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.