A Tachtmaster wanna be said
Joe
out, and predicting your position to within a few metres.
In other words, you have to sail (and navigate) the boat "blind".
No external imput at all.
How can this be done?
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Wally
If your starting position is known, one of those inertial gyroscope thingies
might work.
--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Martin Baxter
Joe you seem to be rather thick, you must take this post in the context of the
others that preceded it. If you do so you will be aware that there is in fact
"external" input; The examiner is going to tell you your starting position, compass
heading and any course changes, most likely you will also get the boat speed through
the water. You have to plot your course accounting for set, leeway (you are going to
have to know your boats characteristics for this based on angle of heel, something you
can sense in the cabin and therefore another input), drift...., you will have a watch and tide
tables.
To accomplish this with some accuracy is not that difficult, I'm not sure
why you seem to be so astounded by such an ability.
Cheers
Marty
Donal
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "One of the tests involves sitting at the chart table, with the ports
blacked
> out, and predicting your position to within a few metres.
>
> In other words, you have to sail (and navigate) the boat "blind".
Joe, you obviously think that I would mislead you. Let me take this
opportunity to reassure you that I would never give you false information.
Take a look at any of these links, and search for "blind navigation".
http://www.southern.co.uk/courses.htm
http://www.capitalsailing.com/pc_ym.html
http://www.hamble.co.uk/yashtmaster_prep_motor.htm
By the way, there is a web site called www.googol.com which you can use to
find out things for yourself.
>
> No external imput at all.
>
> How can this be done?
Joe, read the thread that you copied that text from. Try about two posts
down.
Maybe you need to go on an RYA course, where they will open your eyes to the
science of blind navigation.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
"Martin Baxter" <baxt...@rmc.ca> wrote in message
news:40040FB6...@rmc.ca...
> Joe wrote:
>
> To accomplish this with some accuracy is not that difficult, I'm not sure
> why you seem to be so astounded by such an ability.
I suspect that Joe has always relied on electronics.
Regards
Donal
--
Joe
> >
> > "One of the tests involves sitting at the chart table, with the ports blacked
> > out, and predicting your position to within a few metres.
> >
> > In other words, you have to sail (and navigate) the boat "blind".
> >
> > No external imput at all.
> >
> > How can this be done?
> >
> > Joe
> > MSV RedCloud
>
> Joe you seem to be rather thick, you must take this post in the context of the
> others that preceded it.
Yeh right show me this content.
If you do so you will be aware that there is in fact
> "external" input;
Thats not what his post said thicker thick thickest, he said no imup
exterinal imput.
The examiner is going to tell you your starting position,
Yes external imput # 1
compass
> heading
External imput #2
>and any course changes,
External imput #3
most likely you will also get the boat speed through
> the water.
EXTERNAL imput #4
You have to plot your course accounting for set,
Tide tables?
EXTERNAL #5
leeway (you are going to
> have to know your boats characteristics
for this based on angle of heel, something you
> can sense in the cabin and therefore another input),
Ill say that internal and OK with what the yachtmaster wannabe claims.
After all you can sence that in a pilot house with the windows blacked
as stated.
drift...., you will have a watch and tide
> tables.
Yelp EXTERNAL IMPUT #5
>
> To accomplish this with some accuracy is not that difficult, I'm not sure
> why you seem to be so astounded by such an ability.
>
Damn..... With 5 external imputs that as easy as tieing your shoe. I
thought these yachtmasters knew something special and astonishing.
I other works Lanod was talking out his arse and did not have a clue
what he was saying. Is that what you are saying ?
Joe
MSV RedCloud
> Cheers
> Marty
Martin Baxter
>
>
> I other works Lanod was talking out his arse and did not have a clue
> what he was saying. Is that what you are saying ?
>
>
No Joe, that is not what I am saying, if you want to pick and choose
bits and pieces rather than the whole, then you will be able to find
cause for a fight.
"When you want to beat a dog, you can allways find a stick".
Cheers
Marty
Donal
news:<40040FB6...@rmc.ca>...
> > Joe wrote:
> > >
> > > "One of the tests involves sitting at the chart table, with the ports
blacked
> > > out, and predicting your position to within a few metres.
> > >
> > > In other words, you have to sail (and navigate) the boat "blind".
> > >
> > > No external imput at all.
> > >
> > > How can this be done?
> > >
> > > Joe
> > > MSV RedCloud
> >
> > Joe you seem to be rather thick, you must take this post in the context
of the
> > others that preceded it.
>
> Yeh right show me this content.
>
> If you do so you will be aware that there is in fact
> > "external" input;
>
> Thats not what his post said thicker thick thickest, he said no imup
> exterinal imput.
>
> The examiner is going to tell you your starting position,
>
> Yes external imput # 1
Poor, Joe! Poor, poor Joe.
As you are in a Yachtmaster exam, you will already know your position.
You certainly do not need to be told your position at the start of the blind
test, as at that point you were not navigating blindly.
>
>
> compass
> > heading
>
> External imput #2
Poor, Joe! Poor, poor Joe.
I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
You do not ask the crew for the compass reading. As the navigator you
*tell* the crew what the compass heading should be.
It quite simple, isn't it? ... .... well, OK, you'll just have to take my
word. It *is* simple. Honestly.
>
>
> >and any course changes,
>
> External imput #3
If I am navigator, then I direct the course changes.
...... go on Joe, you really want to mention "meeting" or "crossing"
situations, don't you?
>
> most likely you will also get the boat speed through
> > the water.
>
> EXTERNAL imput #4
> You have to plot your course accounting for set,
A competent navigator will have used his tide tables before he sets out on
his trip. In fact, I mentioned this a couple of years ago. I always insist
that my wife and my sons do independent passage plans before a long passage
so that they will really *know* where we are if something happens to me.
>
> Tide tables?
Yes! Navigators use them when their GPS sets break down.
>
> EXTERNAL #5
>
> leeway (you are going to
> > have to know your boats characteristics
>
> for this based on angle of heel, something you
> > can sense in the cabin and therefore another input),
>
> Ill say that internal and OK with what the yachtmaster wannabe claims.
> After all you can sence that in a pilot house with the windows blacked
> as stated.
>
> drift...., you will have a watch and tide
> > tables.
>
> Yelp EXTERNAL IMPUT #5
>
> >
> > To accomplish this with some accuracy is not that difficult, I'm not
sure
> > why you seem to be so astounded by such an ability.
> >
>
> Damn..... With 5 external imputs that as easy as tieing your shoe. I
> thought these yachtmasters knew something special and astonishing.
>
> I other works Lanod was talking out his arse and did not have a clue
> what he was saying. Is that what you are saying ?
Joe, by this stage you should be beginning to realise that I can make more
sense while talking out of my arse than you can by utilising all the
intellectual abilities that you have at your disposal. [good insult, huh?]
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
<snipped a bunch of stuff which did little to give a simple answer to a
simple question>
>
> Joe, by this stage you should be beginning to realise that I can make more
> sense while talking out of my arse than you can by utilising all the
> intellectual abilities that you have at your disposal. [good insult, huh?]
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
In all honesty, Donal, you've made little sense, just beat about the
bush as if you hold the secret to life.
The simple question posed was: What information, inputs, aids, were
available to the person taking this test?
Feel free to list them, numerically .... ya know ..... 1., 2., 3., etc.,
then everyone can decide how difficult or not, it is.
In the past, many people used many methods to do some highly accurate
"piloting", and many of these practices have been lost or never learned,
by most of the newer "navigators".
I, for one, would be interested in the specifics of this test, but from
your description, don't have a clue as to what's involved, though I'm
beginning to pick up some glimmers, that it's a basic piloting exam.
Simply stated, give Ole Joe some basic info to work with and maybe he'll
stop asking questions ..... or is this a troll ?
otn
> --
>
>
>
katysails
Donal's Irish...he does hold the secret of life....
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com
"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein
otnmbrd
katysails wrote:
> otn said: In all honesty, Donal, you've made little sense, just beat about the
> bush as if you hold the secret to life.
>
> Donal's Irish...he does hold the secret of life....
>
Nah....all they hold, is the secret to "blarney"
katysails
But good blarnet IS the secret of life....you are not Irish...I can tell.....
:
John.E
I got about two minutes to fix my position from a 3point/running fix and I
was sent then below decks (with curtains closed and no outside view)...
Once below I was then supplied with my target...
(a bouy about 6-7 Nm away along the Solent, a very busy stretch of water
full of commercial and pleasure traffic)
I was allowed the following info...
crew were permitted to supply shape of any bouy passed within
5-10mtrs... (not colour or markings)
crew could supply compass heading if course requested heading could not
be achieved... (under sail, no motors)
crew could supply speed through water from log reading... (no VMG or
other compute details)
crew could supply current depth from echo sounder... (I assume the a
leadline is concidered to be aboard)
charts of given exam area and tidal atlas...
The examiner would also feed me various sound signals just to spcie things
up!
There you have it, the only info available was information that could be
gleaned without the use of any electronic device and no engines used.
JohnE
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04011...@posting.google.com...
otnmbrd
one with plenty of room to screw up, but with all the info you should
need, to complete.
otn
Maxprop
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Donal's Irish...he does hold the secret of life....
Bushmills?
Max
Donal
>
> In all honesty, Donal, you've made little sense, just beat about the
> bush as if you hold the secret to life.
> The simple question posed was: What information, inputs, aids, were
> available to the person taking this test?
The question was "How can this be done?".
I've tried to answer the question, but Joe doesn't want to believe me.
I've also tried to give "real life" examples.
As far as I remember, you have no inputs at all. You issue orders from
down below, and you predict your position from tide tables. etc.
> Feel free to list them, numerically .... ya know ..... 1., 2., 3., etc.,
> then everyone can decide how difficult or not, it is.
> In the past, many people used many methods to do some highly accurate
> "piloting", and many of these practices have been lost or never learned,
> by most of the newer "navigators".
I'm only talking about standard stuff, currents, leeway, etc.
It is probably designed to show your real passage planning abilities, and
your likely performance in fog.
> I, for one, would be interested in the specifics of this test, but from
> your description, don't have a clue as to what's involved, though I'm
> beginning to pick up some glimmers, that it's a basic piloting exam.
I've described the test several times.
You are sent below, where the ports(windows) have been blacked out.
You have your starting position clearly marked on the chart.. After 1/2
hour you are asked to mark your current position on the chart.
While you are below, you may issue instructions. eg course to steer.
I don't remember if you are told the speed.
The examiner will check the accuracy of your plot, and decide if you merit
a pass. The examiner decides what accuracy he requires.
It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics of what is required.
13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't even
GPS.
> Simply stated, give Ole Joe some basic info to work with and maybe he'll
> stop asking questions ..... or is this a troll ?
>
Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under radar
alone is safe. He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
assistance. Now you expect me to remember all the precise details of
something that I studied 13 years ago!
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
Bushmills Green Label, if you can find it!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
in the US for 6-pack or 100 ton Master's includes similar chartwork, but
performed in the classroom, without a serious time limit. (And, of course, it
assumes powerboats.) For someone experienced, its much easier than being on
board, but it can be more difficult for some people, because the chart used may
be completely unfamiliar and dis-orienting. (Not that its supposed to be easy
...)
The way you say "without the use of any electronic device" makes it sound like
its a test of ancient and arcane arts. In reality, its the way most of us
sailed up until about 10 year ago.
-jeff
"John.E" <Joh...@no.spam.today.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:4004beaf$0$18039$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Donal
Bushmills Green Label, if you can find it!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
depth? Compass headings? Buoys passed? Sounds heard?
If you don't get any of this, why bother doing it on board; you could do the
same thing in a class room.
You made one of your typical outrageous claims, and then have refused to
clarify. How is this not trolling?
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
news:bu3d6f$8vb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
DSK
>
> Bushmills Green Label, if you can find it!
Not difficult to find over here, maybe they export it all.
Lately I have been enjoying John Powers Gold which is nicer, although
hard to find (over here).
DSK
Maxprop
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
> Maxprop wrote:
Figured they make a premium product, but I've never seen it here. What's
the diff? Age? I have found some older Jameson's, though.
Max
Joe
know your position is someone tells you. Understand? Thats external
imput, comprende?
>
> You certainly do not need to be told your position at the start of the blind
> test, as at that point you were not navigating blindly.
Oh OK, that makes sence. When I learned to navigate we needed to know
were we were, that was some of the basic stuff.
>
>
> >
> >
> > compass
> > > heading
> >
> > External imput #2
>
> Poor, Joe! Poor, poor Joe.
>
> I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
>
> You do not ask the crew for the compass reading. As the navigator you
> *tell* the crew what the compass heading should be.
>
But you have to look at the compass to tell what your course is,
therefore the compass is giving you imput, can you understand this
farout concept?
> It quite simple, isn't it? ... .... well, OK, you'll just have to take my
> word. It *is* simple. Honestly.
>
Simple imput a CC
>
>
> >
> >
> > >and any course changes,
> >
> > External imput #3
>
> If I am navigator, then I direct the course changes.
Not if you move blind into a strong current, the current might set
your course and drift, without external imput from your compass you
will not be able to accurately tell your deviation from orignal
heading, if you are blind that is.
>
>
>
> ...... go on Joe, you really want to mention "meeting" or "crossing"
> situations, don't you?
Yeah and being blind without external imput meeting situation are
going to be very risky huh?
>
>
>
> >
> > most likely you will also get the boat speed through
> > > the water.
well thats more external imput isnt it?
> >
> > EXTERNAL imput #4
> > You have to plot your course accounting for set,
>
> A competent navigator will have used his tide tables before he sets out on
> his trip. In fact, I mentioned this a couple of years ago. I always insist
> that my wife and my sons do independent passage plans before a long passage
> so that they will really *know* where we are if something happens to me.
>
>
> >
> > Tide tables?
>
> Yes! Navigators use them when their GPS sets break down.
They do! Wow your smart.
>
>
> >
> > EXTERNAL #5
> >
> > leeway (you are going to
> > > have to know your boats characteristics
> >
> > for this based on angle of heel, something you
> > > can sense in the cabin and therefore another input),
> >
> > Ill say that internal and OK with what the yachtmaster wannabe claims.
> > After all you can sence that in a pilot house with the windows blacked
> > as stated.
> >
> > drift...., you will have a watch and tide
> > > tables.
> >
> > Yelp EXTERNAL IMPUT #5
> >
> > >
> > > To accomplish this with some accuracy is not that difficult, I'm not
> sure
> > > why you seem to be so astounded by such an ability.
> > >
> >
> > Damn..... With 5 external imputs that as easy as tieing your shoe. I
> > thought these yachtmasters knew something special and astonishing.
> >
> > I other works Lanod was talking out his arse and did not have a clue
> > what he was saying. Is that what you are saying ?
>
> Joe, by this stage you should be beginning to realise that I can make more
> sense while talking out of my arse than you can by utilising all the
> intellectual abilities that you have at your disposal. [good insult, huh?]
About as good as your description of blind navigation with no imput at
all, you know the "Waves slapping on the hull" line you spewed. Your
yachtmaster exam sounds like what a basic OS or AB would sit for.
Basic Basic Basic. Your the only one that thinks it is , difficult,
mysterious, and a great feat of navigation.
If you lived in the early 1800's you be yelling at the skipper STOP
STOP before we fall off the edge of the world.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
Donal
"Maxprop" <max...@propshaft.end> wrote in message
news:QdcNb.7148$q4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
>
> > Maxprop wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > Donal's Irish...he does hold the secret of life....
> > >
> > > Bushmills?
No, but very close. The Gaelic for whiskey is "Uisce Beatha" [pron:- ish
ke bah ha] which literally translates as "The water of life".
> > >
> >
> > Bushmills Green Label, if you can find it!
>
> Figured they make a premium product, but I've never seen it here. What's
> the diff? Age? I have found some older Jameson's, though.
Their labelling scheme is a bit odd. The "Gold" label is the standard
product, next comes "Black", and finally Green.
It's a few years since I had a bottle, but IIRC it was 10yo single malt.
Very smooth.
Doug might be correct, it is possible that most of it gets exported.
Another whiskey that seems to be only available abroad is Tullamore Dew. I
get it in France where it is quite cheap.
Regards
Donal
--
DSK
> > Figured they make a premium product, but I've never seen it here. What's
> > the diff? Age? I have found some older Jameson's, though.
>
> Donal wrote:
> Their labelling scheme is a bit odd. The "Gold" label is the standard
> product, next comes "Black", and finally Green.
Their regular stuff is pretty good IMHO (in moderation of course).
>
>
> It's a few years since I had a bottle, but IIRC it was 10yo single malt.
> Very smooth.
>
> Doug might be correct, it is possible that most of it gets exported.
> Another whiskey that seems to be only available abroad is Tullamore Dew. I
> get it in France where it is quite cheap.
Figures. What do the French know about whiskey? They probably use it for cooking
snails.
DSK
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
>
> The question was "How can this be done?".
>
> I've tried to answer the question, but Joe doesn't want to believe me.
> I've also tried to give "real life" examples.
>
> As far as I remember, you have no inputs at all. You issue orders from
> down below, and you predict your position from tide tables. etc.
I believe the "tide tables. etc." was the info joe was looking for. As I
said, I was getting a "glimmer" of this from your responses, but wasn't
absolutely sure.
>
> I'm only talking about standard stuff, currents, leeway, etc.
>
> It is probably designed to show your real passage planning abilities, and
> your likely performance in fog.
.... and as you say, "passage planning" is an area that many people do
not make enough use of, and an area that can save a good deal of grief
if properly employed.
>
>
>>I, for one, would be interested in the specifics of this test, but from
>>your description, don't have a clue as to what's involved, though I'm
>>beginning to pick up some glimmers, that it's a basic piloting exam.
>
>
> I've described the test several times.
> You are sent below, where the ports(windows) have been blacked out.
> You have your starting position clearly marked on the chart.. After 1/2
> hour you are asked to mark your current position on the chart.
>
> While you are below, you may issue instructions. eg course to steer.
> I don't remember if you are told the speed.
>
> The examiner will check the accuracy of your plot, and decide if you merit
> a pass. The examiner decides what accuracy he requires.
Again, see John E's response.
>
> It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
> specifics of what is required.
understood
>
> 13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't even
> GPS.
I think it's been a bit longer than that....course, the time element of
change from "sat nav" to "gps" is kinda blurry ... sat nav being in the
early 80's
>
> Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under radar
> alone is safe. He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
> chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
> assistance. Now you expect me to remember all the precise details of
> something that I studied 13 years ago!
<G> I think you misread/understood what Joe was saying (at least, I read
his statement differently) No one runs the type of boat he was talking
about, in fog, at those speeds, under radar "alone".
The route is well known, local knowledge is extensive, tides and
currents are well known and specific, as are traffic patterns,
densities, etc., and a lookout is normal (lookout may not be on the bow
as this could be dangerous, but there will be one, though I recognize
"idiots" exist in all quarters).
Now, as to your memory ..... of course I expect you to remember those
details .... just don't expect me to remember the details of my "radar
recertification" I did @6 mos ago.
otn
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
Donal
"Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
news:GKWdnRgSP7G...@comcast.com...
> So, are you claiming you don't receive actual speed, or wind readings? Or
> depth? Compass headings? Buoys passed? Sounds heard?
John E has obviously been through it recently, and I think that he gave a
good answer. I believe him when he says he was given some details about the
buoys passed.
As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff.
>
> If you don't get any of this, why bother doing it on board; you could do
the
> same thing in a class room.
John has also said that you will be given the compass heading if the crew
cannot maintain the course that you request.
>
> You made one of your typical outrageous claims, and then have refused to
> clarify.
Jeff, what outrageous claim do you think that I made?
I clarified to the best of my ability.
>How is this not trolling?
Jeff, every post that asks for a response, is in some way a troll.
Was MC trolling when he pointed out the part of Rule 2 that you had
studiously avoided for the last couple of weeks? Or were you trolling when
you stated that a kayak "had no business" to be in a TSS. Were you
trolling when you suggested [and later retracted] that ships could keep a
lookout by radar alone?
Let's face facts Jeff. I've done something to upset you, haven't I? Was
it the position that I took in last year's "pecking order in fog"
discussion? That was a real Neal classic! I freely admit that I played
devil's advocate in that thread. As well as being quite hilarious, the
thread proved very informative, even if you never actually managed to prove
your point.
Just for the record, I *never* troll.
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
"without the use of any electronic device" is the way I (and many of my
classic owning friends) still sail today as my little cruiser (195x
Hillyard) only has an electronic echo sounder (no power feed from the 195x
Stuart 2 stroke and only a 22watt solar panel for a trickle charge on the
lighting circuit), pitching the lead when single handed and closing on a lee
shore in fog is a real bummer (I have got a lead & line in the locker
though) ;-))
The whole tilt on the YachtMaster Offshore and Ocean is the practical aspect
and the ability to deliver on the water, not just in the confines of the
classroom. The YM does have a theory component but to get you ticket you
have to perform on the day on the water (as well as having the minimum time
aboard day and night and the miles logged), in my case the middle of
November, English winter, -17 chill factor and a 30Kt wind blowing. Fun?
Not!
JohnE
"Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
news:3ZidnZF-leS...@comcast.com...
Donal
"otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2zfNb.9156$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Comments interspersed: See John E's response
I've seen it, and it looks like he has done the test recently.
>
> Donal wrote:
>
> >
> > The question was "How can this be done?".
> >
> > I've tried to answer the question, but Joe doesn't want to believe me.
> > I've also tried to give "real life" examples.
> >
> > As far as I remember, you have no inputs at all. You issue orders from
> > down below, and you predict your position from tide tables. etc.
>
> I believe the "tide tables. etc." was the info joe was looking for. As I
> said, I was getting a "glimmer" of this from your responses, but wasn't
> absolutely sure.
I thought that I mentioned these fairly early in the conversation.
>
> >
> > I'm only talking about standard stuff, currents, leeway, etc.
> >
> > It is probably designed to show your real passage planning abilities,
and
> > your likely performance in fog.
>
> .... and as you say, "passage planning" is an area that many people do
> not make enough use of, and an area that can save a good deal of grief
> if properly employed.
Before taking the family on cross-channel trips, I always make sure that my
wife and eldest son do a passage plan. That way, if anything happens to me
they should be able to carry on.
I've also taught my kids that using the GPS means a longer crossing, even
when you allow for the *predicted* tide. The tides are rarely exactly as
predicted. This doesn't matter much on a 12-14 hour crossing, because if
the tide goes faster one way, then it will also go faster the other way. So
we usually stick to our course. Big errors usually correct themselves when
the tide turns.
> >
> >
> >>I, for one, would be interested in the specifics of this test, but from
> >>your description, don't have a clue as to what's involved, though I'm
> >>beginning to pick up some glimmers, that it's a basic piloting exam.
> >
> >
> > I've described the test several times.
> > You are sent below, where the ports(windows) have been blacked out.
> > You have your starting position clearly marked on the chart.. After 1/2
> > hour you are asked to mark your current position on the chart.
> >
> > While you are below, you may issue instructions. eg course to steer.
> > I don't remember if you are told the speed.
> >
> > The examiner will check the accuracy of your plot, and decide if you
merit
> > a pass. The examiner decides what accuracy he requires.
>
> Again, see John E's response.
> >
> > It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
> > specifics of what is required.
>
> understood
>
> >
> > 13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't
even
> > GPS.
>
> I think it's been a bit longer than that....course, the time element of
> change from "sat nav" to "gps" is kinda blurry ... sat nav being in the
> early 80's
The only nav systems that I saw on boats was Decca. Maybe GPS sets were too
expensive???
> >
> > Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under
radar
> > alone is safe. He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
> > chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
> > assistance. Now you expect me to remember all the precise details of
> > something that I studied 13 years ago!
>
> <G> I think you misread/understood what Joe was saying (at least, I read
> his statement differently) No one runs the type of boat he was talking
> about, in fog, at those speeds, under radar "alone".
Did you read the thread? He seemed pretty clear on the subject, and
defended his position quite vigourously.
> The route is well known, local knowledge is extensive, tides and
> currents are well known and specific, as are traffic patterns,
> densities, etc., and a lookout is normal (lookout may not be on the bow
> as this could be dangerous, but there will be one, though I recognize
> "idiots" exist in all quarters).
Joe was adamant that he used radar, and didn't need any other form of
lookout.
> Now, as to your memory ..... of course I expect you to remember those
> details .... just don't expect me to remember the details of my "radar
> recertification" I did @6 mos ago.
>
I've come to the conclusion that you remember the things that are of
practical use. For example, I have forgotton almost all of the morse code.
I've also forgotton what most identification lights mean. If they have
anything unusual, then I give way.
Regards
Donal
--
Joe
>
( lanods backpeddeling sniped for space)
> > > > You are sent below, where the ports(windows) have been blacked out.
Do you have a compass below?
> You have your starting position clearly marked on the chart.. After 1/2
> hour you are asked to mark your current position on the chart.
>
> While you are below, you may issue instructions. eg course to steer.
> I don't remember if you are told the speed.
figure the distance of the seperation of each wave. Count the number
of waves that slapped your hull and divide to get distance, take your
distance and divide by time and you should have speed. Simple, you
should have to be told your speed if your a true Yachtmaster.
>
> The examiner will check the accuracy of your plot, and decide if you merit
> a pass. The examiner decides what accuracy he requires.
>
> It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
> specifics of what is required.
>
> 13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't even
> GPS.
No kidding! Did you have loran? How about a sextant?
>
>
>
>
> > Simply stated, give Ole Joe some basic info to work with and maybe he'll
> > stop asking questions ..... or is this a troll ?
> >
>
> Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under radar
> alone is safe.
Stop twisting the facts Lanod. It is safe if you know the area, know
the radar picture, and your radars ability, know how to use a radio,
and know how to pass safely.
Its not a troll when you have done it a thousand times , It's a fact.
He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
> chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
> assistance.
LIAR, I can do that with ease. However I can not be put in a
wheelhouse
with the windows blackened out and navigate with no external imput
like you claimed the yachtmaster test required.
And you ought to do something about that sweating problem.
Now you expect me to remember all the precise details of
> something that I studied 13 years ago!
You better go back for a refresher course lanod.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Donal
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
news:<bu1ug9$ctj$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > "Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c6d6c2e2.04011...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> >
> > You certainly do not need to be told your position at the start of the
blind
> > test, as at that point you were not navigating blindly.
>
> Oh OK, that makes sence. When I learned to navigate we needed to know
> were we were, that was some of the basic stuff.
Exactly.
> > You do not ask the crew for the compass reading. As the navigator you
> > *tell* the crew what the compass heading should be.
> >
> But you have to look at the compass to tell what your course is,
> therefore the compass is giving you imput, can you understand this
> farout concept?
>
No, you tell the crew what course to steer. As John E has pointed out, they
may tell you if they cannot steer to your course, and tell you what course
they can make. I didn't remember the rules on the last bit, but it makes
sense.
> > If I am navigator, then I direct the course changes.
>
> Not if you move blind into a strong current, the current might set
> your course and drift, without external imput from your compass you
> will not be able to accurately tell your deviation from orignal
> heading, if you are blind that is.
I don't follow you. A strong current at sea shouldn't change the compass
heading??? It may change your course, but then again, the test is meant to
show if you are aware of the currents.
The only way that the compass reading could be affected by currents is if
the boat was being steered by the GPS.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...... go on Joe, you really want to mention "meeting" or "crossing"
> > situations, don't you?
>
> Yeah and being blind without external imput meeting situation are
> going to be very risky huh?
>
No, the crew, including the examiner won't crash the boat!
> >
> > A competent navigator will have used his tide tables before he sets out
on
> > his trip. In fact, I mentioned this a couple of years ago. I always
insist
> > that my wife and my sons do independent passage plans before a long
passage
> > so that they will really *know* where we are if something happens to me.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Tide tables?
> >
> > Yes! Navigators use them when their GPS sets break down.
>
>
> They do! Wow your smart.
Why did you ask?
>
> About as good as your description of blind navigation with no imput at
> all, you know the "Waves slapping on the hull" line you spewed. Your
> yachtmaster exam sounds like what a basic OS or AB would sit for.
> Basic Basic Basic. Your the only one that thinks it is , difficult,
> mysterious, and a great feat of navigation.
I don't think any such thing at all. I see it as a recreational boater's
qualification. AFAIK, you cannot use it to get many professional jobs.
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
Donal
news:<bu3d6f$8vb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> ( lanods backpeddeling sniped for space)
>
> > > > > You are sent below, where the ports(windows) have been blacked
out.
>
> Do you have a compass below?
No!
>
>
> > You have your starting position clearly marked on the chart.. After 1/2
> > hour you are asked to mark your current position on the chart.
> >
> > While you are below, you may issue instructions. eg course to steer.
> > I don't remember if you are told the speed.
>
> figure the distance of the seperation of each wave. Count the number
> of waves that slapped your hull and divide to get distance, take your
> distance and divide by time and you should have speed. Simple, you
> should have to be told your speed if your a true Yachtmaster.
>
> >
> > The examiner will check the accuracy of your plot, and decide if you
merit
> > a pass. The examiner decides what accuracy he requires.
> >
> > It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
> > specifics of what is required.
> >
> > 13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't
even
> > GPS.
>
> No kidding! Did you have loran? How about a sextant?
No! I bought my first, and only, GPS about 6-7 years ago.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Simply stated, give Ole Joe some basic info to work with and maybe
he'll
> > > stop asking questions ..... or is this a troll ?
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under
radar
> > alone is safe.
>
> Stop twisting the facts Lanod. It is safe if you know the area, know
> the radar picture, and your radars ability, know how to use a radio,
> and know how to pass safely.
Twisting the facts???? You've just repeated them again!
>
> Its not a troll when you have done it a thousand times , It's a fact.
>
>
> He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
> > chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
> > assistance.
>
> LIAR, I can do that with ease. However I can not be put in a
> wheelhouse
> with the windows blackened out and navigate with no external imput
> like you claimed the yachtmaster test required.
Hmmmm! You have a steering wheel in the wheelhouse, don't you?
I'm beginning to think that you are confusing the word "navigate" with
"steer"!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
>
> "Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
> news:GKWdnRgSP7G...@comcast.com...
> > So, are you claiming you don't receive actual speed, or wind readings? Or
> > depth? Compass headings? Buoys passed? Sounds heard?
>
> John E has obviously been through it recently, and I think that he gave a
> good answer. I believe him when he says he was given some details about the
> buoys passed.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff.
>
I didn't expect you to remember all the details, but you did say "NO external
imputs." Regardless of your memory, you have to admit this is a bit farfetched.
>
> >
> > If you don't get any of this, why bother doing it on board; you could do
> the
> > same thing in a class room.
>
> John has also said that you will be given the compass heading if the crew
> cannot maintain the course that you request.
>
John described a quite reasonable procedure.
>
> >
> > You made one of your typical outrageous claims, and then have refused to
> > clarify.
>
> Jeff, what outrageous claim do you think that I made?
>
You said:
> Yachtmasters only have to show that they can navigate without external
> inputs to prove that they understand the basic principles of navigation.
You repeated the claim of "no imputs" even after the obvious paradox was pointed
out.
> I clarified to the best of my ability.
You had plenty of opportunity say "maybe we had speed and depth," but you
evaded that. That's why it was a troll.
>
> >How is this not trolling?
>
> Jeff, every post that asks for a response, is in some way a troll.
>
> Was MC trolling when he pointed out the part of Rule 2 that you had
> studiously avoided for the last couple of weeks?
As I recall, when I said rule 2 was relevant to the kayak situation you said
that was ridiculous. Its too much work to look it up now unless you insist.
I didn't suggest rule 2 was relevant to your "25 knots in the fog" case simply
because I never denied that it would be reckless if the was no lookout, and in
any case I wasn't familiar with the area.
> Or were you trolling when
> you stated that a kayak "had no business" to be in a TSS.
Maybe a bit, but I was willing to back up my claim. However, with the exception
of you and Rick, no one disagreed with me. The only issue in question was the
legality, not the propriety.
> Were you
> trolling when you suggested [and later retracted] that ships could keep a
> lookout by radar alone?
I never said that and you know it. My "retraction" was the very next sentence,
not a later post. This is why I consider you a cowardly liar, and a troll of
the lowest order. I take that back, RB has at times been worse, so I guess its
a tossup.
>
> Let's face facts Jeff. I've done something to upset you, haven't I?
No not at all! I rather enjoy it. Its just that after a while you get to be an
embarrassment!
> Was
> it the position that I took in last year's "pecking order in fog"
> discussion? That was a real Neal classic! I freely admit that I played
> devil's advocate in that thread.
You certainly didn't play an intelligent person.
> As well as being quite hilarious, the
> thread proved very informative, even if you never actually managed to prove
> your point.
Prove my point? I didn't have to "prove my point" since everyone except you and
Neal agreed with me. Neal was resorting to claiming that the Naval Academy
textbook was part of a left wing conspiracy! I only persisted because I was
afraid that some naive fool (maybe even you?) might believe Neal's claim that
sailboats are the stand-on vessel in the fog.
BTW, an odd coincidence: I received the Ocean Navigator "Rules of the Road
Newsletter" yesterday and it describes a radar-assisted collision between a ship
and a sailboat. It was a generally confused situation where the sailboat
thought it was the stand-on vessel. On this point the newsletter says:
"regardless of those two possible assumptions, stand-on/give-way do not exist
when the vessels are not in sight."
>
> Just for the record, I *never* troll.
Then why did I respond?
-jeff
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
> "otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>.... and as you say, "passage planning" is an area that many people do
>>not make enough use of, and an area that can save a good deal of grief
>>if properly employed.
>
>
> Before taking the family on cross-channel trips, I always make sure that my
> wife and eldest son do a passage plan. That way, if anything happens to me
> they should be able to carry on.
>
> I've also taught my kids that using the GPS means a longer crossing, even
> when you allow for the *predicted* tide. The tides are rarely exactly as
> predicted. This doesn't matter much on a 12-14 hour crossing, because if
> the tide goes faster one way, then it will also go faster the other way. So
> we usually stick to our course. Big errors usually correct themselves when
> the tide turns.
One of the "problems" with using GPS exclusively for navigation, is that
often we either forget or never learn some of the "old" tricks that were
used, prior to GPS.
For instance, there are many routes that people take, where they knew
the effects of current and didn't bother with course change that the GPS
may show as needed to make point "B" from point "A". Prior to GPS, you'd
set one course and never change it (on these routes) and no matter how
far you wandered off the base course line, you left the course alone,
because when you got to point "B", you'd have wandered back to where you
wanted to be.
>>
>>>13 years ago, there was far less electronics on boats. There wasn't
>
> even
>
>>>GPS.
>>
>>I think it's been a bit longer than that....course, the time element of
>>change from "sat nav" to "gps" is kinda blurry ... sat nav being in the
>>early 80's
>
>
> The only nav systems that I saw on boats was Decca. Maybe GPS sets were too
> expensive???
Until GPS, SAT NAV sets tended to be expensive, required (initially)
knowing antenna height, and only gave positions when they had satellites
aligned (visible) so they may not give you positions as and when you
really needed them, which meant you best be using other methods also.
>
>
>
>>>Hmmm, who's trolling? Joe claims that doing 25 knots in fog under
>
> radar
>
>>>alone is safe. He refuses to believe that you can use tide tables and a
>>>chart to plan a course that you can actually use without much further
>>>assistance. Now you expect me to remember all the precise details of
>>>something that I studied 13 years ago!
>>
>><G> I think you misread/understood what Joe was saying (at least, I read
>>his statement differently) No one runs the type of boat he was talking
>>about, in fog, at those speeds, under radar "alone".
>
>
> Did you read the thread? He seemed pretty clear on the subject, and
> defended his position quite vigourously.
Been following it all along. We are obviously interpreting it differently.
>
>
>
>>The route is well known, local knowledge is extensive, tides and
>>currents are well known and specific, as are traffic patterns,
>>densities, etc., and a lookout is normal (lookout may not be on the bow
>>as this could be dangerous, but there will be one, though I recognize
>>"idiots" exist in all quarters).
>
>
> Joe was adamant that he used radar, and didn't need any other form of
> lookout.
I read he was using radar as his most immediate and important source of
traffic and navigation information, not his only source. If he didn't
have a second pair of eyes from among the crew, also watching from some
position, then shame on him.
>
>
>>Now, as to your memory ..... of course I expect you to remember those
>>details .... just don't expect me to remember the details of my "radar
>>recertification" I did @6 mos ago.
>>
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion that you remember the things that are of
> practical use. For example, I have forgotton almost all of the morse code.
still remember that
>
> I've also forgotton what most identification lights mean. If they have
> anything unusual, then I give way.
<G> good reason to always have the "Rules" book handy. I try to read it
cover to cover every 6 mos, and frequently thumb through the "lights"
section at other times, especially if I've been caught short on making
an identity, while underway.
To be honest, getting into these discussions, has and is an excellent
way to maintain "Rules" currency.
Were you aware, that the latest change to rule 8(a), was mainly an
attempt to emphasis the rule regarding changing course to port to avoid
a collision? <BG> Just thought I'd throw that in there.
otn
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
>
>
>
John.E
>
> "Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
> news:GKWdnRgSP7G...@comcast.com...
> > So, are you claiming you don't receive actual speed, or wind readings?
Or
> > depth? Compass headings? Buoys passed? Sounds heard?
>
> John E has obviously been through it recently, and I think that he gave a
> good answer. I believe him when he says he was given some details about
the
> buoys passed.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did this stuff.
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
Prior to a key press from our 5yr old this is what I intended to post...
Donal, I did my exam around 11 years ago. I had just started sailing and was
studying my CC, DS, CS and YMOf & YMOc at the time you claim to have passed
yours.
I can not say I noticed the exam guideline or curriculum changing in that
time. Which leads to my questions...
Do really have a YM?
Which is it?
What endorsments do you carry?
What is your issue number? At the rate they were/are awarded I would imagine
we will be within 1000 of each other.
Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed
but IMO you are a faker!
JohnE
MC
Donal wrote:
>
> I've also forgotton what most lights mean. If they have
> anything unusual, then I give way.
>
Even to channel markers?
;-P
Cheers
MC
John.E wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> "without the use of any electronic device" is the way I (and many of my
> classic owning friends) still sail today as my little cruiser (195x
> Hillyard) only has an electronic echo sounder (no power feed from the 195x
> Stuart 2 stroke and only a 22watt solar panel for a trickle charge on the
> lighting circuit), pitching the lead when single handed and closing on a lee
> shore in fog is a real bummer (I have got a lead & line in the locker
> though) ;-))
>
> The whole tilt on the YachtMaster Offshore and Ocean is the practical aspect
> and the ability to deliver on the water, not just in the confines of the
> classroom. The YM does have a theory component but to get you ticket you
> have to perform on the day on the water (as well as having the minimum time
> aboard day and night and the miles logged), in my case the middle of
> November, English winter, -17 chill factor and a 30Kt wind blowing. Fun?
> Not!
>
Not only that, what about the case in Heavy Weather sailing where a
whole YM
examination class set sail into a full gale!
Cheers MC
Joe
> Hmmmm! You have a steering wheel in the wheelhouse, don't you?
No I have a helm.
>
> I'm beginning to think that you are confusing the word "navigate" with
> "steer"!
Steering in the right direction is navigating you dunce. If your down
below and the guy above on the steering wheel (helm) is going in
circles and figure 8's it kind of hard to Navigate without any imput
with no compass below.
At least I'm smart enough to put a compass over my bunk and one at my
nav station. Guess your are blacked out like a true Yachtmasters
should be.
Joe
> This was applied in my exam... (sailing not motoring)
>
> I got about two minutes to fix my position from a 3point/running fix and I
> was sent then below decks (with curtains closed and no outside view)...
> Once below I was then supplied with my target...
> (a bouy about 6-7 Nm away along the Solent, a very busy stretch of water
> full of commercial and pleasure traffic)
> I was allowed the following info...
> crew were permitted to supply shape of any bouy passed within
> 5-10mtrs... (not colour or markings)
> crew could supply compass heading if course requested heading could not
> be achieved... (under sail, no motors)
> crew could supply speed through water from log reading... (no VMG or
> other compute details)
> crew could supply current depth from echo sounder... (I assume the a
> leadline is concidered to be aboard)
> charts of given exam area and tidal atlas...
> The examiner would also feed me various sound signals just to spcie things
> up!
>
> There you have it, the only info available was information that could be
> gleaned without the use of any electronic device and no engines used.
>
> JohnE
Thanks John,
Excellent description.
With so many clues and imputs it seems to be fairly basic. With the
shapes of bouys who needs to know the color, and with the spacing
being far enough apart its real easy to reckon. With sound signals and
depth reading you should be able to stay in a channel and know exactly
were you are, or know when your getting out of it, and perhaps plot
your progress thru any area that has a bottom that varies in depth.
All this information that can be combined on any detailed chart for a
fairly accurate fix.
One mistake., You said all the information must be gleened without the
use of any electronic aids. And unless your using a lead line you were
cheating.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
>
> "Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c6d6c2e2.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > "One of the tests involves sitting at the chart table, with the ports
> blacked
> > out, and predicting your position to within a few metres.
> >
> > In other words, you have to sail (and navigate) the boat "blind".
> >
> > No external imput at all.
> >
> > How can this be done?
> >
> > Joe
> > MSV RedCloud
Jeff Morris
> > gleaned without the use of any electronic device and no engines used.
> >
> > JohnE
>
> use of any electronic aids. And unless your using a lead line you were
> cheating.
>
I noticed that, but he actually said "could be gleaned" without electronics.
The modern depth sounder actually give less info than the traditional lead line,
especially to someone very familiar with the area. Even the old "spinning neon
tube" sounders gave a lot of useful info. The "tridata" style sounder is
worthless compared to a basic fishfinder.
Maxprop
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
> Their labelling scheme is a bit odd. The "Gold" label is the standard
> product, next comes "Black", and finally Green.
>
> It's a few years since I had a bottle, but IIRC it was 10yo single malt.
> Very smooth.
Seems young by Scottish standards. Then again those Irishmen always have
been in a hurry. I'll see if I can find some.
Max
Maxprop
"DSK" <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>What do the French know about whiskey? They probably use it for cooking
> snails.
They pretend it's cognac.
Max
Donal
>
> Donal, I did my exam around 11 years ago. I had just started sailing and
was
> studying my CC, DS, CS and YMOf & YMOc at the time you claim to have
passed
> yours.
All of them? At the same time??? You are taking the p&ss! I don't
believe that anybody would/could study all these courses at the same time.
Do you really expect us to believe that you did the Competent Crew and the
Yachtmaster Ocean at the same time?
I think that you are a liar! I do not see that it is possible to meet the
the requirements for the YMO in the same year that you do the CC.
> I can not say I noticed the exam guideline or curriculum changing in that
> time. Which leads to my questions...
>
> Do really have a YM?
> Which is it?
> What endorsments do you carry?
> What is your issue number? At the rate they were/are awarded I would
imagine
> we will be within 1000 of each other.
>
> Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed
> but IMO you are a faker!
You are wrong. Why do you think that I am a faker? Get your knife and
fork ready.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
"MC" <m...@sailing.com> wrote in message
news:bu4crj$df777$6...@ID-58816.news.uni-berlin.de...
No, I know those! I was talking about the lights shown by various types
of vessel.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
>
> > Hmmmm! You have a steering wheel in the wheelhouse, don't you?
>
> No I have a helm.
>
>
> >
> > I'm beginning to think that you are confusing the word "navigate" with
> > "steer"!
>
> Steering in the right direction is navigating you dunce.
Yes ..... and No! If you look back up the thread, it should become
obvious that they are different.
>If your down
> below and the guy above on the steering wheel (helm) is going in
> circles and figure 8's it kind of hard to Navigate without any imput
> with no compass below.
You have to assume that the guy on the helm is steering the course that you
requested.
>
> At least I'm smart enough to put a compass over my bunk and one at my
> nav station. Guess your are blacked out like a true Yachtmasters
> should be.
Actually, I have a compass down below ... and a radar screen, ....
I just don't rely exclusively on them.
Regards
Donal
--
MC
Like a test?
Cheers
John.E
Touche' :-)) I did say a line was assumed, though it would have added more
spice have a crew member swing for me, the data supplied would have helped
as I could have had wax samples to help confirm the sea floor materials
(hoho)
I'm glad this answered your query Joe.
The UK YM Offshore (there is also an Ocean, a bitch theory paper, oral exam,
and qualifying passage with sights etc) is fairly tough. It runs for 6 to 8
hours none stop at sea, you take command of the vessel and off you go, under
the microscope. Though it is not the be all and end all of certification
though many people do fail it due to the range of areas examined and the
live condition of the test, no second chance, you deliver the lot on demand
in one go or you blow it. What it does do is let a lot of us go to sea with
the some sound sailing abilities to look after ourselves, our crews, our
vessels and hopefully remove the risk to other vessels and crews from our
bad calls.
John
As a foot note: The 2 most experienced (miles on boats) candidates that week
failed at the hands of my examiner. One had us run down by an imaginary ship
while following a channel and the the other failed the rudderless sailing
exercise (helm lashed, steer with the sails only) and sent a crew memebr
forward to change a sail in an F6-7 blow, in the dark, on thier own when we
had a total body count of 5, there were other sins to but these spring to
mind. The examiner was a Joint Services Sailing Instructor (military) and a
real stickler. He had me trolling about for 20 or 30 minutes once I had
arrived at my blind nav' destination claiming the bouy was not to be seen,
just waiting for my bottle to go. The crew gave it away in the end by
cracking up as I trolled past and past again the target :-) When he finally
let me out on deck, just as I ducked my head to light a smoke he call MOB,
more stress and on it went ... I went on to pass and became his lowest
mileage pass ever (some self praise), in fact I was around 50 miles short of
the minimum figure but as most of my sea time was single handed coastal
sailing (all tides and pilotage) he cut me the slack based on the range of
my experiences and competence. He did however then tell me to go away and
learn to sail :-) The following year I completed 3 trans-atlantics and
several Med-UK deliveried in capacity from deckie to skipper :-)) And 10
years on I am still learning...
John.E
Mapped out a sailing program and got the local council to run it as a
retraining project to allow me and several others to knock most of them off
in a 6 month time slot. It bailed out our local sailing school for a while
until they rolled over and the project was bailed by the Docklands Trust.
Still got the silly little paper tags in the back of the logbook too, can
validate a time line if needed. Took my YM offshore practical about 12
months after that, did my Ocean qualifier about 3 months after that (theory
already bagged on project) but never did the oral as I just ain't so hot
with a sextant and sight reduction tables.
Still note you have not answered the call, good job diverting attention for
the question raised though.
You a faker or no Dolan?
I have my knife and fork ready if I need it, but I still ain't convinced.
JohnE
"Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
news:bu4ii4$8th$3$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
John.E
>
< snip >
>
> I noticed that, but he actually said "could be gleaned" without
electronics.
> The modern depth sounder actually give less info than the traditional lead
line,
> especially to someone very familiar with the area. Even the old
"spinning neon
> tube" sounders gave a lot of useful info. The "tridata" style sounder is
> worthless compared to a basic fishfinder.
>
Spinning Neon :-)) Great arn't they. Fussy bar for soft stuff and clean
ping for bear rocks :-)) I still use one.
JohnE
Martin Baxter
>
> "Maxprop" <max...@propshaft.end> wrote in message
> news:QdcNb.7148$q4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Doug might be correct, it is possible that most of it gets exported.
> Another whiskey that seems to be only available abroad is Tullamore Dew.
I've got a bottle of that in the booze cupboard, sells for the same price
as our domestic rye whiskeys, in other words, an arm and a leg after the Government
gets its' cut.
Cheers
Marty
Donal
> Donal,
>
> Mapped out a sailing program and got the local council to run it as a
> retraining project to allow me and several others to knock most of them
off
> in a 6 month time slot. It bailed out our local sailing school for a while
> until they rolled over and the project was bailed by the Docklands Trust.
> Still got the silly little paper tags in the back of the logbook too, can
> validate a time line if needed. Took my YM offshore practical about 12
> months after that, did my Ocean qualifier about 3 months after that
(theory
> already bagged on project) but never did the oral as I just ain't so hot
> with a sextant and sight reduction tables.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you haven't got a YMO?
>
> Still note you have not answered the call, good job diverting attention
for
> the question raised though.
> You a faker or no Dolan?
> I have my knife and fork ready if I need it, but I still ain't convinced.
Keep them clean. You'll be able to use them in about a week!
BTW, do you know of a company whose name begins with Q?
Don't waste time thinking about the question. It either makes complete
sense, or none.
Regards
Donal
--
Joe
> Do really have a YM?
Do ya Donal? Take a picture and post it O Yachtmaster!
> Which is it?
Yeah Which is it Lanod?
> What endorsments do you carry?
No radar! Thats for sure.
> What is your issue number? At the rate they were/are awarded I would imagine
> we will be within 1000 of each other.
What the Number Donal? Post a picture like Neil did. Put up or shut
up!
>
> Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed
> but IMO you are a faker!
>
> JohnE
He's all talk with no knowledge John. Anyone that claims they had to
navigate with the windows blackened out and no imput has to be a
faker!
Joe
MSV RedCloud
John.E
>
> "John.E" <Joh...@no.spam.today.thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:4005d8d0$0$16731$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > Donal,
> >
> > Mapped out a sailing program and got the local council to run it as a
> > retraining project to allow me and several others to knock most of them
> off
> > in a 6 month time slot. It bailed out our local sailing school for a
while
> > until they rolled over and the project was bailed by the Docklands
Trust.
> > Still got the silly little paper tags in the back of the logbook too,
can
> > validate a time line if needed. Took my YM offshore practical about 12
> > months after that, did my Ocean qualifier about 3 months after that
> (theory
> > already bagged on project) but never did the oral as I just ain't so hot
> > with a sextant and sight reduction tables.
>
> I'm confused. Are you saying that you haven't got a YMO?
Which bit of "Took my YM offshore practical about 12 months after that"
confused you?
>
> >
> > Still note you have not answered the call, good job diverting attention
> for
> > the question raised though.
> > You a faker or no Dolan?
> > I have my knife and fork ready if I need it, but I still ain't
convinced.
>
> Keep them clean. You'll be able to use them in about a week!
>
Can't be bothered. From your reluctance to answer it seems even more likey
you just full of it.
>
> BTW, do you know of a company whose name begins with Q?
> Don't waste time thinking about the question. It either makes complete
> sense, or none.
>
Makes no sense!
>
>
> Regards
>
> Donal
> --
>
Come on, put up or shut up. Your evasion is getting tedious and merely
further reinforces the impression that you a faker, or to use your own
parlance, a LIAR!
JohnE
John.E
news:<4005acf2$0$10063$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>
>
>
> > Do really have a YM?
>
> Do ya Donal? Take a picture and post it O Yachtmaster!
>
> > Which is it?
>
> Yeah Which is it Lanod?
>
> > What endorsments do you carry?
>
> No radar! Thats for sure.
>
> > What is your issue number? At the rate they were/are awarded I would
imagine
> > we will be within 1000 of each other.
>
> What the Number Donal? Post a picture like Neil did. Put up or shut
> up!
Don't need a picky Joe (but it would be nice). If the the number is around
1000 before mine he is probably cosher.
>
> >
> > Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
needed
> > but IMO you are a faker!
> >
> > JohnE
>
> He's all talk with no knowledge John. Anyone that claims they had to
> navigate with the windows blackened out and no imput has to be a
> faker!
>
> Joe
> MSV RedCloud
Could be he's a tellypath ;-))
JohnE
Joe
> > >>
> BTW, do you know of a company whose name begins with Q?
> Don't waste time thinking about the question. It either makes complete
> sense, or none.
I DO! I DO! It that company that make the gagets for Bond, James
Bond.
The guy who runs the show is named Q. Every Brit knows that, shucks
even us Texans know that.
Why do you ask?, Are you looking for super secret yachtmaster gear.
Like the innercranium gyro repeater, or the blind man compass glasses,
or perhaps hull piercing foward looking infer-red goggles.
That Q fellow is pretty smart. Good luck shopping.
Donal
"Martin Baxter" <baxt...@rmc.ca> wrote in message
news:400680E7...@rmc.ca...
Have a taste, and tell us what you think of it.
I am under the impression that the "connisseurs"(sp?... I can see it's
wrong, but I don't know why!) do not rate it highly. However, to my simple
taste buds, it is as good as Bushmills Green Label, and yet only costs half
as much.
Regards
Donal
--
Joe
We always in a channel had another person on lookout, but keep in
mind he also had the duty of engineroom walkthrus. If you have ever
ran the mississippi this time of the year you would know what Im
talking about. You can have your deckhands face buried into another
radar, that the only way he is going to help lookout. To be looking
out the windows was a waste of time, the fog is that thick, your lucky
if you can see your bow. Donal is insane if he thinks it will help to
put a man on the bow of a crewboat doing 20 knots, I wouldent even
suggest that on a clear day in a channel, just incase you run aground
or hit a submerged object. At 20+ knts your not going to hear much
besides your own boat.
And if he's yelling at something he see's it to late to do much about
it.
The fact is Donal hasent a clue what a professional mariner can
accomplish with the proper tools. He thinks it best to put a person on
the bow because he does on a quiet sailboat doing 2 knots. Thats safe
to him because it will help him. On a crewboat your risking your crews
life doing something so stupid. 100 tons of aluminum going 20 knots
with a 180 pound kid on the bow...........in the fog...........
Id rather have him strapped in the wheelhouse learning how to use a
curser and ID targets.
Donal can not understand how someone could navigate a river or
channel at 20 + knot safely with radars as your only eyes. Donal has
no real pratical skills using a radar, or pratical skills at radar
plotting.
Rivers and canals are the best place to do this. With flat water you
can tune a radar to see the wake off a canoe. The outline of the banks
can be as familiar as seeing it in the day. Tanks on the banks,
Hunting shacks, channel markers, islands, bouys, docks, tree clumps,
logs and even seagrass clumps can be tuned in to a crystal clear
picture if you know what your looking at, and know how to use the
tool.
Would he argue so strongly if I said the wheelhouse was equiped with
FLIR?
He's just a baby step above a weekend warrior.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Donal
news:<hme6ub...@mailgate067.lanode.com>...
> > > >>
> > BTW, do you know of a company whose name begins with Q?
> > Don't waste time thinking about the question. It either makes complete
> > sense, or none.
>
>
> I DO! I DO! It that company that make the gagets for Bond, James
> Bond.
> The guy who runs the show is named Q. Every Brit knows that, shucks
> even us Texans know that.
>
> Why do you ask?, Are you looking for super secret yachtmaster gear.
No. I am trying to avoid a flame war with someone that I might know.
Somebody who might nor be aware that he knows me. It's a small world
sometimes, and I know somebody with a name that made me wonder.
>
> Like the innercranium gyro repeater, or the blind man compass glasses,
> or perhaps hull piercing foward looking infer-red goggles.
You should do your own typing, Joe!
>
> That Q fellow is pretty smart. Good luck shopping.
Thanks.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
Possibly! One thing is certain - you aren't telepathic.
Tell us, how many Trans-Atlantic trips have you done?
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Joe wrote:
>
>
> We always in a channel had another person on lookout, but keep in
> mind he also had the duty of engineroom walkthrus. If you have ever
> ran the mississippi this time of the year you would know what Im
> talking about.
Been there done that.
You can have your deckhands face buried into another
> radar, that the only way he is going to help lookout. To be looking
> out the windows was a waste of time, the fog is that thick, your lucky
> if you can see your bow.
I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at
times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and
rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more
than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy.
Donal is insane if he thinks it will help to
> put a man on the bow of a crewboat doing 20 knots, I wouldent even
> suggest that on a clear day in a channel, just incase you run aground
> or hit a submerged object. At 20+ knts your not going to hear much
> besides your own boat.
It may or may not, but here, the safety issue for the crew, is
paramount, and the communications issue, important.
>
> And if he's yelling at something he see's it to late to do much about
> it.
<G> Mebbe ... depends on whether you've also seen it and/or hit it.
>
> The fact is Donal hasent a clue what a professional mariner can
> accomplish with the proper tools. He thinks it best to put a person on
> the bow because he does on a quiet sailboat doing 2 knots. Thats safe
> to him because it will help him. On a crewboat your risking your crews
> life doing something so stupid. 100 tons of aluminum going 20 knots
> with a 180 pound kid on the bow...........in the fog...........
>
> Id rather have him strapped in the wheelhouse learning how to use a
> curser and ID targets.
>
> Donal can not understand how someone could navigate a river or
> channel at 20 + knot safely with radars as your only eyes. Donal has
> no real pratical skills using a radar, or pratical skills at radar
> plotting.
Now, let's be honest Joe <G> how often do you perform an actual "plot",
under these conditions with the equipment you have?
>
> Rivers and canals are the best place to do this. With flat water you
> can tune a radar to see the wake off a canoe. The outline of the banks
> can be as familiar as seeing it in the day. Tanks on the banks,
> Hunting shacks, channel markers, islands, bouys, docks, tree clumps,
> logs and even seagrass clumps can be tuned in to a crystal clear
> picture if you know what your looking at, and know how to use the
> tool.
>
> Would he argue so strongly if I said the wheelhouse was equiped with
> FLIR?
<BG> I'm waiting for them to come up with a lightweight, portable,
inexpensive unit, that I can carry with me.
otn
Donal
> > > months after that, did my Ocean qualifier about 3 months after that
> > (theory
> > > already bagged on project) but never did the oral as I just ain't so
hot
> > > with a sextant and sight reduction tables.
> >
> > I'm confused. Are you saying that you haven't got a YMO?
>
> Which bit of "Took my YM offshore practical about 12 months after that"
> confused you?
>
I somehow got the impression that you were claiming to have done the
"Yachtmaster.Ocean" a couple of posts back.
> >
> > Keep them clean. You'll be able to use them in about a week!
> >
>
> Can't be bothered. From your reluctance to answer it seems even more likey
> you just full of it.
It will be worth the wait, honestly.
>
> >
> > BTW, do you know of a company whose name begins with Q?
> > Don't waste time thinking about the question. It either makes complete
> > sense, or none.
> >
>
> Makes no sense!
Whew! I didn't want to have a row with someone that I might know.
> >
>
> Come on, put up or shut up. Your evasion is getting tedious and merely
> further reinforces the impression that you a faker, or to use your own
> parlance, a LIAR!
I said that you will be able to use your cutlery in a week.
It's more fun this way. I *will* answer your questions within the week.
I promise.
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
My claim was to have taken the Yachtmater Exam that included the topic of
descussion, Blind Navigation. As I believe your claim was! As there is no
blind nav' on the Ocean course, either theory or practical, assuming you
have completed one or either (can't do Ocean without Offshore in any case)
then your provarication over confusion as to Offshore or Ocean still further
digs the hole you currently sitting in.
I am becoming more sceptical as to why is going to take still more time to
ID you certificate. Is this so can check for an appropriate name in the
correct time frame? After all, IF YOU do hold the ticket it is simply a case
of posting a number. This should only take moments should it not?
Come on, as I have said before, post it now and lets put this fantasy of
your to sleep...
I know what I have done, make no issues over my strengths of failings, or
the level of my certifaction. Why is it you still can't do such a simple
thig?
JohnE
John.E
40 (Canaries - St. Lucia).
And you?
JohnE
Martin Baxter
>
> I am under the impression that the "connisseurs"(sp?... I can see it's
> wrong, but I don't know why!) do not rate it highly. However, to my simple
> taste buds, it is as good as Bushmills Green Label, and yet only costs half
> as much.
Well I'm hardly a connoisseur of Irish Whiskeys, but, IMHO, Tullamore is not as
good as Bushmills, (any label), it seems to be somewhat harsher, less smooth if
you will. However, it's just great for making Irish Coffee, which would probably
be a hanging offense if done with Bushmills Green! Sort of like mixing soda and adding
ice to Glenlivit (sp).
Cheers
Marty
Donal
> Donal,
>
<snip>
>
> I am becoming more sceptical as to why is going to take still more time to
> ID you certificate. Is this so can check for an appropriate name in the
> correct time frame? After all, IF YOU do hold the ticket it is simply a
case
> of posting a number. This should only take moments should it not?
Correct.
>
> Come on, as I have said before, post it now and lets put this fantasy of
> your to sleep...
>
> I know what I have done, make no issues over my strengths of failings, or
> the level of my certifaction. Why is it you still can't do such a simple
> thig?
You are suffering from the delusion that I owe you any kind of response at
all.
Imagine that you walk into a strange pub. You overhear part of an argument
between two of the regulars. Would you introduce yourself by immediately
attacking the integrity of one of the participants?
That is exactly what you appear to have done here. Even worse, you have
incorrectly questioned my integrity.
You have behaved with outrageous impertinence, and I feel that you might
learn some manners if I treat you the same way.
As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6 days. I
deserve to get a little pleasure from the exercise.
Keep the cutlery ready!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
> Imagine that you walk into a strange pub. You overhear part of an argument
> between two of the regulars. Would you introduce yourself by immediately
> attacking the integrity of one of the participants?
Are you taking the moral high ground?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Its -8F outside now. I can't go for a sail
because the harbor is frozen.
Joe
> Some comments interspersed:
>
> Joe wrote:
> >
> >
> > We always in a channel had another person on lookout, but keep in
> > mind he also had the duty of engineroom walkthrus. If you have ever
> > ran the mississippi this time of the year you would know what Im
> > talking about.
>
> Been there done that.
>
> You can have your deckhands face buried into another
> > radar, that the only way he is going to help lookout. To be looking
> > out the windows was a waste of time, the fog is that thick, your lucky
> > if you can see your bow.
>
> I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at
> times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and
> rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more
> than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy.
Thats OK at night or offshore, but not a good ideal in the day or
river....
It's a night vision issue. Fof blindness is somewhat like snow
blindness
>
> Donal is insane if he thinks it will help to
> > put a man on the bow of a crewboat doing 20 knots, I wouldent even
> > suggest that on a clear day in a channel, just incase you run aground
> > or hit a submerged object. At 20+ knts your not going to hear much
> > besides your own boat.
>
> It may or may not, but here, the safety issue for the crew, is
> paramount, and the communications issue, important.
Yeah, on a crewboat its dangerious and near impossiable to
communicate
> >
> > And if he's yelling at something he see's it to late to do much about
> > it.
>
> <G> Mebbe ... depends on whether you've also seen it and/or hit it.
> >
If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at
20kts?
> > The fact is Donal hasent a clue what a professional mariner can
> > accomplish with the proper tools. He thinks it best to put a person on
> > the bow because he does on a quiet sailboat doing 2 knots. Thats safe
> > to him because it will help him. On a crewboat your risking your crews
> > life doing something so stupid. 100 tons of aluminum going 20 knots
> > with a 180 pound kid on the bow...........in the fog...........
> >
> > Id rather have him strapped in the wheelhouse learning how to use a
> > curser and ID targets.
> >
> > Donal can not understand how someone could navigate a river or
> > channel at 20 + knot safely with radars as your only eyes. Donal has
> > no real pratical skills using a radar, or pratical skills at radar
> > plotting.
>
> Now, let's be honest Joe <G> how often do you perform an actual "plot",
> under these conditions with the equipment you have?
> >
Plotting.... not often unless coming up on a seabouy with inbound
traffic or offshore. On the crewboats we did little plotting, but
supply and tow boats we plotted most targets, always when we were the
lead tow on a jack-up or semi.
> > Rivers and canals are the best place to do this. With flat water you
> > can tune a radar to see the wake off a canoe. The outline of the banks
> > can be as familiar as seeing it in the day. Tanks on the banks,
> > Hunting shacks, channel markers, islands, bouys, docks, tree clumps,
> > logs and even seagrass clumps can be tuned in to a crystal clear
> > picture if you know what your looking at, and know how to use the
> > tool.
> >
> > Would he argue so strongly if I said the wheelhouse was equiped with
> > FLIR?
>
> <BG> I'm waiting for them to come up with a lightweight, portable,
> inexpensive unit, that I can carry with me.
Raytheon has a real cool unit you see on cop cars all the time now 7
grand.
not to portable, but awesome preformance. I know one crewboat the
Comet out of Freeport has one. We use to call the owner Capt. Gaget.
Totally tricked out boat.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
>
> otn
Donal
>
> "Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
> news:hso8ub...@mailgate067.lanode.com...
> > Imagine that you walk into a strange pub. You overhear part of an
argument
> > between two of the regulars. Would you introduce yourself by
immediately
> > attacking the integrity of one of the participants?
>
> Are you taking the moral high ground?
Absolutely, and unreservedly!
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Don't laugh too much, or too soon.
>
> Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Its -8F outside now. I can't go for a
sail
> because the harbor is frozen.
I thought that you motorsailed everywhere?
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
>
> Absolutely, and unreservedly!
>
Sorry, I used to have some respect for you, but you've used that up lately.
>
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Don't laugh too much, or too soon.
>
Why not? Regardless of the truth, your behaviour has been laughable!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> >
> > Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Its -8F outside now. I can't go for a
> sail because the harbor is frozen.
>
> I thought that you motorsailed everywhere?
>
It is ironic that while my current boat is the fastest I've had, and I've put a
lot of hours on the engines. Of course, I've done inland waterways from Toronto
to Key West. However, last year we were able to sail most of the time, once out
of the harbor. The cat just needs a bit of searoom to make it fun.
Joe
> "MC" <m...@sailing.com> wrote in message
> news:bu4crj$df777$6...@ID-58816.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > Donal wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > anything unusual, then I give way.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> No, I know those! I was talking about the lights shown by various types
> of vessel.
>
>
>
>
> Donal
> --
Now your showing your true abilitys.
Get you a set of flash cards and learn all the various configurations,
your flirting with disaster Lanod. Giving way to a tow might get you
cut in half.
Plus your kiddos will have fun learning them.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Donal
Green Bush is £22.00 a bottle ($39.60)in the UK. Usually, I pay £6-£8 for
the Tullamore in France.
Perhaps my taste buds can be easily influenced by money!!
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Joe wrote:
>
>>I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at
>>times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and
>>rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more
>>than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy.
>
>
> Thats OK at night or offshore, but not a good ideal in the day or
> river....
> It's a night vision issue. Fof blindness is somewhat like snow
> blindness
Understand what you are referring to, but we'll have to agree to
disagree on this.
In many if not most cases, now, the "daylight" screens tend to solve
this problem. The greater problem applies to normal visual lookouts who
are staring/concentrating while scanning the horizon, as well as those
staring/concentrating on the radar screen ..... they tend to develop a
narrowed response to the overall picture, which causes them to miss some
things and I have frequently been surprised that when I look away, then
look back, that I pick up something that I was missing before .... <G>
not the easiest thing to explain.
>
>
>
>
> If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at
> 20kts?
<G> One never knows for certain. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating a
constant visual lookout, but more of a split visual, radar, hearing, for
the designated lookout, in your case..... each case can and will vary.
>
>
>
> Plotting.... not often unless coming up on a seabouy with inbound
> traffic or offshore. On the crewboats we did little plotting, but
> supply and tow boats we plotted most targets, always when we were the
> lead tow on a jack-up or semi.
On a tow, you are apt to have more time ... on the crewboat, you might
have to rely on the EBL and VRM unless you have ARPA capabilities.
>
>
>
>
>>> Rivers and canals are the best place to do this. With flat water you
>>>can tune a radar to see the wake off a canoe. The outline of the banks
>>>can be as familiar as seeing it in the day. Tanks on the banks,
>>>Hunting shacks, channel markers, islands, bouys, docks, tree clumps,
>>>logs and even seagrass clumps can be tuned in to a crystal clear
>>>picture if you know what your looking at, and know how to use the
>>>tool.
>>>
>>> Would he argue so strongly if I said the wheelhouse was equiped with
>>>FLIR?
>>
>><BG> I'm waiting for them to come up with a lightweight, portable,
>>inexpensive unit, that I can carry with me.
>
>
> Raytheon has a real cool unit you see on cop cars all the time now 7
> grand.
> not to portable, but awesome preformance. I know one crewboat the
> Comet out of Freeport has one. We use to call the owner Capt. Gaget.
> Totally tricked out boat.
Fraid that all the units I've seen to date are too cumbersome and/or
expensive for this "poor mans" application.
otn
Martin Baxter
>
>
> Green Bush is £22.00 a bottle ($39.60)in the UK. Usually, I pay £6-£8 for
> the Tullamore in France.
>
> Perhaps my taste buds can be easily influenced by money!!
> Regards
Sounds about right, $34 Can for Tullamore (1.34l), $46 can for the Bush, (1.34l)
Cheers
Marty
Donal
>
> "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
> news:bu79nn$dep$2$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Tell us, how many Trans-Atlantic trips have you done?
> >
> >
> 40 (Canaries - St. Lucia).
>
> And you?
None.
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
>
< snip >
>
> You are suffering from the delusion that I owe you any kind of response at
> all.
>
Not at all. It just seems that if you talk the talk, as you do, then from
time to time you may have to walk the walk. That may include producing
evience of you claims from time to time. Life is a bitch but not everyone
will believe all you say, particularly when some flawed info is put about.
If you should choose not to respond, fine, but do not expect everyone to
concider your claims true and be prepared to be challanged in public.
> Imagine that you walk into a strange pub. You overhear part of an
argument
> between two of the regulars. Would you introduce yourself by immediately
> attacking the integrity of one of the participants?
This not a strange pub. It is a public forum, PUBLIC FORUM being the
operative words. If you want to brag and advice in confidence then why post
to a public environment? And as for attack the integrity of the
participants, yep, but I called you a faker initially (fairly mellow term),
I believe you have bandied the phrase LIAR in your earlier posts,
provocative or what. For my sins I fell to your level over that one.
> That is exactly what you appear to have done here. Even worse, you have
> incorrectly questioned my integrity.
Not at all. You make claims you can not or will not support in a public
place. Be prepared to be challanged. You miss quoted the conditions for the
RYA Yachtmaster Offshore blind nav' test. As one who has taken and past this
exam I feel I am entitled to correct you and even question the validity of
your claims.
> You have behaved with outrageous impertinence, and I feel that you might
> learn some manners if I treat you the same way.
Mmmm. I doubt you could teach me manners, as indeed I doubt you could teach
others to sail. To teach one must command respect, for you and your yarns I
have little to none.
> As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6 days.
I
> deserve to get a little pleasure from the exercise.
Well, I will keep watching, but I am a sceptical as ever abouth the truth of
your claims. This scepticism is ever more reinforced byt your total lack of
ability to respond to any question put to you with regaurds to the topic
under descussion, i.e. Yacht Master Offshore and the RYA exam it entails.
> Keep the cutlery ready!
All ready back in the draw. As I have said, the information you require
could probably be extracted from public records in the number of days you
wish the group to wait so would in fairness carry little on no weight for
myself and possibly others.
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
JohnE
Donal
Our bottles are only 0.7l. [sigh]
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
Oh, pleeeasse! Are you really so naive as to think that "faker" is fairly
mellow?
Calling me a faker is accusing me of deception.
If I prove, beyond all doubt, that I am not a faker, would that mean that
you lied when you said that I was a faker?
If you answer "yes", then I will answer all your original questions as soon
as I read your post.
>
> > That is exactly what you appear to have done here. Even worse, you
have
> > incorrectly questioned my integrity.
>
> Not at all. You make claims you can not or will not support in a public
> place. Be prepared to be challanged.
I am. Believe me.
> You miss quoted the conditions for the
> RYA Yachtmaster Offshore blind nav' test. As one who has taken and past
this
> exam I feel I am entitled to correct you and even question the validity of
> your claims.
I accepted your correction almost immediately. Perhaps you missed my post,
or you felt like trying your luck at a flame war.
>
> > You have behaved with outrageous impertinence, and I feel that you might
> > learn some manners if I treat you the same way.
>
> Mmmm. I doubt you could teach me manners, as indeed I doubt you could
teach
> others to sail. To teach one must command respect, for you and your yarns
I
> have little to none.
"Yarns"? Are you calling me a liar again? I am truly impressed by your
level of stupidity.
>
> > As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6
days.
> I
> > deserve to get a little pleasure from the exercise.
>
> Well, I will keep watching, but I am a sceptical as ever abouth the truth
of
> your claims. This scepticism is ever more reinforced byt your total lack
of
> ability to respond to any question put to you with regaurds to the topic
> under descussion, i.e. Yacht Master Offshore and the RYA exam it entails.
It isn't "lack of ability". It is "lack of accountability".
I don't owe you an answer. In fact I don't owe you anything at all. I've
chosen to answer your questions after a suitable delay because I wanted to
see you dig a really deep hole for yourself. I had allowed 7 days for you
to demonstrate the true depths of your ignorance. However, it seems that
you might have accomplished the task in much less. Congratulations!!
>
> > Keep the cutlery ready!
>
> All ready back in the draw. As I have said, the information you require
> could probably be extracted from public records in the number of days you
> wish the group to wait so would in fairness carry little on no weight for
> myself and possibly others.
Am I a faker?
What is the difference between a faker and a liar?
Did you call me a faker?
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
>
>
> Joe wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not a proponent of total immersion in the radar hood, though at
> >>times it's necessary. I have always preferred to pull back, at times and
> >>rest my eyes and attention .... sometimes, you might be able to see more
> >>than you expect .... it's a total awareness thingy.
> >
> >
> > Thats OK at night or offshore, but not a good ideal in the day or
> > river....
> > It's a night vision issue. Fof blindness is somewhat like snow
> > blindness
>
> Understand what you are referring to, but we'll have to agree to
> disagree on this.
> In many if not most cases, now, the "daylight" screens tend to solve
> this problem. The greater problem applies to normal visual lookouts who
> are staring/concentrating while scanning the horizon, as well as those
> staring/concentrating on the radar screen ..... they tend to develop a
> narrowed response to the overall picture, which causes them to miss some
> things and I have frequently been surprised that when I look away, then
> look back, that I pick up something that I was missing before .... <G>
> not the easiest thing to explain.
It may not be easy to explain, but I think that you are describing the same
thing that I was referring to, when I said that "14 hours peering into the
fog" was very tiring.
5 minutes leaves you wondering if your eyes are working properly.
I've now got radar.
> >
> > If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at
> > 20kts?
>
> <G> One never knows for certain. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating a
> constant visual lookout,
The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a
waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks?
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
> Calling me a faker is accusing me of deception.
>
> If I prove, beyond all doubt, that I am not a faker, would that mean that
> you lied when you said that I was a faker?
>
> If you answer "yes", then I will answer all your original questions as soon
> as I read your post.
>
Are you actually claiming John "lied" when he suggested you are a faker? You
should be pleased! You were trying your best to act like a fool, weren't you?
>
> >
> > > As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6
> days.
You're even trying to out do Boobsprit!
-jeff
Donal
>
>
> Donal wrote:
> > "MC" <m...@sailing.com> wrote in message
> > news:bu4crj$df777$6...@ID-58816.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>
> >>Donal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I've also forgotton what most lights mean. If they have
> >>>anything unusual, then I give way.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Even to channel markers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No, I know those! I was talking about the lights shown by various
types
> > of vessel.
> >
>
I knew them when I took the test, or *most* of them. I confess to spending
a few hours, shortly after the test, on a night passage wondering what a
slow moving flashing yellow might be. It stayed on a constant bearing for
several hours, and confused the hell out of us. Interestingly, all of us
had done the Yachtmaster together - only a year earlier!
It seems to me that we remember the things that we actually use. I've
completely forgotten most of the Morse code, apart from S and O, and U. U
is important to me because somebody used their foghorn to warn us that we
were going to hit rocks about ten years ago. One of the crew, thankfully,
recognised the signal. Dit dit dah is "U", which means that you are
running into danger.
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Not really, though your point is true. In daylight, when you are looking
visually into the fog, for a period, then stick your head back into a
radar hood, you are basically blind until your eyes adjust.
Also, though, for those on lookout (visually), I prefer to see someone
who to the casual observer, may appear to be looking at random in
different directions. In truth, they tend to spot things more quickly
and often, then the person staring on a slow arc over the horizon.
>
>
>>>If you can not see your bow, whats he going to see or prevent at
>>>20kts?
>>
>><G> One never knows for certain. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating a
>>constant visual lookout,
>
>
> The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a
> waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE thinks?
....<EG> As are we. We are just splitting that lookout between visual
out the window or just plain outside, and radar. Not all boats/ ships
can work effectively/realistically/ safely under a "purest" guidelines
for the rules.
otn
Donal
Jeff, I find it really odd that you cannot see the real situation. You are
going to be part of my proof that JohnE lied. Isn't that wonderful?
I'm sorry that you invited yourself into this little debacle. I bore you no
ill will. However, it was your choice.
It's funny, but I had seen you as a serious poster. Now, I see that you
allow your thoughts to be governed by your preconceptions.
Let me explain.
You tried to say that Joe was right about keeping a "Radar" only lookout,
while doing 25 kts in fog. You retracted your position as soon as it was
pointed out to you that the CollRegs expressly require a lookout "by sight
and sound".
That was an incredibly stupid situation to get yourself into. ...
Especially for someone who thinks that he understands the CollRegs.
How could someone as intelligent as you make such a stupid mistake?
I believe that your preconceptions led you to believe that I was
bulshitting. If I'm wrong, then please tell us why you think that it is OK
to do 25kts in thick fog, using radar as your only means of keeping a
lookout.
Regards
Donal
--
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
> >
> > Are you actually claiming John "lied" when he suggested you are a faker?
> You
> > should be pleased! You were trying your best to act like a fool, weren't
> you?
> >
>
> going to be part of my proof that JohnE lied. Isn't that wonderful?
>
So what is the real situation? Are you claiming the John knows that, well I'm
not sure, but that he knows something and is therefore "lying" when he called
you a faker? Or are you simply claiming you are not really a faker? I tend to
believe that John was sincere in his opinion, and thus, right or wrong, he
wasn't lying.
I think you're a fool because whether you really are a faker or not your
behavior has been that of a fool.
> I'm sorry that you invited yourself into this little debacle. I bore you no
> ill will. However, it was your choice.
>
Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Its been slow here, what with the world
frozen to a stop.
> It's funny, but I had seen you as a serious poster. Now, I see that you
> allow your thoughts to be governed by your preconceptions.
>
No preconceptions - if anything I'm reacting too much to the immediate.
Frankly, I always assumed you had passed some YM test. Its just that your
opinions often make YachtMaster seem the UK equivalent of a Power Squadron
class. And lately its seemed like you've just taken a stupid pill.
> Let me explain.
>
> You tried to say that Joe was right about keeping a "Radar" only lookout,
> while doing 25 kts in fog. You retracted your position as soon as it was
> pointed out to you that the CollRegs expressly require a lookout "by sight
> and sound".
You lie again! Do you deny that in the same paragraph I said "Of course, one
should always have a visual (and sound) watch"? How can you possibly
interpret that as meaning I advocate not using a lookout? I didn't have to
"retract" anything because I explicitly said that a lookout was required.
>
> That was an incredibly stupid situation to get yourself into. ...
> Especially for someone who thinks that he understands the CollRegs.
Yes it would have been. But I didn't. No amount of lying on your part can
change that.
>
> How could someone as intelligent as you make such a stupid mistake?
>
The only mistake I made was thinking you had some sense of honor. But you've
shown yourself to be a cowardly liar.
> I believe that your preconceptions led you to believe that I was
> bulshitting. If I'm wrong, then please tell us why you think that it is OK
> to do 25kts in thick fog, using radar as your only means of keeping a
> lookout.
Ok. I get it now. You're just yanking my chain, aren't you? No one is really
as stupid as you? Good one, Donal.
John.E
>
> snip >
>
> > This not a strange pub. It is a public forum, PUBLIC FORUM being the
> > operative words. If you want to brag and advice in confidence then why
> post
> > to a public environment? And as for attack the integrity of the
> > participants, yep, but I called you a faker initially (fairly mellow
> term),
> > I believe you have bandied the phrase LIAR in your earlier posts,
> > provocative or what. For my sins I fell to your level over that one.
>
> Oh, pleeeasse! Are you really so naive as to think that "faker" is fairly
> mellow?
>
Yes. In comparison to shouting LIAR I feel faker pretty mellow.
> Calling me a faker is accusing me of deception.
>
Yes I am. I am still awaiting proof of your claims.
> If I prove, beyond all doubt, that I am not a faker, would that mean that
> you lied when you said that I was a faker?
>
Not in the least. To lie I would need to know beyond doubt that you help a
ticket.
> If you answer "yes", then I will answer all your original questions as
soon
> as I read your post.
>
Not a chance. As I have said above to lie I would need to be in possesion of
facts to misqoute. I don't have teh details so how could I lie?
>
> >
> > > That is exactly what you appear to have done here. Even worse, you
> have
> > > incorrectly questioned my integrity.
> >
> > Not at all. You make claims you can not or will not support in a public
> > place. Be prepared to be challanged.
>
> I am. Believe me.
>
Why should I when your posts regarding the exam are so flawed?
> > You miss quoted the conditions for the
> > RYA Yachtmaster Offshore blind nav' test. As one who has taken and past
> this
> > exam I feel I am entitled to correct you and even question the validity
of
> > your claims.
>
> I accepted your correction almost immediately. Perhaps you missed my
post,
> or you felt like trying your luck at a flame war.
>
No you did not. You only pointed others to my post and then claimed that
have taken the exam recently to cover your own disinformation. By the ground
rules lay by you this would tar you a liar! Cake and eat it comes to mind!
>
> >
> > > You have behaved with outrageous impertinence, and I feel that you
might
> > > learn some manners if I treat you the same way.
> >
> > Mmmm. I doubt you could teach me manners, as indeed I doubt you could
> teach
> > others to sail. To teach one must command respect, for you and your
yarns
> I
> > have little to none.
>
> "Yarns"? Are you calling me a liar again? I am truly impressed by your
> level of stupidity.
>
Yarns offers you the benefit of doubt. Yarns can be truths or falsehoods. I
am still waiting your evidence as to which type of yarn you are spinning.
>
> >
> > > As I have repeatedly said, I will prove you wrong within the next 6
> days.
> > I
> > > deserve to get a little pleasure from the exercise.
> >
> > Well, I will keep watching, but I am a sceptical as ever abouth the
truth
> of
> > your claims. This scepticism is ever more reinforced byt your total lack
> of
> > ability to respond to any question put to you with regaurds to the topic
> > under descussion, i.e. Yacht Master Offshore and the RYA exam it
entails.
>
> It isn't "lack of ability". It is "lack of accountability".
> I don't owe you an answer. In fact I don't owe you anything at all. I've
> chosen to answer your questions after a suitable delay because I wanted to
> see you dig a really deep hole for yourself. I had allowed 7 days for you
> to demonstrate the true depths of your ignorance. However, it seems that
> you might have accomplished the task in much less. Congratulations!!
>
Too right, you do not OWE me an answer, not I you. But as I have said
before, lack of proof gives me the option to concider you a faker or liar.
As to expose the depths of my ignorance, how? I have the ticket, you are at
liberty to concider me a faker or liar too, your option. I acknowledging
this you have to of course allow the same latitude to other to concder you a
faker or liar.
>
> >
> > > Keep the cutlery ready!
> >
> > All ready back in the draw. As I have said, the information you require
> > could probably be extracted from public records in the number of days
you
> > wish the group to wait so would in fairness carry little on no weight
for
> > myself and possibly others.
>
> Am I a faker?
From what I read, yes. Though the longer your evasions continue the closer
to liar you move IMO.
> What is the difference between a faker and a liar?
A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool who
may need the approbation of thier peers.
> Did you call me a faker?
Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the
benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction, you have concistanty
avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger
than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to.
John
Donal
>
John, get your knife and fork out.
<snip>
> Too right, you do not OWE me an answer, not I you. But as I have said
> before, lack of proof gives me the option to concider you a faker or liar.
> As to expose the depths of my ignorance, how? I have the ticket, you are
at
> liberty to concider me a faker or liar too, your option. I acknowledging
> this you have to of course allow the same latitude to other to concder you
a
> faker or liar.
> >
> > Am I a faker?
>
> From what I read, yes. Though the longer your evasions continue the closer
> to liar you move IMO.
>
> > What is the difference between a faker and a liar?
>
> A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool
who
> may need the approbation of thier peers.
Honestly, you are re-defining the English language to try to wriggle out of
this.
>
> > Did you call me a faker?
>
> Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above.
>
> You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you the
> benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction,
Rubbish! You made incorrect assumptions, and asked me to prove something
that I had never claimed in the first place.
>you have concistanty
> avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only prompted me to feel stronger
> than ever that you do not hold the qualification you claim to.
I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. Quite the
opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam.
Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
obligation to correct them at all.
In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following
"> I've only done the shorebased element.".
Here is a link to it on Google.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal+yachtmaster+shorebased+group:alt.sai
ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=6Y
GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2
You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it.
Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits.
Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical.
Here is another link from Google
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal++novice+sailor+group:alt.sailing.asa
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bgc3e6%245
8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4
Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. "
In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there.
Your first post to me contained these words:-
"Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed
but IMO you are a faker!"
Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!!
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
>
> "John.E" <Joh...@no.spam.today.thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:400921fa$0$23462$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
>
> John, get your knife and fork out.
On what grounds? None I can find below.
< snip >
> > What is the difference between a faker and a liar?
> >
> > A liar tells untruths with corrupt intent, a faker is just a jovial fool
> > who may need the approbation of thier peers.
>
> Honestly, you are re-defining the English language to try to wriggle out
of
> this.
>
I may be redefining language. I used the term faker to give some room to
correct me or for you to manouver, which you chose not to do/take. But
certainly do not feel that I to wriggle out of anything.
> >
> > > Did you call me a faker?
> >
> > Yes I did. Though you do need to note the comments above.
> >
> > You appear to have lost the plot Donal, in my initial post I gave you
the
> > benefit of doubt and laid the ground a retraction,
>
> Rubbish! You made incorrect assumptions, and asked me to prove something
> that I had never claimed in the first place.
>
Assumption that you were happy to feed. Sounds like trolling to me.
I asked a straight forward question, so why not just answer it?
14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..."
"As far as I can remember", IMO imples you have done this thing? as opposed
to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have not.
You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a
YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this
who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to boot
(a good one at that).
>
> > you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only
prompted
> > me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification you
claim to.
>
> I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical.
So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of
expereince? If not to troll.
> Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the
Shorebased exam.
> Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
> obligation to correct them at all.
>
Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you have
implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling. Now
you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why
imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory pass,
just the completion certificate.
< snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted to
this thread >
I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would ask
you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No shame
in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now.
>
> Your first post to me contained these words:-
> "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
needed
> but IMO you are a faker!"
>
> Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!!
>
On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission
above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you should
know if you have the shorebased theory pass? Takes more than a classroom
docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way.
It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop the
inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at least
14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have
information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so.
IMO none of us ever stop learing to sail!
>
> Regards
>
> Donal
> --
>
In summary Donal, a good troll, however I feel it is unfourtunate that you
use usernet to miss inform many people about matters that you have no first
hand experience. If we all can just stick to talking honestly and openly
about what we have done or not the world would not be suffering from such a
tidal wave of BS as it is at this time. There are many things I wish I could
do or have done in this life, I try to keep my gob shut if I don't have the
first hand experience when asked for an opinion or at least qualify it with
things like 'I have heard' or 'I have read' or IMO. Prehaps you should adopt
the same stance and keep stum about issue concering the yachtmaster
practical.
See you on the water sometime.
JohnE
John.E
>
> >
> > The CollRegs *do* advocate a constant visual lookout. Joe thinks it is a
> > waste of time. Jeff isn't sure what he thinks. I wonder what JohnE
thinks?
>
> ....<EG> As are we. We are just splitting that lookout between visual
> out the window or just plain outside, and radar. Not all boats/ ships
> can work effectively/realistically/ safely under a "purest" guidelines
> for the rules.
>
>
> otn
>
The thought of being near ANY vessel thrashing around at 20Knts + in fog
scares me to death! Coastal or offshore, but the truth of the matter is that
this happens all the time and not many crashes occur (aside from the goon
who hit our local beach on the plane a couple of years ago) so a lot of folk
must be able to use radar effectivly, or just lucky. I have never noticed
ships slowing in the English channel or elsewhere just 'cause of a little
grey stuff.
As I have VERY limited experience using radar I am not the best to judge of
its use but my preference is composite. Time on the screen and time in the
open. Eyes given a chance to adjust and refocus as well as the mind. I also
like silent periods, sound from other sources, though echoing I find can and
does help with locating vessels and marks. This is based on sailing and
motorsailing on small (under 80ft vessels, most under 40ft). May be flawed
but it's my penny worth.
JohnE
Donal
Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions!
I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also,
I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker,
and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble
pie if you were proved wrong.
>Sounds like trolling to me.
> I asked a straight forward question, so why not just answer it?
>
> 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..."
>
> "As far as I can remember", IMO imples you have done this thing?
It implies absolutely nothing more than it says.
>as opposed
> to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have
not.
I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been very
clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice.
> You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit, a
> YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this
> who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to
boot
> (a good one at that).
Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You are
a liar.
I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster
Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions".
>
> >
> > > you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only
> prompted
> > > me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification
you
> claim to.
> >
> > I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical.
>
> So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of
> expereince? If not to troll.
Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've said
it many times.
If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to
assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem.
>
> > Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the
> Shorebased exam.
> > Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
> > obligation to correct them at all.
> >
>
> Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you
have
> implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling.
Now
> you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why
> imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory
pass,
> just the completion certificate.
I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I?
I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I?
Once again, you are a **LIAR**.
>
> < snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not releted
to
> this thread >
>
> I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would
ask
> you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No
shame
> in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now.
Well done!
Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars?
>
> >
> > Your first post to me contained these words:-
> > "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
> needed
> > but IMO you are a faker!"
> >
> > Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!!
> >
>
> On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission
> above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you
should
> know if you have the shorebased theory pass?
I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it.
I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my honesty?
What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you? Are you sooo pleased with
your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us
who only took the theory course?
> Takes more than a classroom
> docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no way.
You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems that
you lied!
> It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop
the
> inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at
least
> 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have
> information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so.
You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an
apology.
I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity
into question.
I'm really quite unhappy about that.
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
>
> John, get your knife and fork out.
>
I don't know why - John had you pegged pretty well.
> I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical. Quite the
> opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the Shorebased exam.
> Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
> obligation to correct them at all.
>
You're assuming I have any idea what the meaning of "shorebased exam" is.
You implied you took a course where the test involved navigating while on
board - is that what you call shore based? When pressed on the details of the
"blind navigation" test you said: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so
I'm cannot give you the specifics of what is required." That certainly sounds
like you actually took this test. However, your very confused answers seemed to
show that you never could have passed it.
>
> In fact, a few weeks ago I wrote the following
>
> "> I've only done the shorebased element.".
>
> Here is a link to it on Google.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal+yachtmaster+shorebased+group:alt.sai
> ling.asa&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=6Y
> GdnVbURbX8A3SiRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=2
>
What's the point? Does anyone care? First you claim to have done it, now
you're saying you haven't. Truth is very pliable for you, isn't it?
> You will notice that Jeff read that post, and replied to it.
So? What are you claiming? That you took the course but flunked the test?
>
> Do a search for "donal yachtmaster shorebased" in Google groups. 15 hits.
> Now use Google to find any claim that I possess the Yachtmaster Practical.
>
What is that? Is that the shore based part?
>
>
> Here is another link from Google
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal++novice+sailor+group:alt.sailing.asa
> &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bgc3e6%245
> 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4
>
>
> Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. "
> In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there.
>
As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a novice.
What's your point?
>
> Your first post to me contained these words:-
> "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if needed
> but IMO you are a faker!"
Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind navigation
test," now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't
really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted, but you
seem to prefer looking like a faker.
Jeff Morris
>
> Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions!
> I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong. Also,
> I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a faker,
> and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat humble
> pie if you were proved wrong.
How about: "It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics of what is required. " Are you referring to the shorebased part or
the practical?
What makes you think that I have any understanding of the YachtMaster courses or
requirements? Frankly, here in the States, there is no concept of getting a
"portion" of a license - you either have it all or you don't have it. All
portions of the test, plus the other requirements must be completed in one year.
So when you mentioned have done part of it 13 years ago, I assuming (to the
extent that I thought about it) that you had some minor version, such as the
"inland" or "coastal" yachtmaster. but were working towards a real license.
>
>
>
> >
> > > Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the
> > Shorebased exam.
> > > Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
> > > obligation to correct them at all.
> > >
> >
> > Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you
> have
> > implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling.
> Now
> > you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so? Why
> > imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory
> pass,
> > just the completion certificate.
>
> I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I?
>
> I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I?
So, is the "blind navigation" part of the shorebased part?
But when did he lie?
>
>
> > It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop
> the
> > inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at
> least
> > 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have
> > information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so.
>
> You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an
> apology.
>
> I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity
> into question.
>
> I'm really quite unhappy about that.
BWAHAHA!
You crack me up, Donal! What a Putz!
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
>
Donal
Are you *pretending* to be stupid?
>
> >
> >
> > Here is another link from Google
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal++novice+sailor+group:alt.sailing.asa
> >
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bgc3e6%245
> > 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4
> >
> >
> > Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. "
> > In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there.
> >
>
> As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a
novice.
> What's your point?
Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my
point.
>
> >
> > Your first post to me contained these words:-
> > "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
needed
> > but IMO you are a faker!"
>
> Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind
navigation
> test,"
I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only
have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description
of what it is like.
You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting
up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the
"shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when
the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme.
We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We
practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind
sailing".
For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem,
not mine.
> now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't
> really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted,
but you
> seem to prefer looking like a faker.
You are really taking the piss here.
On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I
explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster.
How can you now claim that I was trying to deceive you? For Gawd's sake, it
was only 4 weeks ago????
Regards
Donal
--
John.E
>
> Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions!
> I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong.
Also,
> I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a
faker,
> and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat
humble
> pie if you were proved wrong.
>
I asked you if you were a YM did I not? You are not!
14/01/2004 @ 13:10 - "I've described the test several times."
How can describe what you have never performed?
14/01/2004 @ 18:34 - "As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did
this stuff."
But you never have in a practical environment! and teh question was a
practical one.
14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..."
IMO still implies you have done the 'remebered' thing?
>
> It implies absolutely nothing more than it says.
>
You can remeber what you have never done. Dammed good going that man. Wish I
could, I could then remeber my night of passion with Felicity Kendal, Eather
Kit and ZaZa Gabour. Mmmmmmmm
>
> >as opposed
> > to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have
> not.
>
> I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been
very
> clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice.
>
Irrelevant to one who is not familiar with your previous posts, I am only
concerned with your responses within this thread.
> > You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to wit,
a
> > YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all this
> > who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to
> boot
> > (a good one at that).
>
> Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You
are
> a liar.
>
> I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster
> Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions".
>
Reading the thread carefully you are correct. I have indeed be culpable in
assuming you meant to knock me down with a sudden display of valid
documentation. Liar no, stupid yes.
> > >
> > > > you have concistanty avoided this route. Fine by me, you have only
> > prompted
> > > > me to feel stronger than ever that you do not hold the qualification
> you
> > claim to.
> > >
> > > I have **never** claimed to have the Yachmaster Practical.
> >
> > So why comment on the practical without clarification of you lack of
> > expereince? If not to troll.
>
> Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've
said
> it many times.
Not everyone or I would have no reason to kick off on you as I would be
already informed.
> If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to
> assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem.
>
Yes. Same for anyone else. Not to answer a clear call to clarify the
situation can and has been in htuis case, by me, construed as feeding
assumption.
> >
> > > Quite the opposite. I have often pointed out that I only took the
> > Shorebased exam.
> > > Joe, and Jeff should both be aware of this. Therefore, I felt no
> > > obligation to correct them at all.
> > >
> >
> > Just by telling me you can produce the requested number in 6-7 days you
> have
> > implied that not only have to taken the exam but alos passed. Trolling.
> Now
> > you are stating that you have not taken the exam? Why not just say so?
Why
> > imply you have these details? You don't get one of those for a theory
> pass,
> > just the completion certificate.
>
> I did *not* say that I would produce the "number", did I?
>
No you did not.
> I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I?
>
Yes.
> Once again, you are a **LIAR**.
>
No. Only guilty of false assumptions, helping to create trolls and then
biting on and responding to them.
> >
> > < snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not
releted
> to
> > this thread >
> >
> > I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I would
> ask
> > you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No
> shame
> > in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am now.
>
> Well done!
>
Thankyou. I worked hard for it.
> Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers liars?
>
Not at all. I take that right just by breathing if I feel the individual
concerned deserves it and is making loud noises in a public place. As indeed
I feel you do. On occasion through this discourse you have call me a liar. I
did in fact go from CC to YMOff practical (blue book) between Feb'93 and Nov
'93. So you gonna say sorry to me? After all I too am a complete stranger.
Tell you what, don't bother, I can deal with scepticism and rejection.
> >
> > >
> > > Your first post to me contained these words:-
> > > "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
> > needed
> > > but IMO you are a faker!"
> > >
> > > Now, I think that it is time to use your cutlery!!
> > >
> >
> > On what grounds? I asked if you a YACHTMASTER and by your own admission
> > above you are not, a theory pass does not a YACHTMASTER make, as you
> should
> > know if you have the shorebased theory pass?
>
> I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from it.
> I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my
honesty?
Note my responce to your comments above, mortaly wounded horror, 'How dare
YOU'. Tehe!!! You have done all of the above to me but hey, life is a bitch
and it is your choice. Deal with it, I have.
> What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you?
No less sick or twisted than you. You baited, I bit. Tough! More fool me,
poor sad you.
> Are you sooo pleased with
> your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of us
> who only took the theory course?
>
Not at all. You have permitted me to build my uninformed assumptitions, in
part fed them. If you wind people up, you must be prepared for the fall out.
You strike me as the boy in the playground taht winds up a fight and then
calls for the teacher.
>
> > Takes more than a classroom
> > docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no
way.
>
> You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems
that
> you lied!
>
What have you proved me wrong over aside from being a faker (and that is
even still debatable)? I believe I said IMO you we not yachtmaster, and I am
right.
>
> > It is time you came clean and started being honest about yourself, drop
> the
> > inference and deceptive stuff. Nothing wrong with being a novice of at
> least
> > 14 years standing, reading through some othere posts you obviously have
> > information to impart, just stick to what you know to be so.
>
> You really are stupid beyond belief! Don't you understand? I want an
> apology.
>
Only if you apologise to me for branding my claims over the rate at which I
collected my qual's. Else I'll tell mummy and she won't like it!
> I've been posting in ASA for about 5 years. You have called my integrity
> into question.
>
As indeed you have mine... dah de dah de dah de dah and on and on and
on..... Mindless tedium, wounded looks......
I am just another person in a public forum reading what I concider to be
disinformation and questioning the source. No thing more or less, who the
are you? This is not your forum, if that is how you see it then I would
suggest you start you own and offer subscription only ids and passwords. As
I have said time and again, a public place.
> I'm really quite unhappy about that.
>
More mindless tedium, wounded looks......
Tough. I to have been slightly offended (mainly smiling though) by you
calling me a liar over my sail record vis-ve training. Sob sob! You do not
know me or my record and yet you have felt informed enought to off my traing
as lies. Ah! over these exchanges you to have called me a liar prior to this
little tyrade. Has is had me crawling around the floor in to shock and
horror? No. You are entiled to your opinions for me as I am of you. If the
fact someone does not rate you or your methods or your verbal rot, be it
sailing or the use of usernet as a trolling device or what ever, well grow
up and smell the roses. Life can be a bitch and not everyone will value your
emotions and opinions as highly as you do. As indeed they have no reason to
value mine.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
Lets just face it Donal, you and I are not going to be lovers. We have
engaged in a game of brinkmanship and for various reasons neither of us can
win outright. I posted a question that offened you for whatever reason and
you set me up for a fall. Well done, you did a good job and I bit and I
applaud your efforts. However, my primary question boiled down to 'are you a
YM', and your answer is NO, so no humble pie for me to eat, but I have to
add nor are you truly a faker as you have rightly pointed out my query was
based on a false assumption I had made, which you permitted to exisist
longer than needed to gratify your need to feel good about something and get
one over, cool, I can (as is my right) assume this is a chip due to the lack
of the full YM coming through! (true or not does not matter) The way you get
so offended by being questioned is sad though, you will gladly call another
a LIAR and then get all tearful if you are on the recieving end, I feel I
have to advise you to get a life and stop throwing stones unless you can
deal with the a little broken glass of your own.
JohnE
John.E
>
< more of Donals usual tut cut >
>
> Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is*
my
> point.
>
Only if you complete the shore based theory and the 6-10 hour practical else
you are NOT a yachtmaster. You merely hold the YM shorebased certificate.
To quote the text from the theory ticket ...
"(name here) has atteneded a shore based course of instruction and
demonstrated a knowledge of theory up to the standard of RYA DTp Coastal
Skipper and Yachtmaster Offshore"
This is NOT yachtmaster Certificate Of Competence, i.e. Yachtmaster.
To quote the text from the Certificate of Competence Yachtmaster Offshore...
"(name here) has been examined to standards approved by the Department of
Transport Marine Directorate and teh Royal Yachting Association and found
competent to hold this certificate"
and on the flip side
"This certificate entitles the holder to sail as Master of United Kingdon
pleasure yachts not exceeding 200 gross registered tons, subject to the
conditions specified in the General Exemption currently in force. The
Yachtmaster Qualification Panel reserves the right to withdraw this
certificate at any time if due cause is shown"
The CoC gives the holder (this is really silly but) the right to wear the YM
tie, you can only get the tie if you can provide a CoC to support your
purchase, not the shorebased theory ticket.
So no Donal, you can not get a YM as a novice unless you can do the biz, I
was a novice with only 2500Nm on the book, the absolute minimum, and if you
can do the biz to CoC level you really are some novice. A shorebased
completion ticket is NOT a YACHTMASTER. Do you understand, we had this chat
the other day, and as you claim to hold the shorebased ticket you really
should know this?
< snip. even more rot cut >
>
> I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only
> have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description
> of what it is like.
>
Good description! Rubbish. You got it wrong and refered people to my
description.
> You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting
> up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the
> "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club
when
> the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional"
theme.
> We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We
> practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind
> sailing".
>
Cool. Nice one. Lets blow a trumpet for you. Still does not make you a YM!
I created a sailing program for 40 people and got the local government to
fund it. Did make me one in the end :-))
> For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your
problem,
> not mine.
>
With BS like the above I don't blame Jeff.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
John
Jeff Morris
No. Why do you assume I have any knowlege of your system? I've said several
times that I don't, and whenever I've asked about it you haven't responded.
I still don't know if the "blind navigation" test is part of the "shore based"
part. It seems not, because you claimed it takes place on a boat underway. But
you siad you only did the shorebase part. I'm not trying to be obstuse, you're
simply not answering the question.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is another link from Google
> > >
> > >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=donal++novice+sailor+group:alt.sailing.asa
> > >
> &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.sailing.asa&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=bgc3e6%245
> > > 8f%241%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=4
> > >
> > >
> > > Quote :- "I've said before that I am a novice sailor. "
> > > In fact, I've said that many times. Do a Google. It's all there.
> > >
> >
> > As near as I can tell its possible to get a YachtMaster while still a
> novice.
> > What's your point?
>
> Yes, It is possible to get a Yachtmaster while still a novice. That *is* my
> point.
>
So are you claiming you have a yachtmaster? You're going in circles here.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Your first post to me contained these words:-
> > > "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
> needed
> > > but IMO you are a faker!"
> >
> > Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind
> navigation
> > test,"
>
> I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not only
> have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good description
> of what it is like.
No, you gave a rather poor description. When pressed you refused to clarify,
claiming you couldn't remember. It was John that gave a description that made
sense.
>
> You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the setting
> up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the
> "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club when
> the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional" theme.
> We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We
> practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind
> sailing".
Excuse me for not knowing your life story. If you can't remember it, how can
you expect me to?
So are you saying that the "blind navigation" text is one that is really part of
a license that you don't actually have? Did you take the test for real or for
practice? Don't you see why this could be confusing?
>
> For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your problem,
> not mine.
I don't believe or not believe. We've asked you to clarify but you seem to take
this as a game.
>
>
> > now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't
> > really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you wanted,
> but you
> > seem to prefer looking like a faker.
>
> You are really taking the piss here.
>
> On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I
> explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster.
OK, I give up. Just what is the "practical" yachtmaster? Is yours an
"impractical" yachtmaster?
Peter Wiley
<Joh...@no.spam.today.thanks.com> wrote:
> "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
> news:bucfkq$ni4$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
Hey, he offered to answer your questions. You asked what his licence
number was. He stalled & didn't answer. All he had to do was say
'sorry, I don't have that licence'.
Yeah, he set you up but at the same time shot himself in both feet.
Pyrrhic victory at best.
Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In
Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone
else just goes sailing.
PDW
Donal
> >
> > Please post *one* instance of where I fed your uninformed assumptions!
> > I never fed your assumptions! I simply stated that you were wrong.
> Also,
> > I told you that I would prove that you were wrong. You called me a
> faker,
> > and I have proved you completely wrong. You said that you would eat
> humble
> > pie if you were proved wrong.
> >
>
Liar! You did not ask anything of the sort. You assumed, in your
ignorance, that I was claiming to hold the Practical YM. Not only did I
*never* make such a claim, but I actually posted that I did *NOT* have the
YM practical qualification - many times.
You assumed that I was claiming to be a YM (practical), and you called me a
faker.
Your assumption was 100% incorrect.
You said that you would eat humble pie if you were wrong. Well ... you
*are* wrong. Are you a real man?
>
> 14/01/2004 @ 13:10 - "I've described the test several times."
> How can describe what you have never performed?
>
> 14/01/2004 @ 18:34 - "As I pointed out earlier, it is 13 years since I did
> this stuff."
> But you never have in a practical environment! and teh question was a
> practical one.
>
> 14/01/04 @ 13:10 - Donal - "As far as I remember..."
> IMO still implies you have done the 'remebered' thing?
>
> >
> > It implies absolutely nothing more than it says.
> >
>
> You can remeber what you have never done. Dammed good going that man. Wish
I
> could, I could then remeber my night of passion with Felicity Kendal,
Eather
> Kit and ZaZa Gabour. Mmmmmmmm
>
> >
> > >as opposed
> > > to 'I have been told/heard' which would clearly indicate that you have
> > not.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to be helpful. As I have already stated, I have been
> very
> > clear - over a number of years - that I am a novice.
> >
>
> Irrelevant to one who is not familiar with your previous posts, I am only
> concerned with your responses within this thread.
OK! Can you point out where I have claimed to have the Yachtmaster
Practical?
Of course you cannot! Because I never made such a claim.
I am not a faker.
>
> > > You have offered to supply details you can not be possesion of, to
wit,
> a
> > > YACHTMASTER CERTIFICATE NUMBMER, sounds like a liar to me, with all
this
> > > who-ha you are certainly not a faker, just a full of BS and a troll to
> > boot
> > > (a good one at that).
> >
> > Now, I *will* call you a liar. Let me make this absolutely clear. You
> are
> > a liar.
> >
> > I did **not** offer to supply you with "details" of my Yachtmaster
> > Certificate. I offered to "answer all of your questions".
> >
>
> Reading the thread carefully you are correct.
Of course I am. ... As I have been all along.
>I have indeed be culpable in
> assuming you meant to knock me down with a sudden display of valid
> documentation. Liar no, stupid yes.
I did mean to knock you down. You called me a "faker". You are a liar.
> > Very simple. Everybody knows that I haven't done the practical. I've
> said
> > it many times.
>
> Not everyone or I would have no reason to kick off on you as I would be
> already informed.
I've said it many, many times.
You called me a faker -- which is the same as calling me a liar.
I want a retraction.
Believe me.
>
> > If Joe and Jeff (who knows that I've only done the shorebased), want to
> > assume that I've done the practical, then that really is their problem.
> >
>
> Yes. Same for anyone else. Not to answer a clear call to clarify the
> situation can and has been in htuis case, by me, construed as feeding
> assumption.
So what? That really is their problem. I've told them the truth often
enough. In fact, I've proved that Jeff has actually read a post where I
stated that I only held the "shorebased" Yachtmaster. He responded to it --
and only a few weeks ago!!!
>
> > I said that I would answer your questions. Didn't I?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > Once again, you are a **LIAR**.
> >
>
> No. Only guilty of false assumptions, helping to create trolls and then
> biting on and responding to them.
Yes, you are guilty of false assumptions. Your false assumptions led you
to call me a "faker".
You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong.
All you have to do is say "sorry".
>
> > >
> > > < snip - referend to loads of old stuff that I had not read - not
> releted
> > to
> > > this thread >
> > >
> > > I have only been hanging around the last couple of weeks, again I
would
> > ask
> > > you, why not just answer NO when I asked if you were a YACHTMASTER? No
> > shame
> > > in it, a few years ago I was not one either, but the fact is, I am
now.
> >
> > Well done!
> >
>
> Thankyou. I worked hard for it.
>
> > Do you feel that it gives you the right to call complete strangers
liars?
> >
>
> Not at all. I take that right just by breathing if I feel the individual
> concerned deserves it and is making loud noises in a public place. As
indeed
> I feel you do. On occasion through this discourse you have call me a liar.
I
> did in fact go from CC to YMOff practical (blue book) between Feb'93 and
Nov
> '93. So you gonna say sorry to me? After all I too am a complete stranger.
> Tell you what, don't bother, I can deal with scepticism and rejection.
You're nuts! Where did I say that you had not accomplished the things that
you have claimed?
I expressed extreme sceptisism at your apparent claim to have gone from
absolute beginner to Yachmaster Ocean in one year. I believe that you
confirmed my opinion on the matter.
> >
> > I have never claimed that I have the Yachtmaster Practical. Far from
it.
> > I have claimed that I am a *novice* sailor. How dare you attack my
> honesty?
>
> Note my responce to your comments above, mortaly wounded horror, 'How dare
> YOU'. Tehe!!! You have done all of the above to me but hey, life is a
bitch
> and it is your choice. Deal with it, I have.
No you haven't. You said that you would eat "humble pie".
>
> > What kind of sick, twisted, individual are you?
>
> No less sick or twisted than you. You baited, I bit. Tough! More fool me,
> poor sad you.
I did *not* try to bait you.
Joe, and Jeff were fair bait because they had *both* seen my claim that I
had only taken the shorebased exam.
>
> > Are you sooo pleased with
> > your Practial certificate that you feel qualified to sneer at those of
us
> > who only took the theory course?
> >
>
> Not at all. You have permitted me to build my uninformed assumptitions, in
> part fed them. If you wind people up, you must be prepared for the fall
out.
> You strike me as the boy in the playground taht winds up a fight and then
> calls for the teacher.
I haven't asked for any help!
*You* strike me as a pompous ass who was only too happy to boast about his
qualifications. You also seemed happy to bring down some innocent
bystander in your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your superiority.
The strange thing is, that after your initial post, I immediately bowed to
your superiority, and that wasn't enough for you.
Why did you feel the need to prove that I was lying?
>
> >
> > > Takes more than a classroom
> > > docket to be a YACHTMASTER. I think far from me eating humble pie, no
> way.
> >
> > You said that you would eat humble pie if I proved you wrong. It seems
> that
> > you lied!
> >
>
> What have you proved me wrong over aside from being a faker (and that is
> even still debatable)? I believe I said IMO you we not yachtmaster, and I
am
> right.
Jeeeeze!!!
Do you want me to post your words?
You called me a "faker" ---- and you called me out!
You really should have the decency to apologise.
<snip>
>
> Lets just face it Donal, you and I are not going to be lovers. We have
> engaged in a game of brinkmanship and for various reasons neither of us
can
> win outright. I posted a question that offened you for whatever reason and
> you set me up for a fall. Well done, you did a good job and I bit and I
> applaud your efforts. However, my primary question boiled down to 'are you
a
> YM', and your answer is NO, so no humble pie for me to eat, but I have to
> add nor are you truly a faker as you have rightly pointed out my query was
> based on a false assumption I had made, which you permitted to exisist
> longer than needed to gratify your need to feel good about something and
get
> one over, cool, I can (as is my right) assume this is a chip due to the
lack
> of the full YM coming through! (true or not does not matter) The way you
get
> so offended by being questioned is sad though, you will gladly call
another
> a LIAR and then get all tearful if you are on the recieving end, I feel I
> have to advise you to get a life and stop throwing stones unless you can
> deal with the a little broken glass of your own.
Why are you writing this nonsense?
Why don't you simply say that I wasn't lying?
This isn't about me proving that you are wrong. I have no wish to "dance
over your grave".
I just want to clear my name.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
Yachtmaster is nothing special. Are you fooled by the title?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your first post to me contained these words:-
> > > > "Go on, be brave, face me down on this one. I will eat humble pie if
> > needed
> > > > but IMO you are a faker!"
> > >
> > > Nope. You're still a faker. You implied you had done the "blind
> > navigation
> > > test,"
> >
> > I did *not*. I said that I had done blind navigation. I have! Not
only
> > have I done blind navigation, but I have also given you a good
description
> > of what it is like.
>
> No, you gave a rather poor description. When pressed you refused to
clarify,
> claiming you couldn't remember. It was John that gave a description that
made
> sense.
I've practised it, as I described it. You should try it.
>
>
> >
> > You seem to be missing the fact that I was heavily involved in the
setting
> > up of a sailing club that was formed by a group of people who did the
> > "shorebased" course together. We got on so well that we set up a club
when
> > the course ended. Afterwards, we carried on with the "instructional"
theme.
> > We had weekends afloaat where we practised "man overboard" routines. We
> > practised sailing without using the rudder. We also practised "blind
> > sailing".
>
> Excuse me for not knowing your life story. If you can't remember it, how
can
> you expect me to?
>
> So are you saying that the "blind navigation" text is one that is really
part of
> a license that you don't actually have? Did you take the test for real or
for
> practice? Don't you see why this could be confusing?
Only to someone who wanted to think that I was bulshitting.
>
>
> >
> > For some very odd reason, you refuse to believe me. That is your
problem,
> > not mine.
>
> I don't believe or not believe. We've asked you to clarify but you seem
to take
> this as a game.
Yes, it is. Wake up, Jeff.
You've been here for a number of years. Have you been ignoring me? I
have always presented myself as a newbie to the sport of sailing.
>
> >
> >
> > > now you seem to be saying you didn't. Whether you have or haven't
> > > really does make any difference. You could clarify this is you
wanted,
> > but you
> > > seem to prefer looking like a faker.
> >
> > You are really taking the piss here.
> >
> > On the 24th of December, you answered one of my posts. In that post I
> > explicitely stated that I did *NOT" have the practical Yachtmaster.
>
> OK, I give up. Just what is the "practical" yachtmaster? Is yours an
> "impractical" yachtmaster?
>
No, as I explained before, there is a "theory", or "shorebased" course.
There is also a "practical" or boat based element to the "Yachtmaster". I
explained this to you on the 24th December, and you replied - so you *did*
read it. Furthermore, you recentely made a post which suggested that you
understood the difference between the two. Do I need to do a "Google" to
find ir for you?
Regards
Donal
--
Peter Wiley
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:50:21 +1100, Peter Wiley
> <peter_...@hotmail.com> scribbled thusly:
> >
> >Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In
> >Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone
> >else just goes sailing.
> >
> >PDW
>
> Nah, actually it's not.
> It's for people who like a bit of paper to show to their friends.
OK, I stand corrected. You do racing & I don't. I thought that for
offshore racing there was a requirement for a certain number to have
done 'Competent crew' and the like, though, and was assuming the
skipper had to be the holder of some piece of paper. Am I wrong on this
one too? Pure idle curiosity here, mind you.
My guys have to hold limited coxwain at least because our boats are
under survey. Power boat licence isn't good enough. We all might go do
the full coxwain course at the Maritime College in winter, God knows we
have the time up. This year it's refreshers in first aid, survival at
sea & firefighting at sea. Lotta fun.
Glorious weather here atm. Pity I have to finish building my house but
the toy sailboat mast is in my shop while we TIG weld bits to it. It's
3" shorter than it used to be but apart from having to shorten the
stays that won't matter and it saved my buying a new one.
Maybe February I'll have more free time, probably come up to Sydney in
March.
Peter Wiley
John.E
"Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:190120041150215768%peter_...@hotmail.com...
> In article <4009d80e$0$28124$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, John.E
> <Joh...@no.spam.today.thanks.com> wrote:
>
> > "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bucfkq$ni4$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> [snip]
>
> Hey, he offered to answer your questions. You asked what his licence
> number was. He stalled & didn't answer. All he had to do was say
> 'sorry, I don't have that licence'.
>
> Yeah, he set you up but at the same time shot himself in both feet.
> Pyrrhic victory at best.
>
Yep he sure did, but I did too for my sins.
Oh, shit, life is so hard on lil' old me;-))
> Nobody I know has a yachting cert of any type so who cares, really? In
> Australia it's pretty much for people who want to go racing. Everyone
> else just goes sailing.
>
'Everyone else just goes sailing', a bloody good plan :-))
> PDW
>
>
JohnE