Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal
He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs
which state:-
=====================================
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and
hearing as
well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances
and
conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk
of
collision."
=====================================
What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog?
Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link!
http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice%20Updates/safetyofnavigation/pdf/MGN167
.pdf
"Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision
avoidance, the
provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as
misunderstandings
can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem."
And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:-
"There have been a significant number of
collisions where subsequent investigation has
found that at some stage before impact, one or
both parties were using VHF radio in an
attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF
radio in these circumstances is not always
helpful and may even prove to be dangerous."
So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"!
The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a
Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors.
Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US
Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal???
Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa!
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
politician
Donal wrote:
> Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout.
No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion.
>
> He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs
> which state:-
> =====================================
> "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and
> hearing as
> well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances
> and
> conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk
> of
> collision."
> =====================================
> What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog?
>
> Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link!
>
> http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice%20Updates/safetyofnavigation/pdf/MGN167
> .pdf
>
> "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision
> avoidance, the
> provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as
> misunderstandings
> can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem."
I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is
an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in
the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is
becoming acceptable, world wide.
>
> And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:-
>
> "There have been a significant number of
> collisions where subsequent investigation has
> found that at some stage before impact, one or
> both parties were using VHF radio in an
> attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF
> radio in these circumstances is not always
> helpful and may even prove to be dangerous."
>
> So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"!
No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.
>
> The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a
> Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors.
>
> Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US
> Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal???
Read the Inland Rules for the US (Rule 34 h )
otn
Joe
Donal your name calling is quite childish.
The rule states
"as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If
you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of
the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is
it?.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Joe
Lanod posted this fake link with no usefull info what so ever,
> http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice%20Updates/safetyofnavigation/pdf/MGN167
>
Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod?
Joe
Joe
Snip the foaming at the mouth and the wanker mis-information
> Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US
> Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal???
You already posted rule 5
Please read it again.
If you have a radio you better use it or your breaking the rules.
Your digging yourself in deeper and deeper yachtmaster wanna be.
BTW did you ever post your yachtmaster # ?
>
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa!
Your fake laugh is proof you do want to be like bobspittle.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
Donal
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.0402...@posting.google.com...
"...fire with fire"!
I am conducting this discussion according to *your* rules.
>
> The rule states
> "as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If
> you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of
> the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is
> it?.
You are not even trying to hear anything!!! You Also omitted the first part
of the rule!
"***Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and
hearing*** as well as by all available means appropriate ...."
Furthermore, is it impossible to hear anything because you are going at full
belt? If you reduced your speed from 25 kts, to say 6 kts, would a proper
lookout be able to hear other fog horns?
You seem very willing to accept the bit of Rule 5 that start with "as well
as....". Why don't you accept the bit that starts with "Every vessel
**shall** .."?
The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency (MCA) is the official body that is
responsible for maritime safety in UK waters. They have issued a bulletin
that highlights the dangers of your approach to navigation. I've posted a
link to the bulletin,
http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice%20Updates/safetyofnavigation/pdf/MGN167
, and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. The MCA have quoted
examples of unnecessary collisions that were caused by people who, like you,
were so irresponsible that they used VHF as their "hearing" watch.
Perhaps you didn't read the link?
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
Sorry! It was there yesterday. I checked it. Honestly.
>
> >
http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice%20Updates/safetyofnavigation/pdf/MGN167
> >
>
> Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod?
Try this.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/mld/section03/167%20.pdf
Fortunately, the MCA still have the warning on their site!!!!
They really did change the web site! it was there when I posted the link
... honestly!!
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
"otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:goWVb.21814$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
> politician
Honestly, I've only ever acted in a legal capacity for an individual named
Lucifer.
If I ever enter into politics, I think that I will be an anarchist ... and
of course we will have to dissolve our party as soon as we found it!
>
> Donal wrote:
> > Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout.
>
> No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion.
Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in
the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog.
Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
dissappeared. Here is another location.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/mld/section03/167%20.pdf
> >
> > And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:-
> >
> > "There have been a significant number of
> > collisions where subsequent investigation has
> > found that at some stage before impact, one or
> > both parties were using VHF radio in an
> > attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF
> > radio in these circumstances is not always
> > helpful and may even prove to be dangerous."
> >
> > So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"!
>
> No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.
Addressed????
Joe seems to be completely its limitations!
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
> "otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:goWVb.21814$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
>>politician
(repeat above)
>>Donal wrote:
>>
>>>Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout.
>>
>>No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion.
>
>
> Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in
> the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog.
<G> No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
available.
"Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.
Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out or
backed up with information from the radar, or other sources, as to it's
feasibility.
Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.
I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
use of radar, without a proper plot .... i.e., if you don't back up the
basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:-
>>>
>>>"There have been a significant number of
>>>collisions where subsequent investigation has
>>>found that at some stage before impact, one or
>>>both parties were using VHF radio in an
>>>attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF
>>>radio in these circumstances is not always
>>>helpful and may even prove to be dangerous."
>>>
>>>So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"!
>>
>>No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.
>
>
>
> Addressed????
Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.
BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
VHF communication for "passing agreements".
otn
Shen44
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.
To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with him.
Forget your post with Jeff and Joe .... there are many conditions we all deal
with that don't work all the time, work sometimes, and are greatly influenced
by our individual experience for a particular area of operation.
Never forget Rule 2 .... apply it to your area and conditions, and always know,
that what you may know or have used as normal conditions, may not apply to a
particular area or condition that you now find yourself, in.
Many modern vessels rely on radar, as their main source of information for the
routes they travel. Conditions may say that this is sufficient, or not, and in
the case of a collision, it will easily be proved .... not.
The point of this whole discussion, is the reality of what one can expect ....
the reality of what one must deal with .... the reality of .... Oh Chit...I
didn't think of that and should have.
No system is perfect, will guarantee safety, can be relied on solely ..... Rule
2.....You are responsible for what you do, don't do, what you should do, what
you shouldn't do.......etc.
Shen
Donal
>
>
> Donal wrote:
> > "otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:goWVb.21814$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
> >>politician
>
> (repeat above)
I play devil's advocate, occasionally.
I have learned to truly detest almost all politicians in the last couple of
years.
> <G> No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
> other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
> available.
I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm,
or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm
quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar,
and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout
would be useless because his boat is too noisy.
> "Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
> we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
> listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
> around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
> and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
> is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.
I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make
no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the
lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the
VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a
lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you?
... more on VHF later.
> Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
> possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
> VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out
I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong
vessel.
>or
> backed up with information from the radar,
I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am
about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio
contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel.
You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have
spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you
are actually talking to a third vessel.
>or other sources, as to it's
> feasibility.
> Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.
Now you are really trying it on.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
> > dissappeared. Here is another location.
> > https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/mld/section03/167%20.pdf
>
> I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
> can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
> making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
> use of radar, without a proper plot ....
>i.e., if you don't back up the
> basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
> are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
> communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.
So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):-
"Marine
Superintendents would be well advised to
prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
their officers to comply with the Collision
Regulations."
That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it?
(BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.)
> >
> >
> >
<snip>
> >>No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Addressed????
>
> Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
> boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
> least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
> actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
> made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
> that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.
I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely
certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on
the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate
with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking
to the right vessel.
> BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
> VHF communication for "passing agreements".
>
Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound
like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international
safety standards.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
"Shen44" <she...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040210212517...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
> argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.
I thought that I was doing the same with otn.
> To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.
I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.
Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?
I understand why Joe is upset with me. I *really* don't understand why
Jeff decided that I was wrong. otn seems to be conducting a rational
discussion, and I hope that I am responding in kind. Our differences are
are remarkably small. We seem to be discussing slightly different
interpretations of the CollRegs. There won't be a "winner" or a "loser".
There might even be two winners.
There's nothing wrong with these "confrontational" discussions. They are
educational.
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
>
>><G> No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
>>other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
>>available.
>
>
> I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm,
> or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm
> quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar,
> and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout
> would be useless because his boat is too noisy.
I think you may have missed one of MY post. Many vessels travel without
a "dedicated" visual lookout. This does not mean that they have no one
watching visually ....it does mean that they have people splitting their
lookout duties between visual and radar .....i.e. .... all available means.
Under no circumstances, could/would I consider listening to the VHF as
being part of this "lookout" condition.
Using the VHF, however, to pass information as to "passing situations"
WOULD be prudent use of an available tool.
As to the noise associated with his boats ..... this can vary greatly,
from overwhelming to, of no consequence.
>>"Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
>>we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
>>listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
>>around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
>>and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
>>is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.
>
>
> I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make
> no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the
> lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the
> VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a
> lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you?
Listening to VHF is PART of the "hearing" watch, and watching radar is
PART of the "by sight" watch, so, in essence, as PART of the overall
watch to be maintained in fog, I do agree with him....... I also/still
note, that different conditions require different actions and degrees of
radar/visual watch
>
> ... more on VHF later.
>
>
>
>>Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
>>possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
>>VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out
>
>
> I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong
> vessel.
This is what all are saying and part of what must be addressed, but is
no different than improper radar plotting in the final result.
One needs to use positions and other methods to confirm that the vessel
you think you are talking to, is indeed the vessel you are talking to.
>>or
>>backed up with information from the radar,
>
>
> I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am
> about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio
> contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel.
> You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have
> spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you
> are actually talking to a third vessel.
This danger exist, but is not a reason to not rely on VHF communication,
rather a reason to confirm proper indentification and communication.
>
>
>>or other sources, as to it's
>>feasibility.
>>Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.
>
>
> Now you are really trying it on.
No. My read is that you are using information, which in part, confirms
and/or bolsters your point, yet in truth when taken as a whole,
generally contradicts your point.
>>>Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
>>>dissappeared. Here is another location.
>>>https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/mld/section03/167%20.pdf
>>
>>I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
>>can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
>>making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
>>use of radar, without a proper plot ....
>>i.e., if you don't back up the
>>basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
>>are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
>>communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.
>
>
> So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):-
>
> "Marine
> Superintendents would be well advised to
> prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
> their officers to comply with the Collision
> Regulations."
This, to me, is the statement of a lawyer who is not a Maritime
professional and not interested in the practical application as much as
the legal application. The primary issue is to follow and obey the rules
as the basis for how we act. However, to not make proper use, of new
technologies and to restrict their use or employment does not honor or
go along with that all important rule ..... rule 2.
If some "Marine Superintendent" was to try and prohibit my use of VHF
for passing situations, he would be told exactly where he could stick
his prohibitions and why..... course, in my case, I AM the so called
Marine Superintendent <eg>.
>
>
> That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it?
> (BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.)
See above
>>>>No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Addressed????
>>
>>Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
>>boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
>>least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
>>actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
>>made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
>>that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.
>
>
> I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely
> certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on
> the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate
> with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking
> to the right vessel.
No, incorrect. There are any number of ways to ascertain that you are
talking to the right vessel. The most important being that you pass
accurate position/course/speed information. Once again, just like the
radar situation, you must closely monitor the situation until the danger
of collision is past.
>
>
>
>>BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
>>VHF communication for "passing agreements".
>>
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound
> like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international
> safety standards.
Then you have lost this part of the argument with Joe, since the waters
he was generally discussing involved US "Inland Rules" which allow
passing signals to be made via VHF. I personally would not consider them
to be in the least bit dangerous ( with previously mentioned proviso's)
and in fact much safer when properly used, and don't think they fall
short in the least bit, with international standards as you will
probably find most pilots/ships use voice communication, nowadays to
communicate passing information, rather than whistle signals.
Again, if you are going to argue about a set of conditions (US inland
rivers/shipping channels [joe]) that you may not be familiar with, you
must understand that conditions/practice/rules may vary as to what you
are used to.
otn
otnmbrd
Do a historical search of past rules ....you'll find that a number of US
Inland Rules, have found their way into the modern International Rules
to varying degrees/forms.
Shen44
>From: "Donal" do...@landofspam.com
>> Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
>> argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.
>
>I thought that I was doing the same with otn.
Which actually surprises me on both your parts.
>
>> To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
>him.
>
>I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.
No major disagreements, but you are still losing the "points" race, not that
that's all that important .....like otn, I have a feeling you are reaching (we
talk) for points beyond the basic issues.
>Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?
LOL If you and otn agreed, this discussion would have been over long ago!
Actually, this is one of the more informative ones, as it tends to involve
perceptions of different groups of mariners from different areas, and I've
found it interesting as to how the groups/areas can vary as to perceptions.
Shen
Joe
>
> Try this.
> https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/mld/section03/167%20.pdf
>
> Fortunately, the MCA still have the warning on their site!!!!
> They really did change the web site! it was there when I posted the link
> ... honestly!!
>
>
If you read it you will see that they feel talking on the VHF might
distract from what? RADAR thats what. Why do you think they want you
to focus on RADAR?
I think you might of missed the part were I said I only run hooked up
in fog were I know every inch of the water way by radar. That make it
alot easier to comfirm who you are seeing on radar and talking to via
VHF.
And the only language problems here in Texas and LA is only a problem
with Vietnam shrimpers and it's OK to run them down, infact the Texas
shrimpers encourage it and will usually give you a few pounds of
shrimp for the effort ;0).
Joe
MSV RedCloud
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
Donal
You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.
Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.
I was a power boater, and now I sail.
Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.
When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.
My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.
My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only
hearing lookout.
I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.
Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!
Regards
Donal
--
Shen44
>From: "Donal" do...@landofspam.com
<snip>
>You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.
Which is?
>
>Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
>purposes.
>
>I was a power boater, and now I sail.
>
>Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend
>to think that all sailors are ignorant.
>
>When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.
>
>My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
>vast majority of power boaters are concientious.
Can't agree with this, but, so what.....
>
>
>
>My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in
>fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only
>hearing lookout.
You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only ..... VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations ..... not
as a hearing lookout.
>
>I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
>must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.
Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision, when
used properly.
>
>
>Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
>sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!
HUH????? How did this get into the mix? Explain what you are looking for, and I
might be able to answer ..... off the top of my head, the difference is purely
an identifier of some vessel which may not be able to act/react as a simple
powerdriven vessel can .... What are you asking?
Shen
Jonathan Ganz
> I was a power boater, and now I sail.
Only from experience.
> Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
> to think that all sailors are ignorant.
Hahaha.. good one. Actually, sailors tend not to wave, since the power
boaters are rarely keeping a watch.
> When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.
Hahaha... only if you include Bob and Neal.
Jeff Morris
> Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
> sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!
>
Why is an explanation needed? Surely you aren't claiming that the number of
toots corresponds to a position in some "pecking order"?
The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed with)
is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
"prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible berth.
In the words of Farwell's, "Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as
any other vessel, but clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious
purposes of causing ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution".
BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog?
-jeff
Donal
> >Subject: Re: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
> >From: "Donal" do...@landofspam.com
>
> <snip>
>
> >You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.
>
> Which is?
> >
> >Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
> >purposes.
> >
> >I was a power boater, and now I sail.
> >
> >Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
> >to think that all sailors are ignorant.
> >
> >When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.
> >
> >My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
> >vast majority of power boaters are concientious.
>
> Can't agree with this, but, so what.....
> >
> >
> >
> >My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts,
in
> >fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
> >hearing lookout.
>
> You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
> visual lookout, not the only .....
AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!
Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.
>VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
> agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
..... not
> as a hearing lookout.
Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!
> >
> >I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
> >must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.
>
> Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision,
when
> used properly.
What makes you think such a thing?
Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their
own interpretation to the Regs. Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.
I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF.
Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?
>
> >
> >
> >Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the
different
> >sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!
>
> HUH????? How did this get into the mix? Explain what you are looking for,
and I
> might be able to answer ..... off the top of my head, the difference is
purely
> an identifier of some vessel which may not be able to act/react as a
simple
> powerdriven vessel can .... What are you asking?
I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain????
Regards
Donal
--
>
>
> Shen
Shen44
>From: "Donal" do...@landofspam.com
Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is Joe.....
Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored, as
wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends on
the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? <EG>
>>VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
>> agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
>..... not
>> as a hearing lookout.
>
>Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!
And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could possibly
use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
>> >must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.
>>
>> Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision,
>when
>> used properly.
>
>What makes you think such a thing?
The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.
>
>Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm
>trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their
>own interpretation to the Regs.
I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.
Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.
>
>I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF.
.....and if I was a lawyer, <eg> I could find links that would demonstrate that
the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
(Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)
>Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?
LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we are
employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......
>I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain????
Thought you might be working that route......careful, I might liken it to the
"British" sense of humour.....
Shen
Peter Wiley
<jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:
> BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog?
Wherethefuckareweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
PDW
Donal
Huh??? Please post a link to back up this stupid assertion!
> Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
> anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored,
as
> wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends
on
> the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? <EG>
CollRegs????????
>
>
> >>VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
> >> agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
> >..... not
> >> as a hearing lookout.
> >
> >Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!
>
> And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could
possibly
> use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.
Joe does.
Moreover, you seem to think that Joe's position is correct! How many
brain cells do you possess?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact,
they
> >> >must be used (if available) under the "and all available means"
clause.
> >>
> >> Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding
collision,
> >when
> >> used properly.
> >
> >What makes you think such a thing?
>
> The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.
That is just plain silly. I haven't said that Radar isn't useful. I've
said that the CollRegs stipulate that a lookout must be maintained by
"sight".
>
> >
> >Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs.
I'm
> >trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply
their
> >own interpretation to the Regs.
>
> I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
> interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.
>
> Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.
I've read those paragraphs twice. Can somebody pass me the Babel Fish?
>
>
> >
> >I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the
VHF.
>
> .....and if I was a lawyer, <eg> I could find links that would demonstrate
that
> the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
> (Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)
If, like Joe, you used the Radar to travel at 25 kts in fog, then you would
be able to find links that proved that your behaviour was dangerous.
>
> >Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?
>
> LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we
are
> employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......
Then you won't object if I ask you to justify your position.
Joe says that he does 25 kts, in fog, with *NO* lookout, other than a Radar
and VHF watch.
I say that he is breaking the rules. What do you say?
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
"Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
news:hZqdnbmRUvP...@comcast.com...
> "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message news:c0js79$7rk$3>
> > Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the
different
> > sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!
> >
>
> Why is an explanation needed? Surely you aren't claiming that the number
of
> toots corresponds to a position in some "pecking order"?
>
> The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed
with)
> is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
> "prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
> right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
> limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible
berth.
Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right
of way?
Why do write such nonsense?
Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?
How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same
time?
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Donal wrote:
>
>
> Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right
> of way?
>
> Why do write such nonsense?
>
>
> Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
> berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?
>
>
>
> How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same
> time?
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.
otn
Donal
>
>
> Donal wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special
right
> > of way?
> >
> > Why do write such nonsense?
> >
> >
> > Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
> > berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the
same
> > time?
> I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
> Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
> Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.
Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely.
Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on
vessel?
Wouldn't that just confuse the situation?
I trust that I have posed these questions in an intelligent, and
non-threatening manner.
Regards
Donal
--
Peter Wiley
> Donal wrote:
> >
> >
> > of way?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > time?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Donal
>
Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously
lost the plot. Either way, why bother?
I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation
of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the
vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage
way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but
perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are?
Ah well, time to go play on my icebreaker while she's in port. Sailing
at 1700 but not, this time, with me. Maybe next cruise.
PDW
Donal
"Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:151fcb17.04021...@posting.google.com...
> otnmbrd <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<7TYXb.5694$tL3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
>
> > Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a
response.
>
>
> Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously
> lost the plot. Either way, why bother?
>
> I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation
> of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the
> vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage
> way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but
> perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are?
Dear me, Peter. You really have a cheek to accuse me of trolling. I've
repeatedly said that I understand that ships will do 12 kts in fog.
Your post has made think that the British judicial system has been guilty of
very serious miscarriges of justice. My opinion has been bolstered by
other recent posts from "Down Under". You all seem to share a distinct
lack of humour.
Perhaps your ancestors were deported because juries were unduly influenced
by their tedium???
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner
(at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically,
knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses.
I read this and the other responses, and have to assume
"Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response.
otn
Donal
>
> Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner
> (at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically,
> knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses.
> I read this and the other responses, and have to assume
> "Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response.
Well, I assumed that you were taking an intelligent approach to this
discussion. Obviously, I was incorrect!
I say this with confidence for *one* simple reason.
All along, my only assertion has been that Joe was breaking the CollRegs by
doing 25 kts, in fog, using his Radar as his means of keeping a visual
lookout.
I have posted a link to the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency's advice on
the subject, to back up my position.
You have posted no evidence whatsoever.
You sounded fairly reasonable when you entered this discussion, so I made
extra efforts to be polite. However, you have not offered any evidence to
back up your position. I'm beginning to wonder if you are as stupid as the
two "J"'s????
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
> Regards
> Donal
ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to
your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and
giving a wide berth, in fog.
To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working
knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog.
Nuff said!
otn
Jeff Morris
Donal's two posts ...
> > The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed
> with)
> > is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
> > "prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
> > right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
> > limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible
> berth.
>
> Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right
> of way?
In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's limitations, we
only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats with
gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such a
vessel.
>
> Why do write such nonsense?
>
To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom.
>
> Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
> berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?
>
> How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same
> time?
There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog. Have you
not learned anything about the rules?
"Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
news:c0rne0$bqs$4$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder.
> > Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response.
> > Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response.
>
> Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely.
>
> Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on
> vessel?
There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about
"restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another." In
this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel."
Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the
instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing your
ignorance.
Donal
>
>
> ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to
> your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and
> giving a wide berth, in fog.
> To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working
> knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog.
> Nuff said!
That isn't fair!!
Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.
My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer
that I gave Shen?
Really!!!!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
...
> Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
> long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
> joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
> jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.
>
> My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
> content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer
> that I gave Shen?
>
> Really!!!!
This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered reply.
But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher percentage of
idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly isn't so
in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having only
about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers.
Donal
> "Donal" <do...@landofspam.com> wrote in message
> news:c168hi$19q$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> ...
> > Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a
> > long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant*
> > joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to
> > jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in.
> >
> > My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious
> > content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the
answer
> > that I gave Shen?
> >
> > Really!!!!
>
> This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered
reply.
Ill considered?? I thought that it was funny!!
>
> But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher
percentage of
> idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly
isn't so
> in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having
only
> about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers.
Statistics are notoriously difficult to decipher.
My comment is based on personal experience.
Fatalities are more likely to result from a high speed collision, than from
a "meeting" of two sailboats that are doing 5 kts.
Are the statistics hiding the true facts?
Regards
Donal
--
otnmbrd
Once again .... nuff said.
otn
Donal
> I go away for a few days and come back to the same silliness. I've
combined
> Donal's two posts ...
>
> > > The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros"
agreed
> > with)
> > > is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
> > > "prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
> > > right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has
some
> > > limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible
> > berth.
> >
> > Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special
right
> > of way?
>
> In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's
limitations, we
> only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats
with
> gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such
a
> vessel.
Would it?
>
>
> >
> > Why do write such nonsense?
> >
>
> To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom.
Why didn't you say that you were an experienced mariner? If I'd realised
that you knew much more than I did, then I would have respectfully touched
my cap and backed away in embarrassement.
If you don't believe that last statement, then do a Google. Look for an
instance where I've openly disagreed with Ole Thom, Nav, Oz, Capt American,
Mooron, Katy, Wally, Peters(various), Matt Colie, Seahag, Martin, Roy,
John, or Jon!
I may disagree with them on non-sailing issues, but I've never argued with
any of them on sailing related issues. Don't you find that a bit strange?
Why is it that, in *5* years, I've never had a serious, sailing,
disagreement with anybody who knows anything about the subject? I've always
backed off when confronted by someone who has more experience than me. Why
is it that you think that I am
>
> >
> > Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide
> > berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat?
> >
> > How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the
same
> > time?
>
> There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog.
Have you
> not learned anything about the rules?
Read my statement again! I *know* that there is no such thing as a "give
way" boat.
Furthermore, I am 90% certain that you are aware that I know this.
Do you "give way" when you encounter a "stand on vessel"?
If you do, then you understand what I am saying. If you don't, then you
are in breach of the CollRegs. Perhaps you could now explain why you are
saying that I know nothing because I think that I must "give way"?
> > Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely.
> >
> > Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand
on
> > vessel?
>
> There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about
> "restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another."
In
> this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel."
>
> Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the
> instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing
your
> ignorance.
Did Neal say that? I thought that it was *me* that made that particular
point!!
Regards
Donal
--
>
>
>
>
Shen44
Shen
Jeff Morris
"Shen44" <she...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040221213708...@mb-m29.aol.com...
katysails
Donal is too nice to take over from Neal...he has scruples and ethics...it will be an abysmal failure.
--
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
DD730
Donal
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c1af5b$1ganpb$1...@ID-178897.news.uni-berlin.de...
Shen conjectured; ROFL I vote Troll ..... Donal's trying to take over from
Neal.
Donal is too nice to take over from Neal...he has scruples and ethics...it
will be an abysmal failure.>>>
I'm sure that Neal had some scruples and ethics! Is there *no* hope for
me?
I have noticed that Jeff, Shen and otn will all resort to name calling when
they find that they cannot respond to a rational argument. This is a bit
of a pity, as they seem to be quite sensible, otherwise.
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
regards,
jeff
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
news:c1gfbl$mh$2...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Donal
> You drunken sot! I never called you a name you didn't deserve!
You just did!!!!!!
I'm stone cold sober. I haven't touched a drop today!
Regards
Donal
--
Jeff Morris
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
news:c1gmbk$go2$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
otnmbrd
usually end up writing the next to last sentence of your post when they
have been figured/found out.
Trust me, from where I was reading, there was no longer anything
rational about your post.
otn
Donal
> Well, you're a Sober Sot, then!!
You must be the unluckiest man on Earth. Fancy calling me a drunken sot
*today*.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
> <BG> I have noticed that Trolls (the name I believe I called you ... )
> usually end up writing the next to last sentence of your post when they
> have been figured/found out.
> Trust me, from where I was reading, there was no longer anything
> rational about your post.
>
<Tsk tsk> otn, I do believe that you are *Trolling*!!
Perhaps you don't know the definition of the word?? You should look it up.
Regards
Donal
--