| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
Everyone better pay attention to this:
HR 2550 "Recreational Boating Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include within the meaning of the term "pollutant" any deck runoff from a recreational vessel, any engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water effluent from properly functioning recreational marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes from a recreational vessel, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel. States that this term does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel. " This seems to ban bilge pumps, water cooled engines, rinsing the deck, washing the topsides and maybe even brushing our teeth.. Notice that this applies only to recreational vessels, not to cargo ships discharging ballast water full of zebra mussels and other exotic pests. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Roger Long" wrote in message ... I had a chance to read further and, according to Boat US http://www.boatus.com/gov/HR2550FAQ.pdf the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS intended to prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that Boat US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year. Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix. -- Roger Long Finally an informed opinion. Thanks. The bottom line is the gummint can pass any old Draconian legislation they want to pass but most people will simply ignore it. Take the existing small vessel sewage laws. They cannot be meaningfully enforced. Neither can some dumb new law outlawing wash water, deck runoff etc. You might be able to enforce some of that crap with the shipping industry because they can be held accountable. There is no way you can enforce criminal penalties of a private yacht owner for something as vague as gray water. You could mandate holding tankage, you could mandate periodic pumpouts, you can mandate this sticker or that sticker but you can't make people do it. I know I won't. They can stick all their petty crap right up their arses. Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:44:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix. -- Roger Long Finally an informed opinion. Thanks. Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote. You have high expectations! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:44:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix. -- Roger Long Finally an informed opinion. Thanks. Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote. Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . . Check the Boat/US site. State control would exempt recreational boats from this farce. So many ignorant dolts around here, so little time . . . Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote. Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . . I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote. And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote: "the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS intended to prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that Boat US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year. "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a dolt? Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote. Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . . I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote. And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote: "the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS intended to prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that Boat US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year. "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a dolt? Wilbur Hubbard There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with facts. Ignatious - 1625 Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall within the group with a facility with the language. Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. As someone once wrote: He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts. I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758 .. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall within the group with a facility with the language. It is I who read the language as it is written. That a writer butchers the language and causes it to have a diametrically opposed meaning than he intended is his shortcoming, not mine. The man should have written it more competently. He should have written something like the following so people would not have to second-guess what he meant: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." But even that lacks consistency mainly due to the fact that if states ran it under federal mandate, states would have to adhere to the mandate. Chew on that one for a while Mr. Guess at What the Language Means. Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message ... Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. I had something to say while you just had to say something. Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say. You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as for me, I'd rather be precise. You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my first sentence. Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something. -- Plato Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise. |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message ... There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with facts. Ignatious - 1625 Bruce, you really are quite an erudite fellow . . . Wilbur Hubbard "A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool." --Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. Yes, I'm trying to talk Dave's language. Pointing out yet another example of lawyer elitism. They have their own precise language they think the masses can't understand. They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. But then they have the nerve to think it's kewl to interpret what lay people write while criticizing those who take the writing on it's face value. Can you say elitist snobs? Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: It is I who read the language as it is written. That a writer butchers the language and causes it to have a diametrically opposed meaning than he intended is his shortcoming, not mine. Unfortunately, comprehension of the English language is not your forte. Glad I was finally able to straighten you out on that one. That little attempt at misdirection would not serve you well in a court of law. What makes you think it's any more effective here? Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message
... On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall within the group with a facility with the language. Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. As someone once wrote: He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts. I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758 . Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) Neal has more than one small problem, apparently. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:46:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. Yes, I'm trying to talk Dave's language. Pointing out yet another example of lawyer elitism. They have their own precise language they think the masses can't understand. They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. But then they have the nerve to think it's kewl to interpret what lay people write while criticizing those who take the writing on it's face value. Can you say elitist snobs? Wilbur Hubbard Willie, I'm not a lawyer I do have some 20 years worth of studying contracts and other documents pertaining to agreements between companies and the reason that lawyers write the way that they do is not to confuse, rather it is to be so explicit that there is no possibility of confusion. A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. So, a Lawyer will set forth in the contract a complete description of exactly what a "barrel" of crude oil consists of. This, by the way is not restricted to lawyers as any competent business man will be just as careful that any agreement means exactly what it says and says only what it means. To do otherwise would be incompetent. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:23:29 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. I had something to say while you just had to say something. Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say. You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as for me, I'd rather be precise. You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my first sentence. Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something. -- Plato Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise. Willie, you have got to learn that what a law says, in many cases, is only similar to what actually happens. You read a legal document and you believe that you understand all the words. Then a case goes to court and surprise, surprise, the court interprets the law to mean something different from your understanding of it when you read it. The most common example is the second amendment to the constitution that states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. To most people that read it, it clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now tell me that you can go out and buy and keep a gun any time and any way you want. Can't! Before you understand the court's position on the 2nd amendment you need to go and read all of the various case law that has resulted from cases referring to the amendment and then perhaps you'll understand how the current government and court system will enforce the law. With a new law not yet ratified you have only the vaguest idea how it will be interpreted. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
|
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:02:45 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:11:47 +0700, wrote: A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. Bad example. The petroleum barrel has been 42 gallons since they used old herring barrels to haul crude in horse drawn wagons. It is a recognized item in the list of internationally accepted weights and measures. My calculator has it as 42 gal per bbl. By the way, a 55 gal drum holds that much so that you get 50 gal liquid capacity plus the necessary expansion space. So it's actually a round number. Casady No, good example as my company worked for just about every international oil company in Indonesia and every one of their contracts defines a "barrel" in the preamble to the contract. By the way is not 42 US gallons, it is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F at sea level. :-) Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:02:45 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:11:47 +0700, wrote: A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. Bad example. The petroleum barrel has been 42 gallons since they used old herring barrels to haul crude in horse drawn wagons. It is a recognized item in the list of internationally accepted weights and measures. My calculator has it as 42 gal per bbl. By the way, a 55 gal drum holds that much so that you get 50 gal liquid capacity plus the necessary expansion space. So it's actually a round number. Casady No, good example as my company worked for just about every international oil company in Indonesia and every one of their contracts defines a "barrel" in the preamble to the contract. By the way is not 42 US gallons, it is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F at sea level. :-) What's the temperature have to do with anything? I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say volume decreases with temperature decrease and vice versa. But does that not also hold true for the measuring container? It's the same thought process those dummies who say to loosen the standing rigging for the winter storage period because the stays and shrouds shrink with the cold. But, I suppose they think the aluminum mast doesn't also shrink? Duh! Ya gotta think outta the box, man. Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:08:32 -0400, a troll wrote:
a "barrel"... is not 42 US gallons, it is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F at sea level. :-) What's the temperature have to do with anything? I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say volume decreases with temperature decrease and vice versa. But does that not also hold true for the measuring container? It's the same thought process those dummies who say to loosen the standing rigging for the winter storage period because the stays and shrouds shrink with the cold. But, I suppose they think the aluminum mast doesn't also shrink? Duh! Ya gotta think outta the box, man. Wilbur Hubbard Oh dear, I am going to regret this: the troll's not only wrong, but ugly about it too! Gas expands in volume 950 ppm per deg C So it's important to sell by mass (which is invariant) or by volume at a set temperature. It's not a lot in a tank of gas (so much for filling up in the cold pre-dawn) but it mounts up if you sell by the million barrels. Steel and aluminum expand at different rates: the linear rates are Steel 12 ppm /degC, Aluminum 24 ppm /degC So the time to ease the stays is when leaving a boat in warming weather, if at all. A sample 50 ft mast might need two or three turns easing on each rigging screw for 30 degrees C temp rise. But more care is needed with plastic rigging. That can really change with temperature. Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:08:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:02:45 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:11:47 +0700, wrote: A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. Bad example. The petroleum barrel has been 42 gallons since they used old herring barrels to haul crude in horse drawn wagons. It is a recognized item in the list of internationally accepted weights and measures. My calculator has it as 42 gal per bbl. By the way, a 55 gal drum holds that much so that you get 50 gal liquid capacity plus the necessary expansion space. So it's actually a round number. Casady No, good example as my company worked for just about every international oil company in Indonesia and every one of their contracts defines a "barrel" in the preamble to the contract. By the way is not 42 US gallons, it is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F at sea level. :-) What's the temperature have to do with anything? I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say volume decreases with temperature decrease and vice versa. But does that not also hold true for the measuring container? It's the same thought process those dummies who say to loosen the standing rigging for the winter storage period because the stays and shrouds shrink with the cold. But, I suppose they think the aluminum mast doesn't also shrink? Duh! Ya gotta think outta the box, man. Wilbur Hubbard Willie-boy I got admire you. you are the perfect example of the old adage that, "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread". A "barrel of oil" is a standard of volume measurement used in the Oil Industry. Just like gallon or liters, and since the volume of most liquids change with temperature or pressure the temperature of the liquid and pressure the liquid it is exposed to is specified. A standard contract definition will be something like "a barrel" shall be defined as 42 US gallons at 62 degrees F, at sea level. In reference to rigging changes at different temperatures they certainly do change in length with changes in temperatures. You can look up the coefficient of expansion of aluminum and stainless on the web or in most engineering handbooks. Of course, in winter the colder temperatures will cause the spars and rigging to contract and the aluminum mast will contract more then the stainless rigging so your comments on the necessity to loosen rigging for temperature change in winter is correct. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:46:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. Er...Neal, those are generally Latin phrases, not Greek. But perhaps I'm missing something. Could you give me some examples of those Greek phrases you're blathering about? It's all Greek to me, but you're right, lawyers have Latin terms for their law crap. Nolo contendre for "I won't contend." De minimus for trifles Dura lex sed lex for the law is hard but tough ****. Ex post facto for retroactively applying a law. Amicus curiae for friend of the court. Mala fide for in bad faith In flagrante delicto - caught in the sex act. Onus probandi - the burden of proof. And one for you when you defend yourself in court - in prope persona (withut a lawyer). Bwaaahahahahahahah! Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
|
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:06:17 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:16:16 +0700, wrote: .... In reference to rigging changes at different temperatures they certainly do change in length with changes in temperatures. ... in winter the colder temperatures will cause the spars and rigging to contract and the aluminum mast will contract more then the stainless rigging so your comments on the necessity to loosen rigging for temperature change in winter is correct. Bruce in Bangkok I'd hate anyone to take a Troll's sneer at face value like that. I'm thinking of a race boat with a carbon fiber composite mast. This material can have an extremely low thermal coefficient - as low as 1 ppm /degC. Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:27:53 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:46:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. Er...Neal, those are generally Latin phrases, not Greek. But perhaps I'm missing something. Could you give me some examples of those Greek phrases you're blathering about? It's all Greek to me, but you're right, lawyers have Latin terms for their law crap. Nolo contendre for "I won't contend." De minimus for trifles Dura lex sed lex for the law is hard but tough ****. Ex post facto for retroactively applying a law. Amicus curiae for friend of the court. Mala fide for in bad faith In flagrante delicto - caught in the sex act. Onus probandi - the burden of proof. And one for you when you defend yourself in court - in prope persona (withut a lawyer). Bwaaahahahahahahah! Wilbur Hubbard As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a section describing every possible action that may be considered force majeure. But why complain about technical terms used in a specific trade? Sailors use them all the time and term anyone who doesn't understand them as "lubbers", one of your favorite terms. But talking about strange terms used in print is your term "Bwaaahahahahahahah!" intended to mimic the sound of a belch? Or breaking wind? Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said: As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a section describing every possible action that may be considered force majeure. Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception of what lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost entirely from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather pathetic attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court. Or, perhaps he had a bad experience in another venue. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
|
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:56:08 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W True, but I suspect that in practice the difference will be negligible enough that it can be ignored on "normal" boats. If you are talking all out racing boats then I suspect that some of them may slack off the rigging at the end of each race regardless of what material the mast and rigging is. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:37 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. Take a look at the pendulum of a grandfather clock. They cleverly arrange brass and steel so that the assembly has a zero temperature coefficient. If the rigging stays the same length while the aluminum mast increases in length, the rig will get tighter. Not what you want. Casady |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:37 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. Going back at least ten years a Farr 40-something, named Millennium, was using some sort of high strength synthetic for running back stays. Of course, these really only have to be low stretch but it shows a trend. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
|
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:19:03 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:37 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. Take a look at the pendulum of a grandfather clock. They cleverly arrange brass and steel so that the assembly has a zero temperature coefficient. If the rigging stays the same length while the aluminum mast increases in length, the rig will get tighter. Not what you want. Casady True, but in real life how many cruising boats have their rigging tension to the maximum. Most of them have the rig tight enough that the leeward stays aren't rattling around and that is about it. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:45:04 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:21:59 +0700, wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:37 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:15 +0700, wrote: Most rigging would shrink more in Winter (but a few would expand when chilled, wouldn'tcha know?) Brian W Well, if you are designing a high tech racing boat why not use high tech synthetic rope for rigging. some of it is stronger then stainless cable and nearly zero stretch. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) I can visualize various combinations of rig and mast , it's true. But a zero-stretch line does not always imply a zero thermal coefficient line, I don't believe. Regards Brian W There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. Going back at least ten years a Farr 40-something, named Millennium, was using some sort of high strength synthetic for running back stays. Of course, these really only have to be low stretch but it shows a trend. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) What happens if you nick it with something sharp? I could saw on my stainless shrouds with a serrated knife for an hour without the rig coming down. I see the same problem with using high tech lines for lifelines. Far too susceptible to abrasion and cutting. Its horses for courses. If you are serious about racing a keel boat and you discover that you can lay hands on some super synthetic line that is stronger then wire rope, lighter then wire rope, doesn't stretch and lasts at least one race then you'll use it and any deck ape that saws on your rigging gets tossed over the side. These people are different then your normal cruiser =;-) Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said: As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a section describing every possible action that may be considered force majeure. Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception of what lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost entirely from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather pathetic attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court. Wilbur's perspective, you dolt! And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a dismissed case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of "roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." ****ing retard! Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how many times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent enough call his bluff and make it stick. I'd have made an extraordinary lawyer but I have scruples so that occupation is not for me. Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Sep 17, 5:36 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
... There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. PBO covered with cheaper (!) carbon is available from several suppliers. It has been used for years by all of the top long distance racers with good results. In the lab it lasts longer than wire but it is very vulnerable to UV attack (hence the carbon outer layer). The expense and need to keep it perfectly covered make PBO an unlikely choice for cruising. There is a new version of Dynema that was specifically developed for standing rigging. Dynema (made under license as Spectra in the US) is great stuff and ideal for rigging except that it is subject to creep (slow, plastic elongation under continuous load). Dynema sk 78 greatly reduces creep and is as good or better than PBO on paper and it is much cheaper. It may well be the future of rigging even for cruising boats but for now wire, rod or dyeform are the only really attractive options for high load standing rigging on cruising boats. -- Tom. |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception of what lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost entirely from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather pathetic attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court. And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a dismissed case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of "roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." Q.E.D. You had a case? Coulda fooled me, boy! I suspect Neal (Wilbur) has never known a lawyer who doesn't try cases in court. One of my Nephews is a lawyer - a patent lawyer and copyright, I think. That kinda legal stuff. Wilbur Hubbard |
Hey Neal--check your socks!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: the statute the chief cited me for violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply Neal, you gotta be a bit more careful about which sock you're wearing today. The last time you told that story you were being Ellen MacArthur in .asa. So, maybe the same ignorant chief gave both of us tickets. Ellen's my main squeeze. Those idiots over in asa were so rude she just said, '**** em' and lost interest. Wilbur Hubbard |
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:32:23 -0700, "
wrote: On Sep 17, 5:36 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: ... There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's still out on how it works in the real world. PBO covered with cheaper (!) carbon is available from several suppliers. It has been used for years by all of the top long distance racers with good results. In the lab it lasts longer than wire but it is very vulnerable to UV attack (hence the carbon outer layer). The expense and need to keep it perfectly covered make PBO an unlikely choice for cruising. There is a new version of Dynema that was specifically developed for standing rigging. Dynema (made under license as Spectra in the US) is great stuff and ideal for rigging except that it is subject to creep (slow, plastic elongation under continuous load). Dynema sk 78 greatly reduces creep and is as good or better than PBO on paper and it is much cheaper. It may well be the future of rigging even for cruising boats but for now wire, rod or dyeform are the only really attractive options for high load standing rigging on cruising boats. What's wrong with galvanized? My father used it on his 20 foot schooner. It was enormously stronger than it really needed to be. Used four months a year, on fresh water, no test of longevity. Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com