LOL- Pity you never used it.......

JAXAshby wrote:

was also born with a three digit IQ.

From: Graeme Cook

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you in fact ignored -- or were utterly ignorant of -- the issue. a
non-citizen can NOT be the primary operator of a documented vessel, because to
be so clearly makes of sham of any claim of non-ownership of the vessel.

Are you actually claiming that the operator of a vessel is the same as the owner
of a vessel??? You're trying to backpedal out of this by shifting the meaning
of "operator" from the person in command to the actual owner. But in various
previous posts you were quite explicit in your claim that a citizen must be on
board and in command at all times:

"US documentation has been lost on recreational vessels found to being operating
by a non-citizen with not citizens onboard and in command."

"wanna hand your documented vessel over to a non-citizen for a couple
hours off a CG station? Let me know ahead of time and I will arrange a
welcoming committee."

As I've shown, it is perfectly legal for a vessel with only a recreational
endorsement to be loaned or chartered to a non-citizen. I've shown the actual
law, and some commentary on it from a major insurance company. All you've shown
is a CG site that never addresses the issue of who can or cannot be in command.

I gave you the link to the US Code, feel free to search it for anything that
supports you position. What you'll find is a lot of law that puts restrictions
on commercial vessels, especially fishing vessels. But recreational vessels are
specifically excluded.

Remember, this discussion has nothing to do with the original poster; it is
entirely about your false claim that a citizen must be onboard and in command at
all times.








That is why I pushed you to come up with the complete code, and you were not
able to do so. In the end, I produced the information. Even now, I doubt you
understand what it says, as witness your dumb cluck statement below.

note, box of rocks, the use of the term primary. ask your wife to explain it
to you.

From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/3/2004 11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I don't write them! I tried to put it in simple English, but jaxie insisted
on
the exact paragraph in the law. The thought the Boat/US magazine article was
pretty clear.



"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:52:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


The current law, one more time:

Title 46
Section 12110. Limitations on operations authorized by certificates
...
(c) A vessel with only a recreational endorsement may not be
operated other than for pleasure.
(d) A documented vessel, other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement, may be placed under the command only of a
citizen of the United States.

Under the new law, which passed the House last week, this will be Section
12131,
with the wording:
A documented vessel (other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement) may be placed under the command
only of a citizen of the United States.

Jeff:
Some folks have difficulties with double negatives and legalese.
How about easing the burden with a translation of
Title 46, Sec 12110 para d) - something like this for example:
" A documented vessel with only a recreational endorsement may be
placed under the command of a non-citizen of the United States."

Brian W

Jeff,

You need to realize that you're driving this argument into the ground. I
believe that the only person that is taking any exception to this is
JAXhole. Just ignore him.

Better yet, place him into your kill file. You won't see any more posts
from him. Unfortunately people will quote him in their replies, but hey,
what can you do? I've kill filed him and haven't found the news group any
less useful. As a matter of a fact, it's better.

JAXhole has no concept of normal social dialog. His standard method of
discourse is to demean people over and over. No one needs that.
Unfortunately he's one of the breed of anonymous Internet posters who acts
this way. I googled the new groups and found that he's had over 2,200
posts in the last 6 months into sailing new groups. You can't have much of
a social or cruising life if you're spending that much time posting. Then
again, if his face to face interactions are as rude as his postings, who
would want to be around him?

So do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. Kill file him and end this
useless fight. You clearly have fact on your side.

-- Geoff

Geoff,
I generally ignore jaxie, but there are times when his misinformation does a
true disservice to the boating community. For instance, any lurker might
believe, or pass on, his false claim that citizen must always be onboard a
documented vessel. In fact, that was true a decade ago, so the claim has a
"ring of truth" to it. However, the law has been long changed. Anyone who
feels that this issue may be important to them, should check with the CG to
verify my claim.

While I agree with your assessment of jaxie, at least he mainly discusses
boating issues, so he's a big step above the idiots who flood other boating
forums with political nonsense.






"Geoffrey W. Schultz" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff,

You need to realize that you're driving this argument into the ground. I
believe that the only person that is taking any exception to this is
JAXhole. Just ignore him.

Better yet, place him into your kill file. You won't see any more posts
from him. Unfortunately people will quote him in their replies, but hey,
what can you do? I've kill filed him and haven't found the news group any
less useful. As a matter of a fact, it's better.

JAXhole has no concept of normal social dialog. His standard method of
discourse is to demean people over and over. No one needs that.
Unfortunately he's one of the breed of anonymous Internet posters who acts
this way. I googled the new groups and found that he's had over 2,200
posts in the last 6 months into sailing new groups. You can't have much of
a social or cruising life if you're spending that much time posting. Then
again, if his face to face interactions are as rude as his postings, who
would want to be around him?

So do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. Kill file him and end this
useless fight. You clearly have fact on your side.

-- Geoff

Geoffrey W. Schultz wrote:
Jeff,
Better yet, place him into your kill file. You won't see any more
posts from him. Unfortunately people will quote him in their
replies, but hey, what can you do? I've kill filed him and haven't
found the news group any less useful. As a matter of a fact, it's
better.

Amen, I did that as soon as I saw where the rant was going and the language
being used.

JAXhole has no concept of normal social dialog. His standard method
of discourse is to demean people over and over.

I noticed that, with much surprise as a newbie here. I am amazed how Jeff
can be as civil as he is with such gratuitous invective directed at him.

I'm sorry I even contributed and perhaps encouraged the direction of the
thread.

Regards,

BrianH

jeffies, this discussion was about a non-citizen operating a documented vesse.
operation of a vessel exclusively or nearly exclusively be a single non-citizen
or a single group of closely associated non-citizens clearly is a violation and
the boat will be sieze if caught.

you, jeffies -- trying against all hope to stop the memories of all those girls
in high school laughing at your stupidity -- are looking for a way out of the
discussion exception. jeffies, those girls who laughed at you can't even
remember your name, and wouldn't care in the slightest if someone told them.

jeffies, you have to intrinsic value to society. get used to it.



"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/4/2004 9:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you in fact ignored -- or were utterly ignorant of -- the issue.
a
non-citizen can NOT be the primary operator of a documented vessel, because
to
be so clearly makes of sham of any claim of non-ownership of the vessel.

Are you actually claiming that the operator of a vessel is the same as the
owner
of a vessel??? You're trying to backpedal out of this by shifting the
meaning
of "operator" from the person in command to the actual owner. But in various
previous posts you were quite explicit in your claim that a citizen must be
on
board and in command at all times:

"US documentation has been lost on recreational vessels found to being
operating
by a non-citizen with not citizens onboard and in command."

"wanna hand your documented vessel over to a non-citizen for a couple
hours off a CG station? Let me know ahead of time and I will arrange a
welcoming committee."

As I've shown, it is perfectly legal for a vessel with only a recreational
endorsement to be loaned or chartered to a non-citizen. I've shown the
actual
law, and some commentary on it from a major insurance company. All you've
shown
is a CG site that never addresses the issue of who can or cannot be in
command.

I gave you the link to the US Code, feel free to search it for anything that
supports you position. What you'll find is a lot of law that puts
restrictions
on commercial vessels, especially fishing vessels. But recreational vessels
are
specifically excluded.

Remember, this discussion has nothing to do with the original poster; it is
entirely about your false claim that a citizen must be onboard and in command
at
all times.








That is why I pushed you to come up with the complete code, and you were
not
able to do so. In the end, I produced the information. Even now, I doubt
you
understand what it says, as witness your dumb cluck statement below.

note, box of rocks, the use of the term primary. ask your wife to explain
it
to you.

From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/3/2004 11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I don't write them! I tried to put it in simple English, but jaxie
insisted
on
the exact paragraph in the law. The thought the Boat/US magazine article
was
pretty clear.



"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:52:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


The current law, one more time:

Title 46
Section 12110. Limitations on operations authorized by certificates
...
(c) A vessel with only a recreational endorsement may not be
operated other than for pleasure.
(d) A documented vessel, other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement, may be placed under the command only of a
citizen of the United States.

Under the new law, which passed the House last week, this will be
Section
12131,
with the wording:
A documented vessel (other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement) may be placed under the command
only of a citizen of the United States.

Jeff:
Some folks have difficulties with double negatives and legalese.
How about easing the burden with a translation of
Title 46, Sec 12110 para d) - something like this for example:
" A documented vessel with only a recreational endorsement may be
placed under the command of a non-citizen of the United States."

Brian W

As I said in my first post, your claim the non-citizens could not legally
circumvent the law with some ownership fiction was correct. The discussion
since that point has been about the case where the ownership is properly
established, but a non-citizen is in command. On that topic, you were dead
wrong; you're admitting as much with your backpedaling.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, this discussion was about a non-citizen operating a documented vesse.
operation of a vessel exclusively or nearly exclusively be a single
non-citizen
or a single group of closely associated non-citizens clearly is a violation
and
the boat will be sieze if caught.

you, jeffies -- trying against all hope to stop the memories of all those
girls
in high school laughing at your stupidity -- are looking for a way out of the
discussion exception. jeffies, those girls who laughed at you can't even
remember your name, and wouldn't care in the slightest if someone told them.

jeffies, you have to intrinsic value to society. get used to it.



"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/4/2004 9:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you in fact ignored -- or were utterly ignorant of -- the issue.
a
non-citizen can NOT be the primary operator of a documented vessel, because
to
be so clearly makes of sham of any claim of non-ownership of the vessel.

Are you actually claiming that the operator of a vessel is the same as the
owner
of a vessel??? You're trying to backpedal out of this by shifting the
meaning
of "operator" from the person in command to the actual owner. But in various
previous posts you were quite explicit in your claim that a citizen must be
on
board and in command at all times:

"US documentation has been lost on recreational vessels found to being
operating
by a non-citizen with not citizens onboard and in command."

"wanna hand your documented vessel over to a non-citizen for a couple
hours off a CG station? Let me know ahead of time and I will arrange a
welcoming committee."

As I've shown, it is perfectly legal for a vessel with only a recreational
endorsement to be loaned or chartered to a non-citizen. I've shown the
actual
law, and some commentary on it from a major insurance company. All you've
shown
is a CG site that never addresses the issue of who can or cannot be in
command.

I gave you the link to the US Code, feel free to search it for anything that
supports you position. What you'll find is a lot of law that puts
restrictions
on commercial vessels, especially fishing vessels. But recreational vessels
are
specifically excluded.

Remember, this discussion has nothing to do with the original poster; it is
entirely about your false claim that a citizen must be onboard and in command
at
all times.








That is why I pushed you to come up with the complete code, and you were
not
able to do so. In the end, I produced the information. Even now, I doubt
you
understand what it says, as witness your dumb cluck statement below.

note, box of rocks, the use of the term primary. ask your wife to explain
it
to you.

From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/3/2004 11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I don't write them! I tried to put it in simple English, but jaxie
insisted
on
the exact paragraph in the law. The thought the Boat/US magazine article
was
pretty clear.



"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:52:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


The current law, one more time:

Title 46
Section 12110. Limitations on operations authorized by certificates
...
(c) A vessel with only a recreational endorsement may not be
operated other than for pleasure.
(d) A documented vessel, other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement, may be placed under the command only of a
citizen of the United States.

Under the new law, which passed the House last week, this will be
Section
12131,
with the wording:
A documented vessel (other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement) may be placed under the command
only of a citizen of the United States.

Jeff:
Some folks have difficulties with double negatives and legalese.
How about easing the burden with a translation of
Title 46, Sec 12110 para d) - something like this for example:
" A documented vessel with only a recreational endorsement may be
placed under the command of a non-citizen of the United States."

Brian W

"BrianH" wrote in message ...
Geoffrey W. Schultz wrote:
Jeff,
Better yet, place him into your kill file. You won't see any more
posts from him. Unfortunately people will quote him in their
replies, but hey, what can you do? I've kill filed him and haven't
found the news group any less useful. As a matter of a fact, it's
better.

Amen, I did that as soon as I saw where the rant was going and the language
being used.

JAXhole has no concept of normal social dialog. His standard method
of discourse is to demean people over and over.

I noticed that, with much surprise as a newbie here. I am amazed how Jeff
can be as civil as he is with such gratuitous invective directed at him.

We've learned to ignore that side of jaxie; he has Tourette's Syndrome.

As I've said, I wouldn't have bothered to stay this far if there had not been an
important legal issue here.


I'm sorry I even contributed and perhaps encouraged the direction of the
thread.

Actually, this was interesting - One point that surprised me was that the law
allowing non-citizens to be in command was changed less than 10 years ago.
Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal for a Canadian to do a
bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from Hinckley.

Jeff Morris wrote:
"BrianH" wrote in message
...
Geoffrey W. Schultz wrote:
Jeff,
Better yet, place him into your kill file.
. I am amazed how Jeff
can be as civil as he is with such gratuitous invective directed at
him.

We've learned to ignore that side of jaxie; he has Tourette's
Syndrome.

I had to look that one up ....
"Behavioral and Developmental - Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
obsessions and compulsions, emotional lability, irritability, impulsivity,
aggressivity, and self-injurious behaviors; varied learning disabilities. "
Ah, well, okay - even so, it's not necessary to see such vitriolic rudeness
and blind refusal to accept another's point of view with wild, irrelevant
ramblings - ergo plonk.

I'm sorry I even contributed and perhaps encouraged the direction of
the thread.

Actually, this was interesting - One point that surprised me was that
the law allowing non-citizens to be in command was changed less than
10 years ago. Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal
for a Canadian to do a bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from
Hinckley.

To belabor a point, probably the Slovenes have registered but not documented
their craft and that is enough for the authorities in Ljubljana to accept -
perhaps not knowing of the subtle double procedure. How else could someone
have a US flagged ship for $100 (if my informant was honest about his
transaction)? That then begs the question of their true status when cruising
into other nations' waters.

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished. Perhaps it circumvented the
letter of the law but the spirit is clearly violated in some shady way and
they do not want to advertise it.

Best, BrianH.

jeffies, until five days after this discussion started you were still claiming
that properly ducumented vessels could be operated by a non-citizen under any
circumstance and under all condition. this is not true. a *casual* non-citizen
user can under *some* conditions. Even then, jeffies, you could not produce
the specifics, except by a suspect reference in a single BoatsUS mag article,
said article missing a major portion of the law. if I had not done the work
you claimed to have done, you would STILL be arguing that ANY duc vessel can be
used by ANY non-citizen under ANY and ALL conditions, as you were up to that
point arguing.

All, jeffies, because you hear those little girls voices laughing from high
school days.

"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/5/2004 12:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

As I said in my first post, your claim the non-citizens could not legally
circumvent the law with some ownership fiction was correct. The discussion
since that point has been about the case where the ownership is properly
established, but a non-citizen is in command. On that topic, you were dead
wrong; you're admitting as much with your backpedaling.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, this discussion was about a non-citizen operating a documented
vesse.
operation of a vessel exclusively or nearly exclusively be a single
non-citizen
or a single group of closely associated non-citizens clearly is a violation
and
the boat will be sieze if caught.

you, jeffies -- trying against all hope to stop the memories of all those
girls
in high school laughing at your stupidity -- are looking for a way out of
the
discussion exception. jeffies, those girls who laughed at you can't even
remember your name, and wouldn't care in the slightest if someone told
them.

jeffies, you have to intrinsic value to society. get used to it.



"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/4/2004 9:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you in fact ignored -- or were utterly ignorant of -- the
issue.
a
non-citizen can NOT be the primary operator of a documented vessel,
because
to
be so clearly makes of sham of any claim of non-ownership of the vessel.

Are you actually claiming that the operator of a vessel is the same as the
owner
of a vessel??? You're trying to backpedal out of this by shifting the
meaning
of "operator" from the person in command to the actual owner. But in
various
previous posts you were quite explicit in your claim that a citizen must
be
on
board and in command at all times:

"US documentation has been lost on recreational vessels found to being
operating
by a non-citizen with not citizens onboard and in command."

"wanna hand your documented vessel over to a non-citizen for a couple
hours off a CG station? Let me know ahead of time and I will arrange a
welcoming committee."

As I've shown, it is perfectly legal for a vessel with only a recreational
endorsement to be loaned or chartered to a non-citizen. I've shown the
actual
law, and some commentary on it from a major insurance company. All you've
shown
is a CG site that never addresses the issue of who can or cannot be in
command.

I gave you the link to the US Code, feel free to search it for anything
that
supports you position. What you'll find is a lot of law that puts
restrictions
on commercial vessels, especially fishing vessels. But recreational
vessels
are
specifically excluded.

Remember, this discussion has nothing to do with the original poster; it
is
entirely about your false claim that a citizen must be onboard and in
command
at
all times.








That is why I pushed you to come up with the complete code, and you were
not
able to do so. In the end, I produced the information. Even now, I
doubt
you
understand what it says, as witness your dumb cluck statement below.

note, box of rocks, the use of the term primary. ask your wife to
explain
it
to you.

From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/3/2004 11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I don't write them! I tried to put it in simple English, but jaxie
insisted
on
the exact paragraph in the law. The thought the Boat/US magazine
article
was
pretty clear.



"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:52:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


The current law, one more time:

Title 46
Section 12110. Limitations on operations authorized by certificates
...
(c) A vessel with only a recreational endorsement may not be
operated other than for pleasure.
(d) A documented vessel, other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement, may be placed under the command only
of a
citizen of the United States.

Under the new law, which passed the House last week, this will be
Section
12131,
with the wording:
A documented vessel (other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement) may be placed under the command
only of a citizen of the United States.

Jeff:
Some folks have difficulties with double negatives and legalese.
How about easing the burden with a translation of
Title 46, Sec 12110 para d) - something like this for example:
" A documented vessel with only a recreational endorsement may be
placed under the command of a non-citizen of the United States."

Brian W