George Dewey

Members
  • Content count

    1,340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Whiner

About George Dewey

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. George Dewey

    Looking for racing crew in Rhode Island

    PM sent!
  2. You're still on this? Looks like your knickers are in the knot.
  3. You're very welcome, check out the edit I just made to the response above.
  4. I also use these whenever I have connections that might be in a wet area, in particular at the base of the mast for the wires that go up the mast. I just bought some and learned the hard way that it didn't include pins, so I ended up getting the connectors from Mouser and the pins from DigiKey. You don't need both halves but here are direct links to what I just bought: This is the half on the mast cable: https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/965-120-8552-002 This is the half on the transducer: https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/965-120-8551-002 And the pins (both halves need both kind of pin): https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=330-8672-001 https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=031-8703-001
  5. I'm heading out the door, so I'll reply to this later in detail.
  6. I only oppose an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. If plea bargaining was done in secret I would always oppose it.
  7. Actually I intend to file comments on the rule. I agree it's badly written from many angles. I can see many ways to improve it, including limiting it's scope as far as whats covered and who is covered. It looks like very little thought went into it. As for "All rules must be obeyed" this is not a little incident that should be dismissed with the "boys will be boys" attitude, although I realize some could honestly disagree.
  8. George Dewey

    LED anchor light in existing light fitting...

    And you can use this to great effect. Power one way turns on the anchor light, power the other way turns on the windex light. But then the Marine Beam LEDs work with either polarity, so that plan was foiled. Great products though.
  9. George Dewey

    Dear ICOM....

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M7V1ME1/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  10. All that yet you didn't actually answer the question. Yes, in some cases a rule is difficult and expensive to enforce. This is not an argument against enforcing it; quite the opposite. It's important that rules are enforced consistently, especially at the highest levels of competition. If we accept expense as a reason for non-enforcement we create a situation where competitors at the highest level are given passes while lower level competitors, even ammeters, are not, and are therefore held to a higher standard. I mistakenly posted this error about the IJ vs the protect committee in my first post and have since corrected that. I didn't miss it at all. I don't see why the RO can't have such a public notice board. The OA and sponsors seem to have a firm grasp on publicity and doing this would be easy. Websites are cheap enough and they already have one anyhow. at the very least they could respond to the complainant. So you like transparency when it benefits your argument, but not when it matters. It does not matter who filed a complaint, only that one was filed. But what the heck. I filed it. And I'm not the only one. Oh I agree the rule is badly drafted, although for different reasons that you do. It's way to vague on how complaints are handled and still, there is that complete lack of transparency. That's still not a reason to ignore it. As for the "intent" how exactly do you know the intended scope of the rule? I don't know anything about the prior R69 complaint you referenced. It may be true that invalid complaints are filed. Each one should be adjudicated in conformance with the rules and when there is no merit they should be dismissed. It should be revealed that this happened. The fact that there was a prior protest filed and dismissed by the IJ is not a reason to ignore future misconduct or the entire rule. Knowing nothing about the incident you mentioned, even if I accept at face value what you have said about it then it was handled appropriately. There will always be people who try to game a system, but that's not a reason to not have a system. You were doing well sticking to arguments on the facts. Pity you devolved into exploiting biased stereotypes and petty insults. Clearly you don't like the rule but again, that is not a justification for ignoring it. It's a great argument for working to change it. You won't find any pics of me being thrown out of a club and I don't have any personal agenda. Sailing is a sport which demands the competitors respect the rules and police themselves. We expect competitors to have a high level of integrity. Most sailors know this. I'm sure you do too. If you touch the top mark and no one is around to see it, do you just continue on happy you didn't get caught? If you get a speeding ticket do you blame the officer who wrote the ticket? If there are laws in your jurisdiction you don't like do you feel entitled to ignore them? Do you believe you don't have to pay your taxes because they are too high? And when people don't agree with your arguments, do you always resort to petty insults and bullying? Based on what you have written the answers all seem to be yes, and if so, that would make you a poor example in this sport. If you can't win through reasoned argument, bullying won't fix it. It will, however, help to suppress opinions but I'm sure you know this. In RI, and probably many other places, sailors are often thought of as rich, spoiled, entitled brats born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The people involved in this incident breezed in here and demonstrated exactly that. Their behavior was well beyond "getting loose" as someone else said. If R69 does not apply here then it applies nowhere. Sailors complain that sailing is on the decline, and it is. People complain that club membership, race participation and juniors programs are all falling. The VOR and similar events are great opportunities to reverse this. Until something like this incident comes along to wipe out any good impressions made. Even if you argue that it didn't hurt the sport, you sure can't believe it helped. So R69 was probably made for exactly this situation. I don't believe it's broad scope was accidental. Sports leagues enforce conduct codes all the time, even when the conduct does not rise to a criminal incident. They do it to protect both the reputation of the sport and their industry. It is entirely reasonable. We're talking about professional athletes here, whether it's the NFL, the NBA or the VOR. Their conduct does reflect well or badly on their sport. Doing nothing sends a message that at the highest levels, the rules don't really count. It broadcasts, at the very best, indifference to the conduct of the participants and at worst condoning it. Convening a hearing and applying a penalty would at least demonstrate that the conduct is taken seriously and not considered normal. Should they be drummed out of sailing? Of course not. I'm sure a reasonable fine would suffice. You're not "forced" to write anything. You chose to write it. Accept responsibility. The fact that it exposes your emotional immaturity is completely on you.
  11. Perhaps they are getting around to it, but no one knows if it was addressed or not or will be addressed or not. Not even the complainant. There is no transparency whatsoever. So either of those could have happened, or neither yet. Would you at least concede that they should at a minimum affirm that a decision was made?
  12. And again, I'm not trying to "mow down" anyone. I'm simply advocating that a rule be followed in a transparent manner. I didn't even advocate that there be a hearing, let alone a penalty. I said that a decision needs to be made, ideally in a transparent manner.
  13. A third party has stepped forward and filed a complaint. Setting that aside, I think your interpretation of "observation" is too narrow. Is there an appeal case on that? If so I'm happy to defer to it.
  14. Nothing but ad hominem attacks; nothing on the merits. This issue is completely divorced from the criminal justice system. If you can demonstrate that my interpretation of the rule is incorrect, then do so. If you can demonstrate that the rule was complied with then do that. If you can't then just admit that you're unconcerned about rules.
  15. Getting documents takes time. And, it's a major flaw in the rule that there is no timeframe, either limiting how long after an incident it can be acted upon, or how quickly those obligated to call a hearing must do it. When you get a traffic ticket, do you blame the officer who wrote it? Probably.