Right of Way
 

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:23:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:25:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had
RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a
small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be
sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he
swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster
averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and
speed. I see no negligence on his part at all.

So, knowing a collision is about to happen, the skipper does nothing
and you think no blame would be assigned?????


In that situation, where I knew the burdened vessel was not making
any contact with me and was not making any effort to avoid the
impending collision (constant bearing and decreasing range) I would
slow down as Wayne said but I would do it about 3 miles ago.
I would assume the offending ship was on auto pilot and the helmsman
was below taking a ****.
I might still come close enough to wake them up but it would be astern
of them or maneuver to come up on the shoulder If this was a Coast
Guard cutter that they cut off they would be boarded and life would
take a turn for the worse for them.

There are ALWAYS violations.

No argument from me. That all sounds quite reasonable. I will even
accept the "always" comment, even though I always don't. LOL

Right of Way
 

On Aug 20, 9:26*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:









On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, * wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way *here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. *But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. *The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Agreed. *But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the
video gets the majority of the blame. *No horn, and as you say passed on
the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do.

If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain
with cause and hang him to dry.

So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but
when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid.

No, D'Plume. He's come to the conclusion that they are right, and you
are an idiot!

Right of Way
 

On Aug 20, 10:40*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:01:04 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:59:11 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. *Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had
RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a
small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be
sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he
swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster
averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and
speed. I see no negligence on his part at all.

It depends on circumstances of course. *It is very easy for a small,
fast, maneuverable boat to approach from the starboard side in such a
way that a collision is ineveitable. *That is why the Rules of the
Road/COLREGS burdens both vessels with avoiding collisions.

Which brings us back to video 1 where there is a big discrepancy in
the ability to maneuver.

Don't go "plume" on me *;-)

Excuse me.... I never claimed there was anything the tanker should
have done in the first vid. I thought it was 100% or close to that the
sailboats fault. The only thing I didn't hear, which might have been a
factor for the tanker to accept some blame, was a warning of five
beeps.

Your arguments prove the reason why you're not practicing law.

Right of Way
 

On Aug 20, 10:41*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:23:48 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:25:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. *Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had
RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a
small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be
sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he
swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster
averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and
speed. I see no negligence on his part at all.

So, knowing a collision is about to happen, the skipper does nothing
and you think no blame would be assigned?????

In that situation, where I knew the burdened vessel was not *making
any contact with me and was not making any effort to avoid the
impending collision (constant bearing and decreasing range) I would
slow down as Wayne said but I would do it about 3 miles ago.
I would assume the offending ship was on auto pilot and the helmsman
was below taking a ****.
I might still come close enough to wake them up but it would be astern
of them or maneuver to come up on the shoulder If this was a Coast
Guard cutter that they cut off they would be boarded and life would
take a turn for the worse for them.

There are ALWAYS violations.

No argument from me. That all sounds quite reasonable. I will even
accept the "always" comment, even though I always don't. LOL

You never had a valid argumenttot begin with.

Right of Way
 

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:01:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:59:11 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had
RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a
small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be
sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he
swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster
averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and
speed. I see no negligence on his part at all.

It depends on circumstances of course. It is very easy for a small,
fast, maneuverable boat to approach from the starboard side in such a
way that a collision is ineveitable. That is why the Rules of the
Road/COLREGS burdens both vessels with avoiding collisions.


Which brings us back to video 1 where there is a big discrepancy in
the ability to maneuver.


Don't go "plume" on me ;-)

It won't happen. :-)

We were involved in an interesting, fast moving scenario on our way
north this year. We were moving SE at idle speed, just emerging from
the Cape May, NJ canal into the inner harbor, constrained by draft on
both sides. It was immediately obvious that a large party fishing
boat was approaching from the port side on a collision course. If he
turned right into the canal we'd be OK, but continuing straight would
hit us amidships. As the "stand on" vessel I immediately called him
on VHF 16 to clarify his intentions. It sounds easy in retrospect but
things happen fast between two approaching vessels and it's absolutely
critical to get it right.

Right of Way
 

On 8/20/11 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Yes, that's how I read it. However, both are required to avoid a
collision; thus, I assigned a percentage of blame to both. You might
argue with the %, but not with the conclusion.

I can and will disagree with you. Your discussion about the tanker and
sailboat highlight how little you know about boating.

Right of Way
 

On 8/20/2011 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

I would think it wouldn't be that difficult. The boat is moving and is
being trailed by another boat. The boat ahead has the right of way,
since you can't run into the back of it (assuming several things like
restrictions, in channels, etc.). The boat in front stops. Some blame
could be assigned to that boat.

Doubt it.

Right of Way
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

Well moron, again you're not too bright. As I said for the second for
the second video, 60/40. I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

There is a precedent in these matters called "last clear chance".
Meaning, just because the other party may not be doing something
correctly, you have the duty to avoid collision if possible.

Right of Way
 

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.

otn




wrote in
:



BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule 34,
which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which this was
not.

By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a
whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license,
that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is
important.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500, otnmbrd 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.

otn




wrote in
:



BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule 34,
which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which this was
not.

By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a
whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license,
that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is
important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500, otnmbrd
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

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:09:13 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:01:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:59:11 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:

The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone

Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary.
It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any
significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also
appropriate if it avoids collision.

There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had
RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a
small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be
sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he
swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster
averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and
speed. I see no negligence on his part at all.

It depends on circumstances of course. It is very easy for a small,
fast, maneuverable boat to approach from the starboard side in such a
way that a collision is ineveitable. That is why the Rules of the
Road/COLREGS burdens both vessels with avoiding collisions.


Which brings us back to video 1 where there is a big discrepancy in
the ability to maneuver.


Don't go "plume" on me ;-)

It won't happen. :-)

We were involved in an interesting, fast moving scenario on our way
north this year. We were moving SE at idle speed, just emerging from
the Cape May, NJ canal into the inner harbor, constrained by draft on
both sides. It was immediately obvious that a large party fishing
boat was approaching from the port side on a collision course. If he
turned right into the canal we'd be OK, but continuing straight would
hit us amidships. As the "stand on" vessel I immediately called him
on VHF 16 to clarify his intentions. It sounds easy in retrospect but
things happen fast between two approaching vessels and it's absolutely
critical to get it right.

It won't happen? You're a pompous jerk.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. 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.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.

Right of Way
 

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


--
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.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:02:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Your analysis is ridiculous. This was in NO way a crossing situation.
This was simply a head-on. Apparently, you have never piloted
anything larger than a runabout. A captain of a large vessel, even
with proper lookout, can't see what is under the bow. This sailboat
was, probably for 100 yards or more under the bow of the larger
vessel. This is so simple, Rule 2 covers the whole idiotic happening.

This is a lot like driving down the road in a tractor trailer and some
idiot decides to dive into a driveway on your right. Even if you
manage to T-bone them instead of dead-centering their grille, it is a
head-on, and if you were reasonably and lawfully operating your
vehicle, you bear no responsibility in the accident.

BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule 34,
which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which this was
not.

By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a
whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license,
that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is
important.

You sound like the ridiculous one. Did you even look at the second
vid?

Here are the three vids:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

I heard three horn sounds from what appears to be the tanker. Five is
the minimum. However, it's possible there were five.

The sailboat is clearly approaching 100% at fault.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

This is for sure a crossing situation. Again, the sailboat is clearly
mostly at fault. However, I didn't see any evasive change in course
from the ferry or any sound signals. The sailboat was clearly visible
for quite a while. Some blame would go to both.

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

I think this is a crossing situation also, but even if it's a head on,
both vessels need to act. Neither did. Both were visible to the other.
No sound signals, no heading changes. Both have fault.

Right of Way
 

On 20/08/2011 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Agreed. But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the
video gets the majority of the blame. No horn, and as you say passed on
the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do.

If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain
with cause and hang him to dry.

So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but
when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid.

No, but you can always count on always wrong depume the parrot to get it
wrong.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

Right of Way
 

On 21/08/2011 1:40 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600,
wrote:









On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Agreed. But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the
video gets the majority of the blame. No horn, and as you say passed on
the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do.

If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain
with cause and hang him to dry.

So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but
when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid.

No, D'Plume. He's come to the conclusion that they are right, and you
are an idiot!

She is a righteous idiot.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:29:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/08/2011 1:40 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600,
wrote:









On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Agreed. But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the
video gets the majority of the blame. No horn, and as you say passed on
the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do.

If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain
with cause and hang him to dry.

So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but
when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid.

No, D'Plume. He's come to the conclusion that they are right, and you
are an idiot!

She is a righteous idiot.

You are 100% stupid.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:29:12 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not
as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing
a freighter in the channel.

This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but
might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he
made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns
used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right
but secondary as avoid collisions is #1.

Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision.

Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat.

There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the
video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the
intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged
vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead
ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.)

Agreed. But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the
video gets the majority of the blame. No horn, and as you say passed on
the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do.

If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain
with cause and hang him to dry.

So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but
when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid.

No, but you can always count on always wrong depume the parrot to get it
wrong.

I got it right. You're a little misogynistic asshole who pretends to
be a man.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:19:46 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. 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.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.


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.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:13:42 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500, otnmbrd
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 are three vids "floating" around. Can't you get anything right?

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:25:49 -0400, X ~ Man
wrote:

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

He's really a pill. He can't seem to get his story straight even if
you hand him the information.

Right of Way
 

On 8/21/2011 3:14 PM, wrote:

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.

Problem is your mouth starts running too soon before digesting
information and analyzing it. Your statements never stand on their own
and rarely hold water at all. Thus it is very difficult to take you
seriously.

If you'll notice the ships horn was sounding as the video starts. Can
you conclude the horn might have sounded a couple of times before the
vid started? Also the horn might have sounded as a warning to all of the
idiot racers who might not have noticed there was a super tanker in
their midst.

Right of Way
 

On 21/08/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. 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.

Hey dumb**** parrot, watch it again, and turn on the volume.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.


--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

Right of Way
 

John H wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500, otnmbrd
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.

otn




wrote in
m:



BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule
34, which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which
this was not.

By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a
whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license,
that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is
important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

Thanks.

Maximum speed I'd give that tanker is "slow ahead" (@ 6k..no appreciable
bow wave). Obviously blowing danger signal as video starts and considering
buoyed channel and all other traffic I'd say the sailboat needs to thank
their luck they weren't killed. Also I'd say race officials and others need
to coordinate a good deal better.

2nd video of sailboat and ferry appears to be 2 powerdriven vessels head
to head,,,, why sailboat came to port is curious (never a good idea head to
head or nearly so).

3rd video.... start of video, it might (note: I said MIGHT) be considered
head to head or NEARLY so....always one that can lead to trouble. Hard to
know from video, but appears NEITHER vessel took any action.

otn

Right of Way
 

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?

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:52:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/08/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an
altercation."

The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault
the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way
in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even
if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped.

Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that.

I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are
gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in
any of the rules, inland or international.

This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my
comments:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. 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.

Hey dumb**** parrot, watch it again, and turn on the volume.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.

Hey Peewee... you're not an adult and you're stupid.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

On Aug 21, 11:56*pm, 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.

Bull**** D'Plume. We know you are trying to save face in this entire
thread, but it will never work. Even by throwing it from the accident
to spouting some legal hubub, it only makes you look like you are
gasping for air, Keep babbling and insulting if it makes you feel
better, though.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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?

Right of Way
 

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?

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.

Right of Way
 

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.