On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:55:00 -0400, 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?


Do these morons actually think I'm going to respond no less read their
nonsense? They're dumber than I thought.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:59:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:11:25 -0400, X ~ Man
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?

Ah good... you've gone back to hiding. Let me know when you want to
have a civil discussion.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:55:00 -0400, 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?


Do these morons actually think I'm going to respond no less read their
nonsense? They're dumber than I thought.

Translation: I am wrong so I'll insult you and call you names in hopes
you'll forget about my being wrong.

On 8/22/11 12:08 PM, BeachBum 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.


Your vision of reality doesn't make your vision reality.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:59:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:11:25 -0400, X ~ Man
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?

Ah good... you've gone back to hiding. Let me know when you want to
have a civil discussion.

You? A civil discussion? You can't do it! You must call someone names
and insult them because you can't. You're no more able to have a civil
discussion than Harry is. And that means you aren't able to have one AT
ALL.

On 8/22/11 12:11 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:


More of these please... He isn't helping his case any here..


Case? What case? I'm mostly here on the sidelines, watching you and the
rest of the right-wing vermin destroy rec.boats. I'm *not* here to
encourage you to reform your obnoxious behavior. The crazier you act
here, the quicker rec.boats will die.

--
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.

It didn't take me a lot of time to come up with this Interesting
comments too:

http://yachtpals.com/yacht-crash-9423

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

It didn't take me a lot of time to come up with this Interesting
comments too:

http://yachtpals.com/yacht-crash-9423

Small problem... "Yes the smaller vessel is under sail, yes it is
starboard of the ship (and thus the "STAR" of the meeting, as some
learned it), and both those things might tend to give a small boat
skipper the sense that they have right of way... Then of course
there's common sense, which often gets left at the dock."

Of course, none of that matters, since the rules clearly state
restricted in ability to maneuver is the key item.

On 22/08/2011 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

It didn't take me a lot of time to come up with this Interesting
comments too:

http://yachtpals.com/yacht-crash-9423

Small problem... "Yes the smaller vessel is under sail, yes it is
starboard of the ship (and thus the "STAR" of the meeting, as some
learned it), and both those things might tend to give a small boat
skipper the sense that they have right of way... Then of course
there's common sense, which often gets left at the dock."

Of course, none of that matters, since the rules clearly state
restricted in ability to maneuver is the key item.

You finally got it. here is hope for you yet.

--
We have the most expensive governments no one can afford.
And wonder why the economy is doing so poorly?

On 8/22/2011 8:18 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/08/2011 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

It didn't take me a lot of time to come up with this Interesting
comments too:

http://yachtpals.com/yacht-crash-9423

Small problem... "Yes the smaller vessel is under sail, yes it is
starboard of the ship (and thus the "STAR" of the meeting, as some
learned it), and both those things might tend to give a small boat
skipper the sense that they have right of way... Then of course
there's common sense, which often gets left at the dock."

Of course, none of that matters, since the rules clearly state
restricted in ability to maneuver is the key item.

You finally got it. here is hope for you yet.

From what I am reading the issue may have been moot as soon as the
sailboat moved into a designated no go area in front and aside the
larger vessel... Could be wrong though..