• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Editor

laugh or cry?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Hong Kong was ranked the sixth-busiest port in the world from 2007-2016, according to the International Association of Ports and Harbours, with an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 vessels entering and leaving annually.

“When you sail out of Hong Kong on the first night, it’s a shocker,” said Hong Kong policeman Justin Shave, who has raced on Hong Kong boats Ragamuffin and Scallywag. “Fishing boats and nets are everywhere – it’s a nightmare.”

“They are extremely hard to predict and the navigation lights are not clear. Fishing vessels may drop miles of fishing lines in the water with sailing boats having to duck and weave through.”

Weaving through the heavy marine traffic and avoiding boats and fishing lines requires extra concentration at the best of times. Introduce seven 65-foot long, 10-storey high Volvo Ocean boats to the mix and the chance of accidents surely increases.

Former America’s Cup China team member and Hong Kong Catamarans project manager Thierry Barot said the competing sailing boats’ speed – travelling at roughly 20 to 30 knots – may have played a role in the collision, which Killed one of the 10 person fishing crew. 

“The boats go over 20 knots, so the distance to see [in front of you] and react becomes shorter and shorter. It makes a difference, just like if you’re driving on the highway.

http://m.scmp.com/sport/hong-kong/article/2129816/fishing-boats-and-nets-everywhere-its-nightmare-why-hong-kongs

How did that Chinese team go in the cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

How did that Chinese team go in the cup?

About the same as Luna Rosa w Jimmy. 

Chinese are onto world surfing now with Aussie help of course. 

https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/sport/gold-coast-champion-to-help-chinas-national-surf-team-make-waves-at-olympic-level/news-story/70e96728d0a39381e768899649f64a58?nk=06cf006a3197471c1caf1e7be6b90342-1521248013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 Or at least stick to threads that you are well read on, like how George Bush ordered the missile be fired into the Pentagon. 

oh man , he didn't really say that did he? if so, stupid has no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 10:03 AM, sunseeker said:

I got exactly the reaction I thought I would. LB 15 is the single most caustic low life piece of shit internet bully on this site. He’s got something shitty to say to everyone, and his never ending junior high school sexual comments tell us all we need to know about him.

that anyone thinks for a moment it’s ok for Vestas to ask for redress tells me all I need to know about them.

LB 15 wants to be human when a tragedy effects him, but where it’s just another unknown Chinese fisherman, we’ll too bad, toughen up, and go ask for redress.

that many of you can’t see the hypocrisy doesn’t really surprise me.

LB is entertaining.

You aren't

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from now on mandate an offshore finish line and pilot boats lead the media/coach boats/competitors into port?(yes)

Or maybe instead the sponsors endeavour to dialogue with local fishing fleets and let them know that they should get out of the way within the next few days just because? What's the endgame in the 'shit happens' but we ought to do something about it version?

This is at best a farce. The rules of a race don't override much of anything when your rolling into a foreign port as a finisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

You need to give us an example of that one.  I'm listening.

Fuck you're a stupid cunt. How about the 1000's of races/rallys/voyages/whatever that did not hit anything with the same adequate lookout.

Why are you even on a sailing forum anyway ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LB 15 said:

So the colregs don't apply to yachts racing. I see, thanks for educating me. You really need to put the bong down mate. Or at least stick to threads that you are well read on, like how George Bush ordered the missile be fired into the Pentagon. 

You have been called for error and aren't man enough to admit it.

But to continue the charade, even though you repeatedly refused to man-up, link me where I said "the colregs don't apply to yachts racing."

Good luck with that weasel.  You lose respect for this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

Fuck you're a stupid cunt. How about the 1000's of races/rallys/voyages/whatever that did not hit anything with the same adequate lookout.

Why are you even on a sailing forum anyway ?

To expose ignorant fuckwits like you, it's easy and fun.  Like I just did.

So how about an example of an 'adequate' lookout and they had a collision?  That's what I asked for.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please extend your version of adequate lookout to fishermen, pro or am, who might be oblivious to racing craft following another(their own) set of rules 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, the driver of that power boat was an older gentleman who couldn't see over the dash because he was sitting down.

From the article:

Quote

Larsen told The Oregonian the accusation against him was “fake news.” He pleaded not guilty to the charges and said the lawsuit was unnecessary because no one was seriously hurt. His son-in-law, who was also on the boat at the time of the accident, told investigators he warned Larsen to pay attention and that he’d been using his cellphone off and on all morning.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Fuuuuuck

I love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

some light? does that mean a cabin light was on ?

Or a fisherman smoking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, fufkin said:

please extend your version of adequate lookout to fishermen, pro or am, who might be oblivious to racing craft following another(their own) set of rules 

 

 Excellent example.

The approaching boat is Team Vestas and the fishing boat is ...well the fishing boat.

Obviously you get Randumbs point.

Now school the others.

Bwahahahaha

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 sailin' at 20 knots BS, 221am, other boat was not unlit & we have already heard about traffic density. I rest my case. 

The conditions were 20-23 knots of wind and 1 meter waves. It was at night, cloudy and dark with at least 2 miles of visibility.

Vestas was sailing on starboard tack with a speed of about 20 knots, with full mainsail, fractional code zero and J3 staysail.

About 1 minute before the incident, Vestas luffed 10-12 degrees to pass in front of a vessel.

Another vessel with some light appeared approximately 20 meters in front of Vestas on the leeward side of her bow and they collided about 2 seconds later with serious damage to Vestas.

The other vessel ‘s type, activity, course and speed have not been identified.

The sequence and the precise points of impact between the two vessels have not been identified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Finally some facts. Link courtesy of stiffler.

Note visability and of 6 reps/witnesses 4 on board and presumably 3 on deck with SciFi below.

https://www.volvooceanrace.com/static/assets/content_v2/media/files/m46753_volvo-ocean-race-case-02-decision-vestas-11th-hour-request-for-redress.pdf

Thanks for that Jack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2018 at 6:06 PM, random said:

You have been called for error and aren't man enough to admit it.

But to continue the charade, even though you repeatedly refused to man-up, link me where I said "the colregs don't apply to yachts racing."

Good luck with that weasel.  You lose respect for this one.

Well look at that.

'On the evidence presented, the jury cannot be satisfied which IRPCAS rule applied and therefore which vessel was required to keep out of the way. Therefore, the conditions of RRS 62.1(b) are not met.'

No mention of Rich white cunts or poor brown skinned people or any reference to how the RRS caused them to be in those waters. I think you have grounds for an appeal Randumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SCANAS said:

 

The other vessel ‘s type, activity, course and speed have not been identified.

The sequence and the precise points of impact between the two vessels have not been identified. 

Try taking these findings to a coroners inquiry. Amazing that a bunch of IJ's 'can not be satisfied which IRPCS rule applied' yet you and Randumb are all over it with nothing more than speculation. So can you explain how you know that the Boat was engaged in fishing at the time yet the Jury can't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SCANAS said:

3 sailin' at 20 knots BS, 221am, other boat was not unlit & we have already heard about traffic density. I rest my case. 

The conditions were 20-23 knots of wind and 1 meter waves. It was at night, cloudy and dark with at least 2 miles of visibility.

Vestas was sailing on starboard tack with a speed of about 20 knots, with full mainsail, fractional code zero and J3 staysail.

About 1 minute before the incident, Vestas luffed 10-12 degrees to pass in front of a vessel.

Another vessel with some light appeared approximately 20 meters in front of Vestas on the leeward side of her bow and they collided about 2 seconds later with serious damage to Vestas.

The other vessel ‘s type, activity, course and speed have not been identified.

The sequence and the precise points of impact between the two vessels have not been identified. 

 

4 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Try taking these findings to a coroners inquiry. Amazing that a bunch of IJ's 'can not be satisfied which IRPCS rule applied' yet you and Randumb are all over it with nothing more than speculation. So can you explain how you know that the Boat was engaged in fishing at the time yet the Jury can't? 

 I wonder why they haven’t released that information? It must be local knowledge which boat and what they were doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, overlay said:

 Excellent example.

The approaching boat is Team Vestas and the fishing boat is ...well the fishing boat.

Obviously you get Randumbs point.

Now school the others.

Bwahahahaha

Can you post without the end bit where you laugh hysterically at you own brilliant humour? And speaking of school don't forget your lunch today..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mad said:

 

 I wonder why they haven’t released that information? It must be local knowledge which boat and what they were doing. 

I agree but we can just ask the SA international Jury.

 

 

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

I agree but we can just ask the SA international Jury.

 

image.jpg

This could be fun a set of conspiracy theories. 

Edit,

I’d like to nominate ‘secret spy ship’  before Random?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Try taking these findings to a coroners inquiry. Amazing that a bunch of IJ's 'can not be satisfied which IRPCS rule applied' yet you and Randumb are all over it with nothing more than speculation. So can you explain how you know that the Boat was engaged in fishing at the time yet the Jury can't? 

"But but Your Honour they were not even fishing at the time."

"Really?  So how do you know that when you didn't even see them in the first place?"

"Well ah well ummmm someone said they weren't."

Does that mean that your collision with the boat does not count in some way, or make the deceased, less deceased?"

"Well Your Imperialness I ..."

And are you proposing that if the power vessel was not fishing, that fact it in some way alters your obligations under COLREGS Rules 5 through 7?

"Ah well you see that's different, we are only asking to get redress your holiness, get our points back and stuff"

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

"But but Your Honour they were not even fishing at the time."

"Really?  So how do you know that when you didn't even see them in the first place?"

"Well ah well ummmm someone said they weren't."

Does that mean that your collision with the boat does not count in some way, or make the deceased, less deceased?"

"Well Your Imperialness I ..."

And are you proposing that if the power vessel was not fishing, that fact it in some way alters your obligations under COLREGS Rules 5 through 7?

"Ah well you see that's different, we are only asking to get redress your holiness, get our points back and stuff"

 

Have you been having these imaginary court hearings in you head for very long?

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Try taking these findings to a coroners inquiry. Amazing that a bunch of IJ's 'can not be satisfied which IRPCS rule applied' yet you and Randumb are all over it with nothing more than speculation. So can you explain how you know that the Boat was engaged in fishing at the time yet the Jury can't? 

Scallywag & Rumble in rocky show this isn't the real world. Give them one out & IJ will take it, they don't want to influence a lawsuit against VOR or Vestas over the death. 

IJ's also don't do international maritime accident investigations. IJ aren't even the people's court - fuck even Judge Judy gets testimony from the other party. 

I have always said Vestas contributed, in this case they failed to spot a boat and had "20m & 2 secs" reaction time & piled into it doing 20 knots flying three sails in a dense area. 

My theory that Vestas is at least partially to blame still holds water unlike the dead guys fishing boat Vestas sunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, random said:

"But but Your Honour they were not even fishing at the time."

"Really?  So how do you know that when you didn't even see them in the first place?"

"Well ah well ummmm someone said they weren't."

Does that mean that your collision with the boat does not count in some way, or make the deceased, less deceased?"

"Well Your Imperialness I ..."

And are you proposing that if the power vessel was not fishing, that fact it in some way alters your obligations under COLREGS Rules 5 through 7?

"Ah well you see that's different, we are only asking to get redress your holiness, get our points back and stuff"

 

Lets humour you for a moment. How come no one has been charged? It could be that the investigators found that the vessel was not enlarged in fishing at the time or more likely that the Brown skinned people conducting the investigation care more about rich white cunts visiting their country than they do about the death of one of their fellow brown skinned people?  But it is possible that they are waiting for the race jury to bring down their findings as the RRS trump the IRPCS. Can you look into your crystal ball and find out if the boat was fishing on port or starboard tack? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Give them one out & IJ will take it, they don't want to influence a lawsuit against VOR or Vestas over the death. 

IJ's also don't do international maritime accident investigations. IJ aren't even the people's court - fuck even Judge Judy gets testimony from the other party. 

 

Oh so now you are saying we should discount this finding? If Randumb bakes the cake can you eat it too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

 

My theory that Vestas is at least partially to blame still holds water unlike the dead guys fishing boat Vestas sunk. 

Got to be careful about 'theories' mate. Randumb has lots of them...

image.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a conspiracy theory for you.

Vestas collided with a fishing boat.  Unless they deliberately did that they did not comply with COLREGS Rule 5, 6 & 7.

How-am-I-doing1.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

Here's a conspiracy theory for you.

Vestas collided with a fishing boat.  Unless they deliberately did that they did not comply with COLREGS Rule 5, 6 & 7.

How-am-I-doing1.jpg

By fishing boat do you mean a vessel engaged in fishing, or a power driven vessel with fishermen on board? Think carefully back to exactly what you saw at the time of the collision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

Here's a conspiracy theory for you.

Vestas collided with a fishing boat.  Unless they deliberately did that they did not comply with COLREGS Rule 5, 6 & 7.

No, no, you’ve got it all wrong.... The fishing boat was full of maniacal Dong Feng supporters hiding in the dark and deliberately took Vestas out. If Vestas can prove that, they are entitled to redress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

By fishing boat do you mean a vessel engaged in fishing, or a power driven vessel with fishermen on board? Think carefully back to exactly what you saw at the time of the collision...

"But but Your Honour they were not even fishing at the time."

"Really?  So how do you know that when you didn't even see them in the first place?"

"Well ah well ummmm someone said they weren't."

Does that mean that your collision with the boat does not count in some way, or make the deceased, less deceased?"

"Well Your Imperialness I ..."

And are you proposing that if the power vessel was not fishing, that fact it in some way alters your obligations under COLREGS Rules 5 through 7?

"Ah well you see that's different, we are only asking to get redress your holiness, get our points back and stuff"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

By fishing boat do you mean a vessel engaged in fishing, or a power driven vessel with fishermen on board? Think carefully back to exactly what you saw at the time of the collision...

LB - I must congratulate you on your persistence,  dealing with these idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks mate. It's like teasing the dog next door through the fence. Pointless and a little cruel but mildly entertaining. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, random said:

"But but Your Honour they were not even fishing at the time."

"Really?  So how do you know that when you didn't even see them in the first place?"

"Well ah well ummmm someone said they weren't."

Does that mean that your collision with the boat does not count in some way, or make the deceased, less deceased?"

"Well Your Imperialness I ..."

And are you proposing that if the power vessel was not fishing, that fact it in some way alters your obligations under COLREGS Rules 5 through 7?

"Ah well you see that's different, we are only asking to get redress your holiness, get our points back and stuff"

If you actually read the IRPCS rather than just cut and paste from Wikipedia, you might see that there are more after rule 7.  Any thoughts on why the 'Fishing' boat doesn't need to observe rules 5, 6 and 7 as well. Any thoughts on anything at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 8:40 AM, random said:

"They are just under the Colregs."  said LB the expert on all things nautical.

Did you read the NoR LB? 

Tell us all about how the VoR is "just under the Colregs."?

waiting.jpg

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

Did you read the NoR LB? 

Tell us all about how the VoR is "just under the Colregs."?

waiting.jpg

 

Yep that's right. The Colregs were the only law relevant to them when this happened. I would be happy to argue about this but your 6 o'clock appointment appears to be waiting and is already undressed and has taken his teeth out. How long have you booked him for?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Yep that's right. The Colregs were the only law relevant to them when this happened. I would be happy to argue about this but your 6 o'clock appointment appears to be waiting and is already undressed and has taken his teeth out. How long have you booked him for?

You had no fucking idea, you post those words because you believed that to be the case.

Your Honour they are just under the Colregs.

Oh really LB?  Have you perchance had the need and opportunity to read the Notice of Race for this event?

No your Magnificence, I am an expert, I don't need to read that shit.  I live under Colregs.  Except when I want to hit deliberately hit one of my mates from behind.  One of them is a cop but you can't charge me because I am well inside the law.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will invite Andalay (does a good Dubinator impersonation) into the room as there is a scarcity  of fresh meat to tenderise. Randumb's pulse must be just about shot.

Here is a sample of what to expect from Andalay from another thread.

"Interesting. This indicates that the rumour I heard about the vessel being on tow was not correct, based on this report. Or at least was not being towed by the lit vessel they went up to cross in front of.  As stated, vessel they hit had 'some lights'.

Will be interested to find out what?

I am still somewhat amazed they would luff ten degrees to pass in front of a vessel. Of course, this would make perfect sense if the vessel was doing typical fishing boat speeds of 8 knots and they could simply wind up ten degrees and go from 20 to 18 and squirt past. 

There is still much of interest here to the likes of me.

Someone has screenshot recordings of Vestas Nav outputs including AIS. Will be interesting to see if these ever get released."

Now where is the popcorn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random said:

Except when I want to hit deliberately hit one of my mates from behind.  One of them is a cop but you can't charge me because I am well inside the law.

:huh::huh::o

A little too much information there random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

They posted that footage yet .... 

Of Random hitting his mate from behind and being well inside?

I'd rather he didn't

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SCANAS said:

They posted that footage yet .... 

Scan what is this footage thing? 

Is that a subterfuge image of this subaverage passage under steerage and lots of cordage, with radar coverage, then damage, breakage and bad floatage to the racing carriage and in no shortage of time sinkage to a boat from the village anchorage and some multiage too bad to bandage putting some in the orphanage?

If so miscarriage about pilotage on this voyage will be settled..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19 March 2018 at 8:43 PM, SCANAS said:

They posted that footage yet .... 

Randumb, who as we now know was the only eye witness, refuses to release his iPhone. I think there is also some footage of him tending to his herd on there that he doesn't want in general circulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 3:06 PM, random said:

Did you read the NoR LB? 

Tell us all about how the VoR is "just under the Colregs."?

waiting.jpg

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Randumb, who as we now know was the only eye witness, refuses to release his iPhone. I think there is also some footage of him tending to his herd on there that he doesn't want in general circulation. 

 

241F7F1A-FED9-4622-B216-2F47C3C8AB6F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

^^^ They come by the "flock"..LB said "herd"... I think a "herd" describes more than 6 transvestites.

It's: a couple, a few, a gaggle, a snood, a granfalloon, a fairy mob and a parliament, in that order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The collective noun for a group of transvestites is a Performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The collective noun I use for my wife and her girlfriends is a 'Coven'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You guys beat down Randum so hard, he stumbled back into the AC forum and vomited up a few of his tired memes before passing out in a puddle of his own drool.

Fuck I love this place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The collective noun I use for my wife and her girlfriends is a 'Coven'. 

LB backwards that is 'Nevoc"...sans a few bottles of wine and so in plain English ..that is "no more cock"

You heard it here first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The collective noun I use for my wife and her girlfriends is a 'Coven'. 

More charitable by far than a "Murder"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now