wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 6, 11:56 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Robert Musgine" wrote

He should have run up the day shapes.

No, the boat was under 12 meters.

--
Roger Long

Well, I don't think that's right. If he was restricted in his ability
to maneuver then he has to put up his day shapes. Size doesn't enter
into it. Of course, I don't think he was RIBM as the rules have it.
The question of who had the right of way is hard in this case as human
powered boats aren't mentioned in COLREGS. The implication based on
their lights is that they have the rights of a sail boat, but I don't
know if that's been tested...

-- Tom.



I don't think that many rights are available if you cut off another boat,
which was what was about to happen, which in fact did happen in a limited
way. In the small amount of time at this point in the channel, there was no
opportunity to display day shapes. I've sailed there many times before with
no problems. Prior to this particular spot, we were not restricted at all,
and I'm not even sure we were restricted in the practical sense, since we
did maneauver. I think the real issue is the behavior of the kayaker,
assuming that he was the only one on the water, not looking port or
starboard.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 6, 11:56 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Robert Musgine" wrote

He should have run up the day shapes.

No, the boat was under 12 meters.

--
Roger Long

Well, I don't think that's right. If he was restricted in his ability
to maneuver then he has to put up his day shapes. Size doesn't enter
into it. Of course, I don't think he was RIBM as the rules have it.
The question of who had the right of way is hard in this case as human
powered boats aren't mentioned in COLREGS. The implication based on
their lights is that they have the rights of a sail boat, but I don't
know if that's been tested...

-- Tom.



I don't think that many rights are available if you cut off another boat,
which was what was about to happen, which in fact did happen in a limited
way. In the small amount of time at this point in the channel, there was
no opportunity to display day shapes. I've sailed there many times before
with no problems. Prior to this particular spot, we were not restricted at
all, and I'm not even sure we were restricted in the practical sense,
since we did maneauver. I think the real issue is the behavior of the
kayaker, assuming that he was the only one on the water, not looking port
or starboard.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




Didn't you know the engine was inoperable 1/2 hour before entering the
channel? Was that not enough time to prepare?

Didn't you cut off some much larger boat last year and when he beared down
upon you it was his fault? Now the situation is reversed and it is their
fault?

You claimed to be inoperable yet managed to start the engine?

You travelled at such a speed to almost run over someone in a row boat?

Why didn't you sound the horn hundreds of yards from the kayakers?

Why didn't you have proper lookout?

Why do you not hold yourself responsible in any way?

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 6, 11:56 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Robert Musgine" wrote

He should have run up the day shapes.

No, the boat was under 12 meters.

--
Roger Long

Well, I don't think that's right. If he was restricted in his ability
to maneuver then he has to put up his day shapes. Size doesn't enter
into it. Of course, I don't think he was RIBM as the rules have it.
The question of who had the right of way is hard in this case as human
powered boats aren't mentioned in COLREGS. The implication based on
their lights is that they have the rights of a sail boat, but I don't
know if that's been tested...

-- Tom.



I don't think that many rights are available if you cut off another boat,
which was what was about to happen, which in fact did happen in a limited
way. In the small amount of time at this point in the channel, there was
no opportunity to display day shapes. I've sailed there many times before
with no problems. Prior to this particular spot, we were not restricted
at all, and I'm not even sure we were restricted in the practical sense,
since we did maneauver. I think the real issue is the behavior of the
kayaker, assuming that he was the only one on the water, not looking port
or starboard.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




Didn't you know the engine was inoperable 1/2 hour before entering the
channel? Was that not enough time to prepare?

Wasn't inoperable. Just not something I wanted to do, which is what I said
if you had read the post.

Didn't you cut off some much larger boat last year and when he beared down
upon you it was his fault? Now the situation is reversed and it is their
fault..

Huh? Not sure what you're talking about...

You claimed to be inoperable yet managed to start the engine?

Never claimed that. I said engine trouble.

You travelled at such a speed to almost run over someone in a row boat?

Yeah, about 1/2 knot.

Why didn't you sound the horn hundreds of yards from the kayakers?

100s of yards? He came out of nowhere practically in front of us. We were on
the edge of the channel.

Why didn't you have proper lookout?

Duhh... otherwise I would have run him over.

Why do you not hold yourself responsible in any way?

Why are you stalking me?

I'm not going to respond to a sockpuppet beyond this post...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:32:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote this crap:


You claimed to be inoperable yet managed to start the engine?

Never claimed that. I said engine trouble.

Didn't you claim you had steam coming from the exhaust?

(You shoulda hit it with your purse.)




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Why are you stalking me?

I'm not going to respond to a sockpuppet beyond this post...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




What is your definition of stalking? Why the ad hominen attack?

Your story portays you as the victim of a powerboater, faulty engine
maintenance (not done by you) and then some kayakers. We hear of your engine
blowing steam, leaking oil, not operable, people in emminent danger and so
on. Someone simply questions the story on nautical and psychological terms
and now you paranoidinally accusing them of stalking you and acting
incognito. Now you're saying the whole thing was no emergency, nothing was
wrong, blah, blah, blah when it is suggested, in part, that most victims are
volunteers. Can you ever find fault in yourself, even if it is just a
smidgeon? Do you find it impossible to apologize? If you admit your own
weaknesses you can work on improving them. Once one reads several of your
posts they realize your attitude is "my way or the highway", that you are
never at fault and somehow the world is out to get you. Such rigid thinking
is only self fullfilling and makes your world a very unpleasant place.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:51:23 -0400, "Robert Musgine"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Why are you stalking me?

I'm not going to respond to a sockpuppet beyond this post...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




What is your definition of stalking? Why the ad hominen attack?

Your story portays you as the victim of a powerboater, faulty engine
maintenance (not done by you) and then some kayakers. We hear of your engine
blowing steam, leaking oil, not operable, people in emminent danger and so
on. Someone simply questions the story on nautical and psychological terms
and now you paranoidinally accusing them of stalking you and acting
incognito. Now you're saying the whole thing was no emergency, nothing was
wrong, blah, blah, blah when it is suggested, in part, that most victims are
volunteers. Can you ever find fault in yourself, even if it is just a
smidgeon? Do you find it impossible to apologize? If you admit your own
weaknesses you can work on improving them. Once one reads several of your
posts they realize your attitude is "my way or the highway", that you are
never at fault and somehow the world is out to get you. Such rigid thinking
is only self fullfilling and makes your world a very unpleasant place.



??????????????????????????????

Ganz had the right of way because he was under sail in a narrow
channel. He lost the right of way when he turned on the engine. Why
can't any of the people here read the ColRegs or Inland rules and
resolve the issue of right of way? It's no wonder the coastal areas
are chock full of idiots.

Take the psychobabble and put it where the sun doesn't shine buddy.
This is a sailing forum, not some wet nurse looney bin.

Axel

"Axel Merckx" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:51:23 -0400, "Robert Musgine"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Why are you stalking me?

I'm not going to respond to a sockpuppet beyond this post...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com



drivel removed

??????????????????????????????

Ganz had the right of way because he was under sail in a narrow
channel. He lost the right of way when he turned on the engine. Why
can't any of the people here read the ColRegs or Inland rules and
resolve the issue of right of way? It's no wonder the coastal areas
are chock full of idiots.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Would you like to try again? Heh...

You do not lose a right of way unless you engage the engine.

FYI, it was a nice try, and the person you've referenced is a stalker.


Take the psychobabble and put it where the sun doesn't shine buddy.
This is a sailing forum, not some wet nurse looney bin.

Axel



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:55:33 -0300, Axel Merckx
wrote:

Ganz had the right of way because he was under sail in a narrow
channel. He lost the right of way when he turned on the engine. Why
can't any of the people here read the ColRegs or Inland rules and
resolve the issue of right of way? It's no wonder the coastal areas
are chock full of idiots.

As near as I can figure, according to the Colregs, there is no such
thing as blameless in a collision. A drunk ran down a guy, here in
Iowa, from behind. The victim wasn't keeping a lookout. Happened at
night. Boat went right over the top of the victims boat, and the drive
unit hit the helmsman and killed him. The drunk went to prison.
Then there was the time the local cops hit an anchored boat, at night,
close to shore, at high speed. They killed a guy. Cops tried to claim
that the anchored boat wasn't showing the proper lights. That BS
didn't sell.

Take the psychobabble and put it where the sun doesn't shine buddy.
This is a sailing forum, not some wet nurse looney bin.

Amen.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:55:33 -0300, Axel Merckx
wrote:

Ganz had the right of way because he was under sail in a narrow
channel. He lost the right of way when he turned on the engine. Why
can't any of the people here read the ColRegs or Inland rules and
resolve the issue of right of way? It's no wonder the coastal areas
are chock full of idiots.

As near as I can figure, according to the Colregs, there is no such
thing as blameless in a collision. A drunk ran down a guy, here in
Iowa, from behind. The victim wasn't keeping a lookout. Happened at
night. Boat went right over the top of the victims boat, and the drive
unit hit the helmsman and killed him. The drunk went to prison.
Then there was the time the local cops hit an anchored boat, at night,
close to shore, at high speed. They killed a guy. Cops tried to claim
that the anchored boat wasn't showing the proper lights. That BS
didn't sell.

Take the psychobabble and put it where the sun doesn't shine buddy.
This is a sailing forum, not some wet nurse looney bin.

Amen.

Casady


There is no such thing as blameless, unless you're at anchor in a designated
anchorage and you have six nuns (all sober) on your boat as witnesses.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Nov 6, 3:21 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
... I don't think that many rights are available if you cut off another boat,
which was what was about to happen, which in fact did happen in a limited
way. In the small amount of time at this point in the channel, there was no
opportunity to display day shapes....

Probably not, and I didn't mean to criticize your actions. It sounds
to me like you managed to get through a difficult situation with no
people injured and no property harmed. Everything else is details. I
was just making some points about the COLREGS.

-- Tom.