Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Very good Neal. Thanks for absolutely confirming your identity.

So I noticed you posted stuff from a page that's not there any more. Does that make
me him? Y'all are such conspiracy freaks. Why do you think I'm Captain Neal? I've been
to his web pages lots of times. Some of it's educational, some of it's nonsense and some of
it's fun. Some of it's poking fun. I laugh at what he says about women sometimes. He's soooo
old fashioned. (like Katy in lots of ways) Or maybe he never had a fun girl like me to play
with. :-) He could never be me. Shame on you for saying it.....

The change was made today.


| But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that
| embarrassing because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order"
| presentation I've seen has these flaws.

I can only think of one flaw. How's RAM supposed to stay out of the way of NUC?
RAM's unable to maneuver and NUC's unable to maneuver. They should be equals.
Did I get one right?

The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
rules. But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM. There is no logic
that can be applied from individual cases. Although one may deduce
that there was some logic behind the rules, it does not follow that
the same logic applies to each real case.

The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
discrepancies?

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

"Jeff" wrote
| The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
| at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
| rules.

Almost right.....

3(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the
nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and
is therefore **unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.**

3(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional
circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
**unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. **

Do you see it now. NUC is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. RAM is
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Both are equal. One shouldn't be above
the other on the list. Even if one is unable to maneuver and the other restricted maneuverability,
the end result is the same. Both are uanble to keep out of the way.... Two boats both unable to
keep out of the way of another boat are equally crippled.

| But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
| potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM.

Not really.....

3(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or
other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing
with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

It doesn't say anything about being unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
By definition, FISH has more maneuverability than NUC or RAM because it's not unable
to keep out of the way.

NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way

| The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
| specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
| answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
| are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
| does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
| discrepancies?

I gave you one discrepancy but you rejected it. So I proved it up there. So now you have
to give me one point for having a valid point. But it sounds like your looking for something
else besides NUC and RAM should have equal status in the pecking order list.
I guess you'll have to give me a clue because I don't have a clue..... I'm sorry but your
logic so far isn't so logical.

Cheers,
Ellen

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

"Jeff" wrote
| The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
| at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
| rules.

Almost right.....

3(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the
nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and
is therefore **unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.**

3(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional
circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
**unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. **

Do you see it now. NUC is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. RAM is
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Both are equal. One shouldn't be above
the other on the list. Even if one is unable to maneuver and the other restricted maneuverability,
the end result is the same. Both are uanble to keep out of the way.... Two boats both unable to
keep out of the way of another boat are equally crippled.

| But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
| potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM.

Not really.....

3(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or
other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing
with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

It doesn't say anything about being unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
By definition, FISH has more maneuverability than NUC or RAM because it's not unable
to keep out of the way.

NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way

| The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
| specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
| answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
| are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
| does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
| discrepancies?

I gave you one discrepancy but you rejected it. So I proved it up there. So now you have
to give me one point for having a valid point. But it sounds like your looking for something
else besides NUC and RAM should have equal status in the pecking order list.
I guess you'll have to give me a clue because I don't have a clue..... I'm sorry but your
logic so far isn't so logical.

Cheers,
Ellen

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
....

NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way

totally wrong. It quite possible that a fishing boat is unable to
keep out of the way.

Your analysis is faulty. The definitions of NUC and RAM do not imply
that they are incapable of of avoiding collisions with *all* vessels,
only that they *may* be incapable of avoiding collisions with *some*
vessels. On the other hand, a fishing boat may be totally incapable
of getting out of the way of another boat, even a NUC or RAM.

Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?


| The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
| specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
| answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
| are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
| does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
| discrepancies?

I gave you one discrepancy but you rejected it. So I proved it up there. So now you have
to give me one point for having a valid point. But it sounds like your looking for something
else besides NUC and RAM should have equal status in the pecking order list.


I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

I guess you'll have to give me a clue because I don't have a clue..... I'm sorry but your
logic so far isn't so logical.

I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

OK, if anyone else has a clue, jump in now or Ellen will be able to
claim victory on this!

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

"Jeff" wrote
| NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way
|
| totally wrong. It quite possible that a fishing boat is unable to
| keep out of the way.

How can you say totally wrong. It comes straight from the rules. I quoted the Rules word for word.
Up there I just summarized them That's what they say. Duh! If the fishing boat was unable to keep out
of the way it would be RAM. Try reading the three rules again. The rules define the classification.
The activity of the boat does not. You seem to have it backwards.

| Your analysis is faulty. The definitions of NUC and RAM do not imply
| that they are incapable of of avoiding collisions with *all* vessels,
| only that they *may* be incapable of avoiding collisions with *some*
| vessels. On the other hand, a fishing boat may be totally incapable
| of getting out of the way of another boat, even a NUC or RAM.

Stop ignoring what the rules say. The rules classify the vessel. The vessel doesn't make the rule. Now I
think I understand why your so confused all the time. You and otn. BBG

| Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
| in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
| from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
| read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?

*Sort of valid* Is that like being a little pregnant? Either it's valid or it's not.

Here is Rule 18 all of it or the International part at least....

-INTERNATIONAL-
Steering and Sailing Rules
RULE 18 Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise requi ( I'm putting this in/9narrow channel, 10traffic separation, 13overtaking)
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
(d)
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall,
if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft,
exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.
(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In
circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.
(f)
(i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, keep well clear of all other vessels and
avoid impeding their navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.

Could you be trying to say lumping them all in one list isn't the right thing to do. That making it simple with one
list makes it more confusing? Are you saying the pecking order should be like this.

(a) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL
POWER

(b) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL

(c)NUC
RAM
FISH

(d) NUC
RAM
CBD


(e) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE

(f) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE
WIG


Now I think I see whay your getting at. Is it that one list leaves out CBD till half way through the rule and one list doesn't?
So one big list doesn't accurately describe what the rule really says? And none of the lists, big or small cares about the actual
order of things above the bottom vessel. I think it's starting to get past the blonde roots. :-)

| I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
| presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

Maybe I got closer this time?

| I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
| specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

That I find hard to believe. He's a self-proclaimed expert.

Cheers,
Ellen

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

I'm not sure exactly what Jeff is looking for, however, some comments on
Ellen/Neal response.....

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

"Jeff" wrote
| The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
| at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
| rules.

Almost right.....

3(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a
vessel which from the
nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by
these Rules and
is therefore **unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.**

3(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some
exceptional
circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is
therefore
**unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. **

Nice basic quotes to build on, and I agree with Jeff (EG with reservations)


Do you see it now. NUC is unable to keep out of the way of another
vessel. RAM is
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Both are equal.

If both are equal, then the "pecking order" is useless.....i.e. if you read
the words without looking at the possible situations, there is no
difference.
However, look at the vessels. NUC is talking about a vessel which has lost
propulsion or steering, whereas RAM is talking about a vessel which has
propulsion and steering but is restricted due to it's work.
In some cases, but not all, Ram is equally unable to maneuver as is NUC
(I'll let all of you figure out the possibilities).

One shouldn't be above
the other on the list.

One of the reasons I consider this "pecking order" flawed, but incorrect, in
general, since, no engine, is far more restrictive, than a trailing suction
dredge

Even if one is unable to maneuver and the other restricted maneuverability,
the end result is the same. Both are uanble to keep out of the way.... Two
boats both unable to
keep out of the way of another boat are equally crippled.

Again, not necessarily.


| But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
| potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM.

Not really.....

G Depends on which fisherman you are talking to....potentially, not more
so than NUC, but potentially much more so than RAM (again you need to think
of the possibilities).


3(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with
nets, lines, trawls or
other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not
include a vessel fishing
with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict
maneuverability.

It doesn't say anything about being unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel.
By definition, FISH has more maneuverability than NUC or RAM because it's
not unable
to keep out of the way.

Yes and no....take a purse seiner that's closed the loop....... he's not
going anywhere.....\


NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way

| The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
| specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
| answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
| are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
| does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
| discrepancies?

I gave you one discrepancy but you rejected it. So I proved it up
there. So now you have
to give me one point for having a valid point. But it sounds like your
looking for something
else besides NUC and RAM should have equal status in the pecking order
list.
I guess you'll have to give me a clue because I don't have a clue.....
I'm sorry but your
logic so far isn't so logical.

Cheers,
Ellen

G Your still just reading the words without any experience to back up your
assumptions.
I like the "pecking order" as a basic tool, but I also realize that the
Rules are written, knowing full well that not all situations can be
specifically handled......hence Rule 2......anyone see how much importance I
put to knowing/understanding this rule and it's implications?

otn

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

Again, comments interspersed....

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

"Jeff" wrote
| NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way
|
| totally wrong. It quite possible that a fishing boat is unable to
| keep out of the way.

How can you say totally wrong. It comes straight from the rules. I
quoted the Rules word for word.
Up there I just summarized them That's what they say. Duh! If the fishing
boat was unable to keep out
of the way it would be RAM. Try reading the three rules again. The rules
define the classification.
The activity of the boat does not. You seem to have it backwards.

Here we have absolute proof of your main problem.....you quoted the rules
word for word....you know the words but you don't know the meaning and most
importantly, the possibilities that may exist within that framework of rules
and situations.


| Your analysis is faulty. The definitions of NUC and RAM do not imply
| that they are incapable of of avoiding collisions with *all* vessels,
| only that they *may* be incapable of avoiding collisions with *some*
| vessels. On the other hand, a fishing boat may be totally incapable
| of getting out of the way of another boat, even a NUC or RAM.

Stop ignoring what the rules say. The rules classify the vessel. The
vessel doesn't make the rule. Now I
think I understand why your so confused all the time. You and otn. BBG

You need to start learning that what the rules say are not always
"absolutes".


| Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
| in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
| from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
| read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?

*Sort of valid* Is that like being a little pregnant? Either it's
valid or it's not.

Here is Rule 18 all of it or the International part at least....

-INTERNATIONAL-
Steering and Sailing Rules
RULE 18 Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise requi ( I'm putting this
in/9narrow channel, 10traffic separation, 13overtaking)
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible,
keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
(d)
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel
restricted in her ability to maneuver shall,
if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of
a vessel constrained by her draft,
exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular
caution having full regard to her special condition.
(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all
vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In
circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply
with the Rules of this Part.
(f)
(i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the
surface, keep well clear of all other vessels and
avoid impeding their navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the
Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.

Could you be trying to say lumping them all in one list isn't the right
thing to do. That making it simple with one
list makes it more confusing? Are you saying the pecking order should be
like this.

(a) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL
POWER

(b) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL

(c)NUC
RAM
FISH

(d) NUC
RAM
CBD


(e) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE

(f) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE
WIG


Now I think I see whay your getting at. Is it that one list leaves out
CBD till half way through the rule and one list doesn't?
So one big list doesn't accurately describe what the rule really says? And
none of the lists, big or small cares about the actual
order of things above the bottom vessel. I think it's starting to get past
the blonde roots. :-)

| I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
| presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

Maybe I got closer this time?

| I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
| specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

That I find hard to believe. He's a self-proclaimed expert.

I have always said, that only a FOOL will call him/herself an expert.....I
rest my case

otn

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
How can you say totally wrong. It comes straight from the rules. I quoted the Rules word for word.
Up there I just summarized them That's what they say. Duh! If the fishing boat was unable to keep out
of the way it would be RAM. Try reading the three rules again. The rules define the classification.
The activity of the boat does not. You seem to have it backwards.

keep studying.

Stop ignoring what the rules say. The rules classify the vessel. The vessel doesn't make the rule. Now I
think I understand why your so confused all the time. You and otn. BBG

not ignoring. you're reading too much in.



| Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
| in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
| from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
| read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?

*Sort of valid* Is that like being a little pregnant? Either it's valid or it's not.

I'm just agreeing with the observation that the definitions are
similar. But they aren't the pecking order rule.



Here is Rule 18 all of it or the International part at least....

stop copying the rules. I have many copies.
....
Could you be trying to say lumping them all in one list isn't the right thing to do. That making it simple with one
list makes it more confusing? Are you saying the pecking order should be like this.

(a) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL
POWER

snip other lists

Such a list maker you are. but I don't know how to interpret these.
But at least you're looking in the right place. Make one simple list.
Tell me exactly what the rule actually supports.



Now I think I see what your getting at. Is it that one list leaves out CBD till half way through the rule and one list doesn't?
So one big list doesn't accurately describe what the rule really says? And none of the lists, big or small cares about the actual
order of things above the bottom vessel. I think it's starting to get past the blonde roots. :-)

The fog is thinning a bit, but the implication is a very simple one.


| I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
| presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

Maybe I got closer this time?

You've danced around one of my issues.

The other is of a slightly different nature. It involves a
distinction that runs through the rules that is generally ignored by
casual readers.



| I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
| specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

That I find hard to believe. He's a self-proclaimed expert.

But, he didn't really know the rules.

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
...

NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the
way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of
the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of
the way

totally wrong. It quite possible that a fishing boat is
unable to
keep out of the way.


How so?

Pedantic Rules Quiz
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...

I have always said, that only a FOOL will call him/herself
an expert.....I
rest my case


I have a card that states I'm an expert. Given to me by the
AMA.

Scotty