|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On Jun 25, 10:58*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message .. . On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message . .. On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message news:b2k226926nbtfsn40dkefkrjm2ge1357 ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...capsized..html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. *Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Polly want a cracker? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On Jun 25, 2:56*pm, "mmc" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jun 24, 8:19 am, I am Tosk wrote: In article d7d0cc54-b70c-4ae3-97cc- , says... On Jun 23, 8:06 pm, "mmc" wrote: "I am Tosk" wrote in l-september.org.... In article 1660a4fc-2c0c-46bd-a669-a72a65d5d112 @b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says... On Jun 22, 10:34 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400, W1TEF wrote: Even more so... "None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at time of accident." Sad. It is sad, and it's really not clear exactly how it could have been avoided other than greater vigilance/keeping out of the way. I have to admit that I'm not much into wearing life jackets either except under the most extreme circumstances, and it's not really clear that wearing a life jacket will save you from being run over by 8 barges and a tug. Probably not is my guess but you never know. They probably became distracted by their fishing and didn't notice the barges until too late, or perhaps their engine failed to start at the critical juncture, or maybe they had an anchor own and couldn't get it up, etc. There are lots of possibilities I suppose but it does drive home the danger associated with small recreational boats mixing in with large commercial traffic. One has to wonder if the tug operator suffers from the same malady that many of the 18 wheeler drivers do. The "I'm a 'professional' driver, and these mere regular people in their cars and trucks need to get out of my way" attitude. Rules of navigation notwithstanding, it's on his conscience now. Must be a local thing... Most truckdrivers here are pretty good on the road. They hate to crash, slows them down plenty.. -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! I drove some for a couple jobs I had and after experiencing enough idiots cutting in front of me and hearing about truckers dying or ending up seriously injured rather than running (literally) over a "4 wheeler" I took the attitude that if a driver was stupid enough to make it a him/her or me situation it was going to be him/her. Are you one of those truckers who will run up behind a "4 wheeler" and sit there, tailgating, a foot or two off their bumper, knowing that you don't have a prayer of stopping if traffic slows suddenly? Or one of those who switches into the left passing lane going downhill, knowing full well an uphill is just a few hundred feet ahead, and now you'll just become a moving roadblock, running beside your brethren trucker in the right lane, for the next 5 miles, unwilling to speed up to get by and move back over? Or the trucker that pulls out into a two lane road with traffic approching, knowing it will take you a mile or two of struggling just to barely approach the speed limit, all the while with traffic backing up behind you? And then you wonder why people seemingly cut in front of you? It's because of many trucker's bad driving behavior and general lack of driving courtesy. Besides, if you guys were such great drivers, we wouldn't have to shut down the interstate on a nearly weekly basis because some dumb trucker has spilled his load on one of the off- ramps... you know, the ones that are clearly marked with a sharp turn sign and a low speed limit. I believe that 18 wheelers should be limited to interstates only, and have to off-load their cargo to smaller trucks within a mile or two of the interstate. That would eliminate the severe damage they inflict on the secondary roads, and the havoc they inflict on traffic. If they spill their load, they personally pay for the cleanup. Cause an accident, lose your commercial license *forever*. I do appreciate them hauling our cargo. Just don't act like an asshole and try to kill us while doing it! Wow, you must live in some weird bizarro world! Truckers here are pretty good, it's the "4 wheelers" who do everything you just said, rarely truckers... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! You have 4 wheelers spilling their loads on off-ramps? Seriously, we have two "major" ports, Savannah and Charleston, that puts lots of trucker traffic on the roads around here. *And while there are certainly plenty of cars that exhibit some of the same behavior, I can get around or avoid a car much easier than an 80 foot long truck. *An idiot in a 40 ton truck is *far* more dangerous than in a 2 ton car. Besides, mmc gave us a peek into a trucker's mind... he said he developed an attitude that instead of trying to avoid an accident he would just plow right through us in his truck. *Nice, huh? -------- Actually, what I said, or meant to say was that I wasn't going to die by driving into a bridge abutment, tree line, whatever because someone else made a stupid mistake. I'd do anything I could short of the above to avoid making contact with another vehicle, including running off the road or tipping the truck. I think I'm as important as the dumbass on the cell phone, reading the paper, drunk or whatever on his commute. I'm not all truckers. I only speak for myself Jack. Just realize that truck drivers also talk on their cell phones while driving their 40 ton vehicles down the road, with the same results as the 4 wheelers who do the same. I've observed it. The actions you want to place on the 4 wheeler drives are also done by the 18 wheeler divers... with much bigger consequences. There is no difference in the actions of the drivers, except for the real world results incurred by them. The 18 wheeler drivers are supposed to be "professionals". I just want them to act like it, and to be held to that standard. Now, a bus full of politicians or lawyers and all bets are off! OK. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable waterways and shipping lanes? Steve Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of right of way questions. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front of a 1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have a great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they have the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden Gate Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a year or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not under power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs as he is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises. It might brighten your attitude. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/26/10 9:11 AM, Harry? wrote:
In , says... wrote in message ... In , says... wrote in message ... In , says... wrote in message ... In , says... wrote in message m... On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Even more so... "None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at time of accident." Sad. It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call. It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator might have missed seeing them. According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges. What size barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge operator could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the small boat, it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even changed the direction of that train of barges significantly. Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to post a forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge. Good point... or maybe they should be restricted in how many barges they can push in a confined space. We have a bit of a similar controversy up here on 'road trains'... that is 18 wheelers pulling two trailers, rather than one. Lots of safety concerns from the public. How is a two trailer truck rig similar to a tug pushing barges, little buddy? Kevin.. keep quiet. The men are discussing an important safety concern. If we get around to preventing broken arms in pre-teens, we'll advise you. First of all, WTF is Kevin? I'm Harry, the best at everything. I have everything, I know everything. I'm refined and cultured. I would never stoop so low as to call people silly names. With that said, why not answer the question if you are so concerned about safety? For the 27th time (man, you are slow off the start) Kevin Noble of Snellville Ga (reputed to be 54 years old) is the short tempered, cocky engineering technician who has such a poor reputation (something to do with broken arms) that he feels the need to steal the ids of decent posters. He also fancies himself as a bit of a badass...an adult version of the Karate Kid. Thanks for the information little buddy! I am curious, though, how you know so much about this guy. Did he really break someone's arms??? Ask him! I don't know who you are talking about, little buddy! Sure you do, loogy-flajim-asshole-whatever. You know, loogy, the dumb little cowardly twerp whose alleged daughter suffered two broken arms under strange circumstances...the fellow who lied about the sheriff, a lawyer, and a trip north. Just look in the mirror. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 25/06/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable waterways and shipping lanes? Steve Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of right of way questions. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front of a 1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have a great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they have the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden Gate Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a year or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not under power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs as he is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out. http://www.boatus.com/foundation/gui...igation_1.html -- We all work for government, they ceased working for us a long time ago. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... In article , says... On 6/25/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote: Either way, I live and work, and drive just outside NYC and NJersey, drove a truck down in the city for a while and drive over 50,000 miles a year You do not live and work "just outside" New York City and New Jersey. You live in eastern Connecticut, close to Rhode Island, and you do not work. You are a freaking expert on everything and everyone aren't you? Harry is an idiot. First off, I work every day and have challenged the asshole several times to prove he works because I can... You can see my work on line 24/7... Oh, and the asshole doesn't know ****. I don't live in "Eastern CT", in fact I live just about dead center of the State. Harry spends everyday, 24/7 here insulting and cowering under his desk, he has never ever shown us any evidence at all he does anything but live on the stolen retirement funds of the Uuilco elderly he ****ed out of their money and the pension, hard working blue collar guys earned for him... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/26/10 10:20 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In om, says... In , says... On 6/25/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote: Either way, I live and work, and drive just outside NYC and NJersey, drove a truck down in the city for a while and drive over 50,000 miles a year You do not live and work "just outside" New York City and New Jersey. You live in eastern Connecticut, close to Rhode Island, and you do not work. You are a freaking expert on everything and everyone aren't you? Harry is an idiot. First off, I work every day and have challenged the asshole several times to prove he works because I can... You can see my work on line 24/7... Oh, and the asshole doesn't know ****. I don't live in "Eastern CT", in fact I live just about dead center of the State. Harry spends everyday, 24/7 here insulting and cowering under his desk, he has never ever shown us any evidence at all he does anything but live on the stolen retirement funds of the Uuilco elderly he ****ed out of their money and the pension, hard working blue collar guys earned for him... 1. You don't work. 2. If you live in the center of Connecticut, you are not "just outside New York City and New Jersey." Middletown is about in the center of Connecticut. It is about 110 miles from Middletown to New York City, and New Jersey is farther. 110 miles is not "just outside," period. 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no more virtuous than anyone else. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion? http://labornotes.org/node/1029 Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about their members. It is all about money, power and influence. http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc "Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit 180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while their company and its pension funds were left in the cold." http://laborpains.org/2008/04/ "Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five- year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s corruption." |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/26/10 11:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. No, you don't. BTW...got boat? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jun 25, 2:56 pm, "mmc" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jun 24, 8:19 am, I am Tosk wrote: In article d7d0cc54-b70c-4ae3-97cc- , says... On Jun 23, 8:06 pm, "mmc" wrote: "I am Tosk" wrote in l-september.org... In article 1660a4fc-2c0c-46bd-a669-a72a65d5d112 @b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says... On Jun 22, 10:34 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400, W1TEF wrote: Even more so... "None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at time of accident." Sad. It is sad, and it's really not clear exactly how it could have been avoided other than greater vigilance/keeping out of the way. I have to admit that I'm not much into wearing life jackets either except under the most extreme circumstances, and it's not really clear that wearing a life jacket will save you from being run over by 8 barges and a tug. Probably not is my guess but you never know. They probably became distracted by their fishing and didn't notice the barges until too late, or perhaps their engine failed to start at the critical juncture, or maybe they had an anchor own and couldn't get it up, etc. There are lots of possibilities I suppose but it does drive home the danger associated with small recreational boats mixing in with large commercial traffic. One has to wonder if the tug operator suffers from the same malady that many of the 18 wheeler drivers do. The "I'm a 'professional' driver, and these mere regular people in their cars and trucks need to get out of my way" attitude. Rules of navigation notwithstanding, it's on his conscience now. Must be a local thing... Most truckdrivers here are pretty good on the road. They hate to crash, slows them down plenty.. -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! I drove some for a couple jobs I had and after experiencing enough idiots cutting in front of me and hearing about truckers dying or ending up seriously injured rather than running (literally) over a "4 wheeler" I took the attitude that if a driver was stupid enough to make it a him/her or me situation it was going to be him/her. Are you one of those truckers who will run up behind a "4 wheeler" and sit there, tailgating, a foot or two off their bumper, knowing that you don't have a prayer of stopping if traffic slows suddenly? Or one of those who switches into the left passing lane going downhill, knowing full well an uphill is just a few hundred feet ahead, and now you'll just become a moving roadblock, running beside your brethren trucker in the right lane, for the next 5 miles, unwilling to speed up to get by and move back over? Or the trucker that pulls out into a two lane road with traffic approching, knowing it will take you a mile or two of struggling just to barely approach the speed limit, all the while with traffic backing up behind you? And then you wonder why people seemingly cut in front of you? It's because of many trucker's bad driving behavior and general lack of driving courtesy. Besides, if you guys were such great drivers, we wouldn't have to shut down the interstate on a nearly weekly basis because some dumb trucker has spilled his load on one of the off- ramps... you know, the ones that are clearly marked with a sharp turn sign and a low speed limit. I believe that 18 wheelers should be limited to interstates only, and have to off-load their cargo to smaller trucks within a mile or two of the interstate. That would eliminate the severe damage they inflict on the secondary roads, and the havoc they inflict on traffic. If they spill their load, they personally pay for the cleanup. Cause an accident, lose your commercial license *forever*. I do appreciate them hauling our cargo. Just don't act like an asshole and try to kill us while doing it! Wow, you must live in some weird bizarro world! Truckers here are pretty good, it's the "4 wheelers" who do everything you just said, rarely truckers... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! You have 4 wheelers spilling their loads on off-ramps? Seriously, we have two "major" ports, Savannah and Charleston, that puts lots of trucker traffic on the roads around here. And while there are certainly plenty of cars that exhibit some of the same behavior, I can get around or avoid a car much easier than an 80 foot long truck. An idiot in a 40 ton truck is *far* more dangerous than in a 2 ton car. Besides, mmc gave us a peek into a trucker's mind... he said he developed an attitude that instead of trying to avoid an accident he would just plow right through us in his truck. Nice, huh? -------- Actually, what I said, or meant to say was that I wasn't going to die by driving into a bridge abutment, tree line, whatever because someone else made a stupid mistake. I'd do anything I could short of the above to avoid making contact with another vehicle, including running off the road or tipping the truck. I think I'm as important as the dumbass on the cell phone, reading the paper, drunk or whatever on his commute. I'm not all truckers. I only speak for myself Jack. Just realize that truck drivers also talk on their cell phones while driving their 40 ton vehicles down the road, with the same results as the 4 wheelers who do the same. I've observed it. The actions you want to place on the 4 wheeler drives are also done by the 18 wheeler divers... with much bigger consequences. There is no difference in the actions of the drivers, except for the real world results incurred by them. The 18 wheeler drivers are supposed to be "professionals". I just want them to act like it, and to be held to that standard. ---------- Yeah you're right, some assholes out there, but probably newer guys. It would be a miracle to drive dangerously and not rack up the points and eventually either lose the license or not be able to get a job, like I said before. Hell, some companies go back 5 years on applicants and any moving violation is cause for not hiring. CDL drivers are just regular guys that need to feed the kids and are usually doing it the best way they can. I see jerks on the road too but get more concerned when I see rental trucks. RVs seem to be much better and agree with Scotty on the busses. Too many of those guys are bad drivers. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/26/10 10:20 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In om, says... In , says... On 6/25/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote: Either way, I live and work, and drive just outside NYC and NJersey, drove a truck down in the city for a while and drive over 50,000 miles a year You do not live and work "just outside" New York City and New Jersey. You live in eastern Connecticut, close to Rhode Island, and you do not work. You are a freaking expert on everything and everyone aren't you? Harry is an idiot. First off, I work every day and have challenged the asshole several times to prove he works because I can... You can see my work on line 24/7... An example of snotty's website work: www.smallboats.com Looks like a third-grade art project. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... On 6/26/10 11:56 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. No, you don't. BTW...got boat? The union leaders tried to screw the working man and got caught. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable waterways and shipping lanes? Steve Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of right of way questions. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front of a 1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have a great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they have the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden Gate Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a year or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not under power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs as he is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out. http://www.boatus.com/foundation/gui...igation_1.html -- We all work for government, they ceased working for us a long time ago. And, it's in the actual NavRules document published by the Coast Guard: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm Rule 9, 14, and Annex V Canuck - finally proves he can read... |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises. It might brighten your attitude. Dummy... I've been using a 2 x 4 on your head so long that the piece of wood just filed a police report. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On 6/26/10 11:56 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. No, you don't. BTW...got boat? The union leaders tried to screw the working man and got caught. And Harry was just caught today lying about it. Why does he keep asking you if you have a boat? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable waterways and shipping lanes? Steve Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of right of way questions. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front of a 1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have a great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they have the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden Gate Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a year or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not under power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs as he is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out. http://www.boatus.com/foundation/gui...igation_1.html -- We all work for government, they ceased working for us a long time ago. And, it's in the actual NavRules document published by the Coast Guard: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm Rule 9, 14, and Annex V Canuck - finally proves he can read... Tell us how your date went last night. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On 6/26/10 11:56 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. No, you don't. BTW...got boat? The union leaders tried to screw the working man and got caught. And Harry was just caught today lying about it. Why does he keep asking you if you have a boat? Because that's my fat buddy's way of getting out of lies. Insult and call people names! |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises. It might brighten your attitude. Dummy... I've been using a 2 x 4 on your head so long that the piece of wood just filed a police report. Newsflash! Crazy lady in California forest reports that the wood she uses to get head filed a police report. We think she's been eating too much tree bark. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"YukonBound" wrote in message ... In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On 6/26/10 11:56 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? I understand the issue Harry. No, you don't. BTW...got boat? The union leaders tried to screw the working man and got caught. And Harry was just caught today lying about it. Why does he keep asking you if you have a boat? Because that's my fat buddy's way of getting out of lies. Insult and call people names! Be your own man...Kevin. What are you hiding from? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On Jun 26, 12:30*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message .. . On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message . .. On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message news:b2k226926nbtfsn40dkefkrjm2ge13 ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. *Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises. It might brighten your attitude. Dummy... I've been using a 2 x 4 on your head so long that the piece of wood just filed a police report. Is that the same 2x4 that your boyfriend ties around the back of his waist so that he doesn't fall in? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable waterways and shipping lanes? Steve Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of right of way questions. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front of a 1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have a great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they have the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden Gate Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a year or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not under power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs as he is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out. http://www.boatus.com/foundation/gui...igation_1.html -- We all work for government, they ceased working for us a long time ago. And, it's in the actual NavRules document published by the Coast Guard: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm Rule 9, 14, and Annex V Canuck - finally proves he can read... Tell us how your date went last night. I don't "date." No point in asking you, since I sincerely doubt any woman would have you. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Jun 26, 12:30 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Harold" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message .. . On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message . .. On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message news:b2k226926nbtfsn40dkefkrjm2ge13 ... Tragic: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad. Darwinian actually. It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags out, then the barge would be at fault. Would be interesting to see who they blame. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she would still have the obligation to avoid a collision. If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can do to avoid a collision. 9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them. About he can do is blow his horn. In the strictest sense, it is in the details. If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power. If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election and blindly run it down. Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge. We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty. Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag. Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge captain. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed. Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes. I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could be a juicy law suit. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work. You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you. English please Nombnuts No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you don't. Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you really are. -- The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense. Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist. BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes burdensome. Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises. It might brighten your attitude. Dummy... I've been using a 2 x 4 on your head so long that the piece of wood just filed a police report. Is that the same 2x4 that your boyfriend ties around the back of his waist so that he doesn't fall in? Sounds like you have experience with this. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
Harry  wrote:
On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? Say what? What was the stolen money earmarked for? |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... Harry ? wrote: On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? Say what? What was the stolen money earmarked for? Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them... I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no more virtuous than anyone else. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion? http://labornotes.org/node/1029 Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about their members. It is all about money, power and influence. http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc "Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit 180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while their company and its pension funds were left in the cold." http://laborpains.org/2008/04/ "Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five- year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s corruption." |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/27/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleOcednTK2JpWPKLvRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews. com, says... Harry ? wrote: On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. And once again, Bertie-Brain Robbins, you demonstrate why you weren't able to continue your education after high school and why you joined the marines, instead. The reason: you're just not very bright. Now, back to the continuing question... Do you own...a boat? No? That's what I thought. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
In article ,
says... On 6/27/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In articleOcednTK2JpWPKLvRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews. com, says... Harry ? wrote: On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. And once again, Bertie-Brain Robbins, you demonstrate why you weren't able to continue your education after high school and why you joined the marines, instead. The reason: you're just not very bright. Now, back to the continuing question... Do you own...a boat? No? That's what I thought. Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them... Are you the spokesperson referenced in the first link? I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no more virtuous than anyone else. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion? http://labornotes.org/node/1029 Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about their members. It is all about money, power and influence. http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc "Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit 180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while their company and its pension funds were left in the cold." http://laborpains.org/2008/04/ "Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five- year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s corruption." |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , Harry ? wrote: 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. BAR asked: Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made the determination? Harry answered with his pants obviously on fi You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to college instead of to the marines... BTW, you still have no boat, right? BAR, obviously frustrated by Harry's deflection replied: Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them... I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no more virtuous than anyone else. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion? http://labornotes.org/node/1029 Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about their members. It is all about money, power and influence. http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc "Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit 180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while their company and its pension funds were left in the cold." http://laborpains.org/2008/04/ "Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five- year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s corruption." Nothing illustrates the kind of slimeball Harry is, better than this post. The sort of folks he deals with, and him attempting to whitewash their evil deeds by boldface lying, clearly shows what a corrupt ****head Harry really is. Thank you BAR for bringing this to our attention. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
On 6/27/10 8:50 AM, BAR wrote:
In article18qdnbSSKe1t3rrRnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... On 6/27/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In articleOcednTK2JpWPKLvRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews. com, says... Harry ? wrote: On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. And once again, Bertie-Brain Robbins, you demonstrate why you weren't able to continue your education after high school and why you joined the marines, instead. The reason: you're just not very bright. Now, back to the continuing question... Do you own...a boat? No? That's what I thought. Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them... You can repost your "cites" from now to the end of time, Bertie...still doesn't change the fact that you have no boat *and* that you were too stupid to go to college after high school. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
"Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 6/27/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In articleOcednTK2JpWPKLvRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews. com, says... Harry ? wrote: On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... 3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains. Harry repeats a lie. |
Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com