, how did
you expect the kids to know that? That's been a major point. You've
been claiming from the beginning that these kids gave you grief when
they should have given you room because your engine was dead. So how
should they know? Please tell us, Frank. Or are you going to keep
complaining that I make assumptions without knowing what's really
going on?

In the particular post where I mentioned turning on the engine, I said
I would turn it on, rather than expect others to just get out of my
way. Of course, you didn't have that option, but how would they know
that?

[about the sport fisherman]
I was not implying either boat had to give way, just commenting that
additional information might be needed to determine what action was
required by what vessel.

Obviously, there's no way to give *all* the information needed in a
simple question. We just have to take our best guess. As I said,
there was plenty of information given to answer the specific question,
and even enough to give a one line summary of how to apply the narrow
channel rule. But, you'd rather play this game.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?
Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did have an
obligation to allow me in.
You should have known that. Are you really claiming that until last
night you firmly believed that it was the kid's right under the
ColRegs to run you up on the rocks??? Please, Frank, tell us its
only a bad reaction to your medication!

Once again, I never said or implied that I believed that.

You just did imply it, when you said that *I* revealed the sunfish's
obligation. Revealed? If you thought I "revealed" it, it means you
didn't know it. If you knew all along that the ColRegs didn't require
to to run aground, why did you even bring it up?

Jax?? is that you Jax?? I might have guessed!

But then, you stated that they were not
obligated or expected to know the rules because of age?
Well, Duh! You are the adult, aren't you? Aren't you?

Would you answer the question, and not ask another. Or can you?

No, I don't expect kids to know the full ColRegs. I'm happy when the
understand Port/Starboard. But also, I wouldn't expect kids to have
any common sense, either. That's the real stupid thing about this
whole discussion: you wanted to make a point about following the rules
versus following common sense. But instead, you used an example that
depends on kids, which know neither!

Ah, but you still haven't said one word to indicate otherwise. You
keep acting surprised that the ColRegs don't imply you should have run
up on the rocks.

I have never acted surprised that that was not the case.

You said, "Apparently, I didn't as you revealed that the sunfish did
have an obligation to allow me in." You said the I revealed that, not
that you knew it all along.

Here you said: "So there are rules for the situation? you were not
willing to offer that in the original thread." Again, are you
claiming that you knew that all along but just preferred to act like
your were ignorant?

There's two times you implied that you thought the rules said you
should run aground. Or are you claiming that this was a debate, where
you're allowed to play dumb and then claim you knew the rules all along?

Moreover, your whole premise seemed to be that I claimed the rules
implied you should run aground, when all I said is that "to expect
others to get out of your way just isn't right." The kids were within
their rights to call starboard, and you should not have assumed that
they would just get out of your way.

....

Yes Jeff, that is where you left it.

So let's get this straight, I only said that if kids gave way without
being asked it would have been out of courtesy, not the rules, and
that you shouldn't expect others to just get out of your way. You
inferred from that that I claimed the ColRegs required you to run up
on the rocks? And you're accusing me of making baseless
assumptions??? You're a real piece of work, Frank.

You've been claiming the kids should have understood the fact the you
were channel bound, and that you were engineless. When are you going
to explain how kids would know that, Frank?


The truth is that it's your responsibility to let vessels know that
you need room. We're guessing (since you refuse to actually tell us)
that you did this and they backed off. It sounds they realized what
their responsibility was. Who's being the child in this this situation?


Gee, Frank, when are you planning to answer this question? You really
don't care at all about the rules, do you?


To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.
Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said
"I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

Jeff that is where you left it. It is certainly not what I ever
believed to be the case.

So are you now claiming that you knew all along that the ColRegs
didn't require you to run up on the rocks, and all of your comments
about that were a silly troll? Right, a real piece of work.

So did this incident actually ever happen, or did you just make it up?


Jeff, that is how you left it in the old post. You never backed off
of your original contention that the kids had the right of way

They did have right of way - Or as Chuckles would prefer, they were
standon. That's why it was your obligation to inform them that there
are other issues at play beyond the basic right of way.

and no obligation. That was your position, and you never reversed it.

Of course they have obligations. Everyone has all sorts of
obligations under the rules. But it was not their obligation to
appreciate your special need. It was your obligation to advise them.

I let the old thread die because I sensed you had issues about the
situation and didn't want to hear the truth. I even started writing a
response that's still in my draft folder. I would have let it lie,
had you not brought it up again. (I'm guessing you're re-thinking
that one now!)

Well, I guess I've never heard that before on ASA.

What, that I let the thread die rather than argue with someone who
doesn't seem prepared to discuss this? Yes, really, your rant ending
with "I'll ignore colregs and revert to common sense every time"
seemed so out of proportion to my comments that I gave it some thought
and decided this would not be very pretty. And I was right. But you
wanted more.

And if you go back to the original thread, you'll notice I said very
little other than it was not really the kid's responsibility to figure
out that you needed extra room. It would have been a nice courtesy,
but expecting that from kids is purely delusional. It was your
obligation to make that known to them.

again, you choose to ignore this point.


I have Jeff, and fully admit I did not memorize them. However, I've
been on the water for forty years, done delivery, cruised, raced,
owned, chartered, and have never lost or damaged a vessel, or injured
a passenger or anyone else for that matter. Used a lot of common
sense along the way.
We have a lot in common, Frank.

No Jeff, I don't think we do. You see, I don't know you, don't know
if you are real, don't know the level of your expertise,

about the same as you

but, unlike
you I'm not going to attack and insult you, call you stupid,
delusional or in need of medication.

Just trying to wake you up. Would you prefer I called you a liar for
claiming I said things that I never did? Its funny, you just ignore
all the real issues and tried to make this about how I jumped to
conclusions, when you're the one who jumped to conclusions.

I'm not going to draw
conclusions about you or anything you post until I actually know more
about you and/or the situation you post.

So what conclusion did I jump to? Please explain Frank. I just
disagreed when you said you always had ROW over the sunfish in the
channel because you were less maneuverable. There is nothing in the
rules to support that. When I see a sailboat tacking up a channel, my
first assumption is that they know what they're doing and are willing
to follow the rules. If they need extra room, they should be prepared
to ask for it. You made it sound like the kids should have
anticipated your need, when its your responsibility to inform them.
Sure, if they were adults you might have expected more, but expecting
more from kids is, as I've said, delusional.

You, on the other hand jumped to the conclusion that I assumed the
sunfish had no "obligation to avoid the destruction of property and
the risk of injury." And then you started it up again with:

"Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would indicate
that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach ..."

Since I never anything remotely resembling that, do you think its just
possible that you're the one who jumped to a conclusion?

No, I don't think we have
very much in common. I would actually ask questions until I am
confident I know all the facts.

Ahh! so again, this has nothing to do with a rules discussion. You're
just offended because you thought I jumped to an unfounded conclusion.
You're not even claiming I'm wrong, you're claiming that I can't be
right because I didn't ask you specifically for some piece of
information that you think is really important.

No Frank. I didn't jump to any conclusion. You did.


Maybe RB will be back (he's never left for good before) and you two
can go at it and you will be happy again.

Hey, as I said, I was willing to let this go - you're the one who
insisted on bringing it up. Actually, RB is a more "worthy opponent."
He may take bogus positions, but he does actually try to defend
them. You took a questionable position, and then tried to make this
about "jumping to conclusions" without taking any responsibility for
what you said.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:08:39 -0500, Jeff wrote:

a half mile of stuff snipped

You win Jeff, if that's what you want.