Re: Colregs dilemma

"mister b" <mist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:7YGdnYkFfYVeVIXVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:27:51 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:
>
>> "mister b" <mist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:iZCdnWJc5cpXO4XVnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:42:35 -0400, salty wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> sniff...sniff...hmmm...smells like troll
>>
>>
>> Not in my opinion... seems like a reasonable question to me.
>
> okay, I'll bite...give me a practical situation where dragging a
spinning
> re-generating prop would matter in terms of application of these regs


I was just saying that this didn't appear to be a troll. The supposition
was 
that there might be an issue (my point actually) that one might be held 
partically responsible if one did not engage the engine to propell the
boat 
vs. the original supposition that having it engaged but not propelling
would 
be cause for blame.

-- 
"j" ganz @[EMAIL PROTECTED]