On Thu, 01 May 2008 18:23:14 GMT, richardcasady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Richard
Casady) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 14:05:57 -0400, salty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:46:28 GMT, richardcasady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Richard
>>Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:01:50 -0500, mister b <mist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:25:39 -0400, salty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In any Admiralty court case where the above situation was a factor,
and
>>>>> a collision resulted. That's where the colregs get applied.
>>>>
>>>>okay...if at court I lost a right-of-way claim in a collision because
of
>>>>the presence of my generator spinning in the water...the lobby of the
>>>>courthouse would be crowded with lawyers/crown attorneys all helping
each
>>>>other remove copies of the Colregs from their rectums...
>>>
>>>They have been towing spinning things behind ****ps for more than a
>>>century. They call them taffrail logs, and they record distance
>>>traveled through the water. Why should substitution of an alternator
>>>for the distance counter change the legalities?
>>>
>>>Casady
>>
>>See if you can figure it out, Casady. Is the propeller on a sailboat
>>mounted to the end of a rope or cable towed behind the boat? Can a
>>taffrail log also be used to propel a boat?
>>
>>Think, Casady, Think!
>
>Read my post, I said that taffrail logs and towed alternators change
>nothing, rule wise. All I said was that towed alternator drivers were
>legally equal to taffrail logs. What am I supposed to think about?
>Learn to read and think.
>
>Casady
You seem to be missing a vital and large chunk, here Casady. No one is
talking about towing anything behind a boat at all. Your talk of
taffrail logs and towed alternators amounts to a non sequitar.
|
