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!