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.