On 8/21/11 11:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:39:17 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:09:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:14:43 -0700, wrote:

You didn't read the accompanying story with the video did you?

... or even google up the other stories about it.


So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Tons of research? You did not e=ven read the commentary on the You
Tube video where it said the tanker was honking his horn the whole
time.,

Thus, you claiming that I was wrong when I said "it's possible that
happened." Question: What's your problem?

You are trolling again
The ORIGINAL video had a description of the accident and you didn't
read it, you started popping off about how the tanker should have
blown his horn (which he did) ... like the sailboat didn't see that
big red mother honker coming.

If you were willing to do a little more research you would see the
yachting people saying this guy was trying to advance his position in
the race by taking a stupid chance with the tanker.

I hope they charge him for a paint job on the tanker.

I know it breaks your ambulance chasing heart but this is not going to
court. it happened Aug 8 and they are still in the investigation but
there will not be a court case., The Brits are not as tort driven as
we are. To start with LOSER PAYS!


Most tort lawsuits that are initiated never go to court. The parties'
insurance companies usually prefer a settlement to the uncertainties and
time frame of litigation.

Or are you claiming there will be no civil lawsuits between the tanker
and the sailboat owners?

--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

On 8/22/2011 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:54:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:39:17 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:09:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:14:43 -0700, wrote:

You didn't read the accompanying story with the video did you?

... or even google up the other stories about it.


So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Tons of research? You did not e=ven read the commentary on the You
Tube video where it said the tanker was honking his horn the whole
time.,

Thus, you claiming that I was wrong when I said "it's possible that
happened." Question: What's your problem?

You are trolling again

Huh? I'm participating in a discussion about rules on the water.

The ORIGINAL video had a description of the accident and you didn't
read it, you started popping off about how the tanker should have
blown his horn (which he did) ... like the sailboat didn't see that
big red mother honker coming.

And, regarding the original video, I said that I thought the sailboat
was, if not 100% at fault, nearly so. I also said that I didn't hear
the required "blasts" from the tanker, but they could have happened.
Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description. The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened.

So, I ask again, what's your problem?

If you were willing to do a little more research you would see the
yachting people saying this guy was trying to advance his position in
the race by taking a stupid chance with the tanker.

If you were willing to have a normal conversation and actually read
what I wrote, you'd see that you're the one being a jerk.

I hope they charge him for a paint job on the tanker.

I hope they do also. So?

I know it breaks your ambulance chasing heart but this is not going to
court. it happened Aug 8 and they are still in the investigation but
there will not be a court case., The Brits are not as tort driven as
we are. To start with LOSER PAYS!

You're a rude jerk. I'm not and have never been interested in
"ambulance" chasing. Even when I was in the corporate legal field I
hated it when I had to give someone who was representing a company a
choice of settle or go to court. I always tried to work it out, and I
was mostly successful. The only patent work I do now, very part time,
is for individual inventors who come to me in a word of mouth fashion.
You know for sure it won't go to court? How do you know this? Does it
say it somewhere in your "research"? Or, more likely it's your
OPINION.

The Brits are not as tort driven? Really? Do you even know what "tort"
means? I doubt it. Tort is a wrongful act that leads to legal
liability. What you were trying to say, although you mangled it, is
that people in the US tend to sue more than people in Britain. I doubt
there's much truth to it, but lets say that's true. Feel free to do
the research on that one and let me know....

What you're probably trying to say with that is that in the US there
are fewer limits on punitive damage awards than there are in Britain
(cite: Rookes v Barnard, 1964 - yes, I had to look it up, because I
haven't been in law school for quite a while).

Basically, you don't know what you're trying to say, so I'm trying to
muddle through your gibberish in an honest attempt to help you clarify
your thoughts. I doubt I was successful, so feel free to go back to
hiding I guess.

I for one would be willing to excuse the **** out of you if you would
just leave rec.boats.

On 8/22/11 8:51 AM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/22/2011 12:56 AM, wrote:

I for one would be willing to excuse the **** out of you if you would
just leave rec.boats.


Translation: We righties view rec.boats as our personal pigpen, er,
playpen, and if you aren't on our side of the political spectrum, we'll
take a crap on your head every time you post here.

You righties are such little boys. Shouldn't you be handing out
coathangers outside of abortion clinics?

In article ,
says...

On 8/21/11 2:13 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500,
wrote:

Can anyone point me to the original video that started this?
The danger signal may be used by ANY vessel doubting the actions of
another.

There are two different collision videos kicking around, each with
entirely different circumstances.

The first shows a tourist boat approaching a somewhat larger vessel
from the starboard side. The smaller boat ends up crossing the
larger boat's bow and collides almost head on. There is some shared
blame in my opinion with the larger boat more at fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH2nZK3_sMk

The second video, shows a racing sailboat approaching the bow of a
large freighter from the starboard side. The sailboat tries to cross
and ends up geting hit. His spinnaker becomes entangled on the
freighter's anchor and becomes dismasted as a result. The sailboat is
clearly in violation of 18(b) and 100% at fault in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoU...layer_embedded





There's just something about Wayne and his holier than thou posts that
remind me of the First Lord's song from HMS Pinafo

As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk
I served the writs with a smile so bland
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand
He copied all the letters in a big round hand
I copied all the letters in a hand so free
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
He copied all the letters in a hand so free
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

Why because he's intelligent enough to read, and understand the regs?

In article 8c1e6ac7-a790-4e08-a075-9a25fefc2fb5
@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 21, 11:56*pm, wrote:

"Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description.
The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened."

Ah, so now you are inviting Fretwell to exchange bodily fluids with
you.

BTW, You still aren't correct.

She tried that with me as well. I turned her down.

On 8/22/11 9:26 AM, iBoat More wrote:
In article8c1e6ac7-a790-4e08-a075-9a25fefc2fb5
@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 21, 11:56 pm, wrote:

"Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description.
The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened."

Ah, so now you are inviting Fretwell to exchange bodily fluids with
you.

BTW, You still aren't correct.

She tried that with me as well. I turned her down.

Please. Word is, your hand won't even agree to get you off.

Why are you still here, Little Loogy Sucker? Shouldn't you be getting
ready to repeat the 7th grade for the seventh time?


--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

In article ,
says...

On 8/22/11 9:26 AM, iBoat More wrote:
In article8c1e6ac7-a790-4e08-a075-9a25fefc2fb5
@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 21, 11:56 pm, wrote:

"Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description.
The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened."

Ah, so now you are inviting Fretwell to exchange bodily fluids with
you.

BTW, You still aren't correct.

She tried that with me as well. I turned her down.

Please. Word is, your hand won't even agree to get you off.

Why are you still here, Little Loogy Sucker? Shouldn't you be getting
ready to repeat the 7th grade for the seventh time?

That's our Harry, nothing but third grade insults, name calling and
lies. You are a ****ing low life coward.

On 8/22/11 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:11:25 -0400, X ~
wrote:

Most tort lawsuits that are initiated never go to court. The parties'
insurance companies usually prefer a settlement to the uncertainties and
time frame of litigation.

Or are you claiming there will be no civil lawsuits between the tanker
and the sailboat owners?


If this happened in the US I would bet on there being a law suit but
this was UK. Loser pays cuts down of that silliness.
Who would be suing? The tanker company suing for a new paint job?

I don't know. I haven't been following the case or the discussion here.
Once it gets down to he said/she said, and the right-wingers here (not
you) start crapping on the discussion, I skip most of the posts in the
thread.

On 8/22/2011 8:55 AM, X ~ Man wrote:
On 8/22/11 8:51 AM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/22/2011 12:56 AM, wrote:

I for one would be willing to excuse the **** out of you if you would
just leave rec.boats.


Translation: We righties view rec.boats as our personal pigpen, er,
playpen, and if you aren't on our side of the political spectrum, we'll
take a crap on your head every time you post here.

You righties are such little boys. Shouldn't you be handing out
coathangers outside of abortion clinics?


Translate this, big boy. You ran one woman off because she was a member
of the power squadron and knew something about boats, navigation,
rules,search and rescue etc. You ran another off because she was a
boater, was an expert in one aspect of boating maintenance, was good
looking and intelligent, and was willing to share an opinion or two on
politics. Another lady seemed to have a good head for engineering and
gave our engine techs a run for their money when discussing the latest
engine technology. All of these women had something of interest to offer
boaters. Why did you run them off, and why did you seem to have a change
of heart about women and embrace the little tramp that latched onto us
as of late.

Oh and while we are on the subject tell us about the time you took your
little boat over to Baltimore Harbor and took photos of one of the
ladies on her boat. I guess your stalking her was supposed to creep her out.
And another of the ladies whom you spotted at a boat show and stalked
her instead of going up to her and introducing yourself to her, like a man.

On Aug 22, 12:08*pm, BeachBum "not a wrote:
On 8/22/2011 8:55 AM, X ~ Man wrote: On 8/22/11 8:51 AM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/22/2011 12:56 AM, wrote:

I for one would be willing to excuse the **** out of you if you would
just leave rec.boats.

Translation: We righties view rec.boats as our personal pigpen, er,
playpen, and if you aren't on our side of the political spectrum, we'll
take a crap on your head every time you post here.

You righties are such little boys. Shouldn't you be handing out
coathangers outside of abortion clinics?

Translate this, big boy. You ran one woman off because she was a member
of the power squadron and knew something about boats, navigation,
rules,search and rescue etc. You ran another off because she was a
boater, was an expert in one aspect of boating maintenance, was good
looking and intelligent, and was willing to share an opinion or two on
politics. Another lady seemed to have a good head for engineering and
gave our engine techs a run for their money when discussing the latest
engine technology. All of these women had something of interest to offer
boaters. Why did you run them off, and why did you seem to have a change
of heart about women and embrace the little tramp that latched onto us
as of late.

Oh and while we are on the subject tell us about the time you took your
little boat over to Baltimore Harbor and took photos of one of the
ladies on her boat. I guess your stalking her was supposed to creep her out.
And another of the ladies whom you spotted at a boat show and stalked
her instead of going up to her and introducing yourself to her, like a man.