Useful gadgets
 

On 28 Jan 2004 02:05:18 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?

I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks with
radar, as witness your statement below:

That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said:

Who said anything about "submerged"?

I did. To make a point. Rather effective, no?


You snip better than Rumsfield/Bush, "Dave." Let's review the bidding. The
uncensored version of the exchange is:

quoted
Dave wrote ...
Armond wrote ...
Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said
Dave wrote:
Armond wrote:

Any person who
regularly operates ... without radar in ...
decreased visibility (and I include ... darkness in this
category) is ... taking the position that "its up to the
other guy to avoid me."

As to darkness, nonsense. That's why vessels have running lights.

When was the last time you saw a rock with running lights ... ?

When was the last time you saw a submerged [sic] rock on radar? ...

Who said anything about "submerged"?

I did. To make a point. Rather effective, no?

/quoted


It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the effectives of this
form of logic. Good sailing to ya, "Dave."

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com

Useful gadgets
 

Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said:

Who said anything about "submerged"?

I did. To make a point. Rather effective, no?


You snip better than Rumsfield/Bush, "Dave." Let's review the bidding. The
uncensored version of the exchange is:

quoted
Dave wrote ...
Armond wrote ...
Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said
Dave wrote:
Armond wrote:

Any person who
regularly operates ... without radar in ...
decreased visibility (and I include ... darkness in this
category) is ... taking the position that "its up to the
other guy to avoid me."

As to darkness, nonsense. That's why vessels have running lights.

When was the last time you saw a rock with running lights ... ?

When was the last time you saw a submerged [sic] rock on radar? ...

Who said anything about "submerged"?

I did. To make a point. Rather effective, no?

/quoted


It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the effectives of this
form of logic. Good sailing to ya, "Dave."

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com

Useful gadgets
 

steve, no one talking here about the radar on military ships. we are talking
about the radar on recreational sailboats. go back to sleep.

then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?

I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks
with
radar, as witness your statement below:

That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

steve, no one talking here about the radar on military ships. we are talking
about the radar on recreational sailboats. go back to sleep.

then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?

I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks
with
radar, as witness your statement below:

That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:


Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.

I seriously considered the Fujinon 10X50 binocs with internal compass
but decided that I have never wanted to take a bearing on anything
with binocs so bought the ones without the compass. So, I still use
my trusty Suunto hand compass (the kind with the mirror) that has
lasted through many caving and sailing trips.

Useful gadgets
 

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:


Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.

I seriously considered the Fujinon 10X50 binocs with internal compass
but decided that I have never wanted to take a bearing on anything
with binocs so bought the ones without the compass. So, I still use
my trusty Suunto hand compass (the kind with the mirror) that has
lasted through many caving and sailing trips.

Useful gadgets
 

those who can't, teach,, and those who can't and can't teach, are Jaxz!

Useful gadgets
 

those who can't, teach,, and those who can't and can't teach, are Jaxz!

Useful gadgets
 

On 28 Jan 2004 07:07:38 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:


Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.


The Portland Plotter has a scale that permits instant conversion for
variation. We have 19 degrees east in the Gulf Islands.

The manufacturer's web site is:

http://www.blundellharling.co.uk/nav...ucts/index.asp

Jack

__________________________________________________
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
Phone: 1 (877) 470-SAIL (toll free)
__________________________________________________

Useful gadgets
 

On 28 Jan 2004 07:07:38 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:


Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.


The Portland Plotter has a scale that permits instant conversion for
variation. We have 19 degrees east in the Gulf Islands.

The manufacturer's web site is:

http://www.blundellharling.co.uk/nav...ucts/index.asp

Jack

__________________________________________________
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
Phone: 1 (877) 470-SAIL (toll free)
__________________________________________________

Useful gadgets
 

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004 02:05:18 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?


I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks with
radar, as witness your statement below:


That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

All true, but I was referring to the standard everyday radar which most
boaters will be using.
Although "sea return" normally is a pain in the butt, it can be useful.
For instance, it can be used to pick up a reef line; in the case above,
it will accent the rock which may be just below or just above the
surface; I've used it to identify a particular boat which throws a nasty
wake that can be seen on radar.
All of the above are not guaranteed and depend on conditions, but when
the conditions are right they can be useful tools.

otn

Useful gadgets
 

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004 02:05:18 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?


I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks with
radar, as witness your statement below:


That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

All true, but I was referring to the standard everyday radar which most
boaters will be using.
Although "sea return" normally is a pain in the butt, it can be useful.
For instance, it can be used to pick up a reef line; in the case above,
it will accent the rock which may be just below or just above the
surface; I've used it to identify a particular boat which throws a nasty
wake that can be seen on radar.
All of the above are not guaranteed and depend on conditions, but when
the conditions are right they can be useful tools.

otn

Useful gadgets
 

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004 02:05:18 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?


I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks
with
radar, as witness your statement below:


That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

All true, but I was referring to the standard everyday radar which most
boaters will be using.
Although "sea return" normally is a pain in the butt, it can be useful.
For instance, it can be used to pick up a reef line; in the case above,
it will accent the rock which may be just below or just above the
surface; I've used it to identify a particular boat which throws a nasty
wake that can be seen on radar.
All of the above are not guaranteed and depend on conditions, but when
the conditions are right they can be useful tools.

otn

Useful gadgets
 

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004 02:05:18 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


then how come you are such a dumb squat when it comes to radar?


I probably spend more time as
radar observer, on my week off, than you do in a year.

indeed, you didn't even know you need nearly flat water to see low rocks
with
radar, as witness your statement below:


That may have been true in the 40's and 50's. It's not true anymore.
There are all sorts of techniques modern radars use to find things like
low rocks in sea clutter, from simple ones like scan averaging and
doppler filtering to complex adaptive filters which model the sea
clutter and remove it.

Steve

All true, but I was referring to the standard everyday radar which most
boaters will be using.
Although "sea return" normally is a pain in the butt, it can be useful.
For instance, it can be used to pick up a reef line; in the case above,
it will accent the rock which may be just below or just above the
surface; I've used it to identify a particular boat which throws a nasty
wake that can be seen on radar.
All of the above are not guaranteed and depend on conditions, but when
the conditions are right they can be useful tools.

otn

Useful gadgets
 

Useful gadgets
 

Useful gadgets
 

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 09:50 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

Jax, as others have said, you need to get back on your "meds".
He was NOT talking about flat calm conditions, alone. He was discussing calm as
well as conditions where a sea is running.
As he said, you don't have enough basic knowledge or experience to understand
any of this.


besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

No one said anything about "at speed", but as to the rest, that's why one has
charts, GPS's, Radar, Fathometers, etc., coupled with the ability to use them.
Again, probably beyond your comprehension.

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 09:50 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

Jax, as others have said, you need to get back on your "meds".
He was NOT talking about flat calm conditions, alone. He was discussing calm as
well as conditions where a sea is running.
As he said, you don't have enough basic knowledge or experience to understand
any of this.


besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

No one said anything about "at speed", but as to the rest, that's why one has
charts, GPS's, Radar, Fathometers, etc., coupled with the ability to use them.
Again, probably beyond your comprehension.

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water
with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

Jax, as others have said, you need to get back on your "meds".
He was NOT talking about flat calm conditions, alone. He was discussing calm
as
well as conditions where a sea is running.
As he said, you don't have enough basic knowledge or experience to understand
any of this.


besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

No one said anything about "at speed", but as to the rest, that's why one has
charts, GPS's, Radar, Fathometers, etc., coupled with the ability to use
them.
Again, probably beyond your comprehension.

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.

bud-bud, you are talking about using radar in flat calm water, not water
with
movement. In anything but flat calm water you can even see a fiberglass
sailboat, let alone a submerged reef or rock.

Jax, as others have said, you need to get back on your "meds".
He was NOT talking about flat calm conditions, alone. He was discussing calm
as
well as conditions where a sea is running.
As he said, you don't have enough basic knowledge or experience to understand
any of this.


besides, why are you wandering around in unknown waters in a fog at speed?
dumb.

No one said anything about "at speed", but as to the rest, that's why one has
charts, GPS's, Radar, Fathometers, etc., coupled with the ability to use
them.
Again, probably beyond your comprehension.

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash) rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash) rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

Jax, You got radar on your 14 ft. Bayliner??

Useful gadgets
 

Jax, You got radar on your 14 ft. Bayliner??

Useful gadgets
 

Think about the binocs with bearing compass again.
They work both ways -
By which I mean,
you can get a bearing if you are force to actually navigate (some I do
by either force of habit of five+ decades on the water or maybe even
genetic), or
if you should be looking for something that the little box says
is at such bearing and eyes can't pull it out of the dark or haze - grab
the binocs and go to the bearing - usually - once I have found it the
first time it is easy the next.

Matt Colie A.Sloop "Bonne Ide'e"
Lifelong Waterman, Licensed Mariner and Congenital Sailor

Parallax wrote:

(Parallax) wrote in message . com...

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..

On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:



Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Oh, so that's a Portland Plotter. I actually used once when I flew on
a friends AeroStar plane in the late 80s. Useful in confined areas
for doing stuff with charts.

Thanks (the best gadget yet, simple and effective)

Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.

I seriously considered the Fujinon 10X50 binocs with internal compass
but decided that I have never wanted to take a bearing on anything
with binocs so bought the ones without the compass. So, I still use
my trusty Suunto hand compass (the kind with the mirror) that has
lasted through many caving and sailing trips.

Useful gadgets
 

Think about the binocs with bearing compass again.
They work both ways -
By which I mean,
you can get a bearing if you are force to actually navigate (some I do
by either force of habit of five+ decades on the water or maybe even
genetic), or
if you should be looking for something that the little box says
is at such bearing and eyes can't pull it out of the dark or haze - grab
the binocs and go to the bearing - usually - once I have found it the
first time it is easy the next.

Matt Colie A.Sloop "Bonne Ide'e"
Lifelong Waterman, Licensed Mariner and Congenital Sailor

Parallax wrote:

(Parallax) wrote in message . com...

Jack Dale wrote in message . ..

On 24 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800, (Parallax)
wrote:



Any other useful things?

Portland Plotter - after one of my coastal navigation students showed
me one I put away the parallel rules. I still like a Douglas
protractor, but I use the parallel rules as an antique. The Plotter
is my mainstay.

After I demonstrate all 3, almost all of my students opt for the
Portland Plotter.

Jack


Oh, so that's a Portland Plotter. I actually used once when I flew on
a friends AeroStar plane in the late 80s. Useful in confined areas
for doing stuff with charts.

Thanks (the best gadget yet, simple and effective)

Portland Plotter? I'll do a search on it.

I hate the parallel rules because they are hard to use with the chart
spread on a pitching cabin floor. Instead I use my hand bearing
compass mounted to aplastic square I can align with north and
perpendicular to the edge of the chart. I have a protractor mounted
to it so I can rotate it about the compass axis. Works for me.
Around here, in most cases, i can ignore the difference between
magnetic north and true north.

I seriously considered the Fujinon 10X50 binocs with internal compass
but decided that I have never wanted to take a bearing on anything
with binocs so bought the ones without the compass. So, I still use
my trusty Suunto hand compass (the kind with the mirror) that has
lasted through many caving and sailing trips.

Useful gadgets
 

the Mk I Eyeball on my Sunfish, the classic model without the sissy footwell.

Jax, You got radar on your 14 ft. Bayliner??

Useful gadgets
 

the Mk I Eyeball on my Sunfish, the classic model without the sissy footwell.

Jax, You got radar on your 14 ft. Bayliner??

Useful gadgets
 

shun, you are babbling. Go back and reread the posts. Like Ragu, it's in
there.

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash) rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond
you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

shun, you are babbling. Go back and reread the posts. Like Ragu, it's in
there.

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash) rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond
you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

On 28 Jan 2004 13:30:25 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

steve, no one talking here about the radar on military ships. we are talking
about the radar on recreational sailboats. go back to sleep.

I'm not talking about military ships either. Scan averaging and/or
doppler filtering is commercially available in many units. The military
uses much more complex methods. Wake up!

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

On 28 Jan 2004 13:30:25 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

steve, no one talking here about the radar on military ships. we are talking
about the radar on recreational sailboats. go back to sleep.

I'm not talking about military ships either. Scan averaging and/or
doppler filtering is commercially available in many units. The military
uses much more complex methods. Wake up!

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

schleck, we are talking about radar for recreational sailboats NOT that which
is "commercially available" (your term" for cargo ships.

go back to sleep.

I'm not talking about military ships either. Scan averaging and/or
doppler filtering is commercially available in many units. The military
uses much more complex methods. Wake up!

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

schleck, we are talking about radar for recreational sailboats NOT that which
is "commercially available" (your term" for cargo ships.

go back to sleep.

I'm not talking about military ships either. Scan averaging and/or
doppler filtering is commercially available in many units. The military
uses much more complex methods. Wake up!

Steve

Useful gadgets
 

ject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 14:59 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

shun, you are babbling. Go back and reread the posts. Like Ragu, it's in
there.

That pretty well sums it up. You don't know what he said, don't understand what
he said, and obviously know nothing about radar observing.
BTW, he was not talking about flat calm seas and was talking about radar you
would have on a recreational boat, as was Steve.
The only one babbling here is you, but, that's all you've ever done or will do,
in these groups.

Shen

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash)
rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond
you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

ject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 14:59 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

shun, you are babbling. Go back and reread the posts. Like Ragu, it's in
there.

That pretty well sums it up. You don't know what he said, don't understand what
he said, and obviously know nothing about radar observing.
BTW, he was not talking about flat calm seas and was talking about radar you
would have on a recreational boat, as was Steve.
The only one babbling here is you, but, that's all you've ever done or will do,
in these groups.

Shen

Subject: Useful gadgets
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 01/28/2004 11:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

hey shun, he only *thinks* he is talking about water with seas, but he is
not.
He is, in fact, talking about flat water. That he is ignorant of that fact
in
no way changes that fact.

go back to sleep, shun.


LOL Which is it, you don't know enough about or have used radar enough to
understand how one might see a reef line or a low lying (or even awash)
rock,
on radar with a sea running? Or are you assuming that since it's beyond
you're
limited knowledge, it's impossible and can't be happening?

Shen

Useful gadgets
 

it amazes me Jax can type so well using only one hand!

Useful gadgets
 

it amazes me Jax can type so well using only one hand!

Useful gadgets
 

Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said:
Dave wrote ...
Armond wrote ...
Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said
Dave wrote:
Armond wrote:

Any person who regularly operates ... without radar in ...
decreased visibility (and I include ... darkness in this
category) is ... taking the position that "its up to the
other guy to avoid me."

As to darkness, nonsense. That's why vessels have running
lights.

When was the last time you saw a rock with running lights ... ?

When was the last time you saw a submerged [sic] rock on radar?

Who said anything about "submerged"?

I did. To make a point. Rather effective, no?

It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the
effectives of this form of logic ...

[All but Kerry can safely ignore the following, as I'm sure you
understood it the first time around.] For Kerry here's the Dick and
Jane version.

Monosyllabic words do not strengthen a fallacious argument, "Dave," but your
ad hominem attack style is quite good. At least a B+ (an A- had you
correctly identified the individual under attack).

BTW, how did you get "x no archive" disguised in the header? Clever.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/