JimC

What happened to the Queensland Catamaran collision thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Six Pack for a Pirate said:

@Mrs Octopus,

 

first time im posting here but i have been reading with great pleasure to the banter here.

 

as far as i can tell you must be living in some weird world, where you dont even sail just suck the life out of people.

 

as for @jack_sparrow thanks for the very enlightening commentary, if you were any where near by I'd buy you a beer and a Salbutamol for you to give to your mate Wess,

@ozmultis is that you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is it that obvious?   :-)

Parrently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given up on weaving into a story, it's Friday night so I'll just spit it out.

Thoughts and prayers cup cake, don't drop the soap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack - Other than posting funny pics your value is kinda limited.  Clearly you are the worse (ie not a) marine lawyer.  God help the people you have "taught" LOL. And yea, I noticed yet again you wont answer simple questions. Just endless distraction and drama lama word vomit.  Sorry but the PC likely got it right, life will go on and folks will get their boats fixed or replaced regardless of the MSQ decision. But do go on.  You are a wonderful comedic distraction to a dreary grey work day here. Please be sure to alert if the sky does fall after the MSQ is done Chicken Little.   Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you keep posting pics and ignoring questions you cant answer.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheezy you will be waiting a long time for someone prepared to play riddles with an idiot.

PS. So long I couldn't even find a meme for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the saying goes "Thou who denies it supplies it."  

Really you probably shouldn't use @ozmultis favourite word when describing yourself. MUPPET.  It doesn't help your case.

Nice second post however , and good to see you have read the rules newbie. 

How about some tits.

Now wheres LB15.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

@ozmultis as the saying goes "Thou who denies it supplies it."  

Really shouldn't use your favourite word when describing yourself. MUPPET its a dead give away.

Now wheres LB15.

 

 

Now I find this interesting! As with another milestone incident a year and a half ago, names won't be mentioned here, there was loads of the use of the word mentioned above which is now associated with such great offence, by the crew involved in that incident towards the boat they belived to be of comedy stature! Oh my, hypocrisy couldn't raise its ugly head here as well could it! 

 

As for the use of that word, I personally have heard it used since the 70's, and even seen a boat named after the comedy children's show, and only days after this event that beautiful Wednesday! Now do a quick search on this forum, the little magnifying glass icon at the top of your anarchy screen will help you, and you will find 146 different posters using that word over the years on this site from numerous different locations around the globe! Are they all the same person as well I ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MRS OCTOPUS

its good to know that the level of BS that comes out of your mouth in person and online is the same.

when one of your own crew in the bar stated that the final course after everything was beam reach it brings it all into close occurance. when one attempts to question the actions of the Cat (for those not present on a different discussion the following were commentary by the PC Chair -)

Major significant damage occurred to the port tacker the

the starboard tacker just needs a small can of polish

image.thumb.png.b0788294fa7c7dc7481962877844abe8.png

 

now, why oh why would the cat do that..... unless...... there was a stretching of the 45 alteration to the PC........ maybe just a little bit...

not being there but hearing the "bar talk" and commentry i reckon this would be close to the truth

1300768477_KMBB_My_Concept.thumb.gif.c37833ec76159824f8f727d438343da4.gif

 

and yes while the cat did bear away attempting to clear the danger, which yes he didnt tack.... but hang on cats dont like tacking

so the question is not was the cat in the right or wrong...... but was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.2

the question then goes to is

- just because she is sailing to pass astern of the other vessel the other vessel still feels there is a danger and risk of collision..... there is no requirement or restriction on the starbd tacker to tack, so a bear away is permissable

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Six Pack for a Pirate said:

who is Oz Multi, its not me, i would take you to be a muppet of the first order.

do you even know what the rules are of sock puppetry,

 

1 hour ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

As the saying goes "Thou who denies it supplies it."  

Really you probably shouldn't use @ozmultis favourite word when describing yourself. MUPPET.  It doesn't help your case.

Nice second post however , and good to see you have read the rules newbie. 

How about some tits.

Now wheres LB15.

 

55 minutes ago, Turkey Slapper said:

...As for the use of that word, I personally have heard it used since the 70's, and even seen a boat named after the comedy children's show, and only days after this event that beautiful Wednesday! Now do a quick search on this forum, the little magnifying glass icon at the top of your anarchy screen will help you, and you will find 146 different posters using that word over the years on this site from numerous different locations around the globe! Are they all the same person as well I ask?

Missy Eight Legs which with 4 vagines, must collect a lot of sand. By calling out anyone with a view contry to yours as "Puppets" or "Socks", you obviously don't know your Olde English history of conflict and language.

The "Battle of Agincourt" was one of the greatest English victories in the Hundred Years' War taking place in 1415 near Azincourt in northern France. Middle English with Anglo-Norman French the language of the kings and nobility was what was used back then.

That English victory was largely due to a term used to remind those soldiers thinking of running off at the mouth and deriding their opposition, thinking no effort on their behalf would be required, were made to think again. It was;

" Any herin speaketh thou quickly to wit loosed of tongue agin thy brave upon yonder field as small dolls beneath string. Thou will be firsted our shields to thy cannons and if the Lord din taketh, thou will licky our latrines to sparkle before seein yoin own lengths of lynch and dangle like socks in thee wind."

So after six centuries you would think people here might think twice about using the "sock and puppet" call or running off at the mouth with gobblygook. It seems not.

images (47).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and a scholar sock too.

Edit. Not you Jack

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hooded Sailor said:

...so the question is not was the cat in the right or wrong...... but was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.2

Great bit of digital reconstruction. Note typo that should read 16.1 not 16.2 Changing Course, though latter also applies to Case Book 92.

While obviously will join a long list of arguable RRS 16.1 rulings involving collision, under COLREGS and MSQ's ruling a whole different box of monkeys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, paps49 said:

Now a Turkey has joined in!

 

I've been joined for years! And obviously it must be a new thing to make that + and - thing under your handle go up and down as Yorkwits fan boys have done! 5000+ posts since about 2004 and only that many people have added the + - thing, I feel honoured!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate I was just keeping count, 3 socks and a Turkey. No offense meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem all the original protagonists socks are now in attendance. Petals, muppets and sweet peas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we play pin the sock on the protagonist?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 6:17 PM, paps49 said:

An ugly incident certainly, damn these protest hearing thingies.

Someone seems to be under house arrest in PA poor cupcake.

 

On 2/22/2019 at 4:41 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Yes just as split second PC interpretations using R16.1 suddenly turning a "chasee" into the "chaser" can really fuck your day. Usually a dog not a cat that likes doing the chasing.

NGGe.gif

 

22 hours ago, paps49 said:

I see what you did there.

 

22 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Is it that obvious?   :-)

 

22 hours ago, paps49 said:

Parrently.

 

22 hours ago, paps49 said:

I have given up on weaving into a story, it's Friday night so I'll just spit it out.

Thoughts and prayers cup cake, don't drop the soap.

 

4 hours ago, Six Pack for a Pirate said:

who is Oz Multi, its not me, i would take you to be a muppet of the first order.

do you even know what the rules are of sock puppetry,

 

2 hours ago, paps49 said:

Ooooh a sock fight!!!!!!!

 

2 hours ago, paps49 said:

Now a Turkey has joined in!

 

1 hour ago, paps49 said:

Oh and a scholar sock too.

Edit. Not you Jack

 

39 minutes ago, paps49 said:

Sorry mate I was just keeping count, 3 socks and a Turkey. No offense meant.

 

36 minutes ago, paps49 said:

It would seem all the original protagonists socks are now in attendance. Petals, muppets and sweet peas.

 

35 minutes ago, paps49 said:

Shall we play pin the sock on the protagonist?

 

33 minutes ago, Hooded Sailor said:

can we start with the Octopus ------Muppett

 

29 minutes ago, paps49 said:

But that would make you LB?

Pap I appreciate the edit as clearly I can't be a sock. However looking at your post history above here in total, my "Battle of Agincourt" reference about "lazy partesan posts" was clearly directed at you and those of your ilk.

As clearly there to see you have contributed fuckin zip except going the "sock smear" on those that do make the effort and bracketing contributers into "petals, muppets and sweet peas".

Like Wheezy not a sock but a complete useless fuckwit, but he at least tries to substantiate his argument even though it is gobblygook and more fluid than water.

Sorry mate but for this thread I'm now recalling your "PapSmear" moniker if you want to continue in that crap vein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hooded Sailor said:

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage

To penalise port you have to explain what port did wrong. What starboard did wrong is obvious - by appalling misjudgement they converted a simple cross into a collision and made it impossible for port to keep clear. 'I thought there was a risk of collision so I did the one thing that could make it certain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack - there you go still bloviating and attacking the poor VC and the PC, all while hoping the MSQ will save your silly arguments.  Since you continued your chicken little theme and can't answer simple questions and ducked the first friendly wager, I will offer you another even safer one for you.... a handle of rum that the MSQ decision does not apportion more blame to P than they do to S.

And my gosh we got so many socks.  I see both LB and Ozmulti are back.  Isn't it summer down there?  Don't y'all have anything better to do?  Like go sailing?

Wess

Share this post


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

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage.

 

3 hours ago, JimC said:

To penalise port you have to explain what port did wrong. What starboard did wrong is obvious - by appalling misjudgement they converted a simple cross into a collision and made it impossible for port to keep clear. 'I thought there was a risk of collision so I did the one thing that could make it certain".

@JimC by your selective quoting of @Hooded Sailor post you are simply spinning your own narrative that anyone who questions the Protest Committee's (PC) decision whether impartial or not is blowing it out of their arse.

Is the world of sailing better off or not by your derision of someone who questions a PC ruling? I suggest not. 

I had steeled myself to stay away from the Protest Committee (PC) decision for my input to this thread. However your cockwarbler post in reply to @Hooded Sailor has sent me over the edge.

Your one eyed post reminds me of what two famous people said. The first François-Marie Arouet, known by his pen name "Voltaire", considered one of France’s greatest writers from the Age of Enlightenment period in the 18th century. He said; "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

Then second Martin Luther King in 1966 or nearly two decades later to the day after Voltaire at a US Senate  Subcommittee Hearing where he said; "There comes a time when silence is betrayal."

So moving on to add insult to injury you snip out quotes as is your ilk and cast aside @Hooded Sailor also saying; 

"..and yes while the cat did bear away attempting to clear the danger, which yes he didnt tack.... but hang on cats dont like tacking

so the question is not was the cat in the right or wrong...... but was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.2

the question then goes to is

- just because she is sailing to pass astern of the other vessel the other vessel still feels there is a danger and risk of collision..... there is no requirement or restriction on the starbd tacker to tack, so a bear away is permissable

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage."

6 hours ago, Hooded Sailor said:

..and yes while the cat did bear away attempting to clear the danger, which yes he didnt tack.... but hang on cats dont like tacking

so the question is not was the cat in the right or wrong...... but was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.2

the question then goes to is

- just because she is sailing to pass astern of the other vessel the other vessel still feels there is a danger and risk of collision..... there is no requirement or restriction on the starbd tacker to tack, so a bear away is permissable

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage.

So hardly a statement apportioning blame  but one of @Hooded Sailorasking serious questions unlike your JimC conclusion being;  "by appalling misjudgement they converted a simple cross into a collision and made it impossible for port to keep clear".

A conclusion derived from you @JimC sitting in a basement in the UK at the other side of the orange whereas @Hooded Sailor is there on the ground with more knowledge to burn. @Hooded Sailor goes to the effort of posting a video reconstruction asking the question "was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.1", which you JimC just ignore as it doesn't align with your spin under a RRS and ignoring COLREGS Rule 12 that states unequivocally there is only one vessel with first prime responsibility to avoid a collision and that is the Port Tack Vessel. 

KM:BB_My_Concept.gif

It is blinkered people like you @JimC maybe possibly thinking they are doing the right thing by our sport who are killing it. What was previously the sole domain of cheating on the race course moved long ago into off race course decisions being made with potential bias. That problem exists in all sports.

The bizzare thing is this is a "beer can" racing protest where protests are literally non existent, yet it has both exposed world wide little idea about COLREGS and RRS and the two elephants in the room. Namely as Voltaire said; "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." and then Martin Luther said; "There comes a time when silence is betrayal."

So mate I and those of similar ilk like living dangerously in relation to this ruling by the RQYS and it's PC on this Protest. My guess is you just eat what you are fed and don't give two fucks about our sport.

So JimC I hope you don't explode. I hear post Brexit you may all in the UK be on a forced diet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Jack - there you go still bloviating and attacking the poor VC and the PC, all while hoping the MSQ will save your silly arguments...

Wheezy why do you keep replying...don't you get it? 

I'm like those seagulls that fly upside down over you because there's nothing worth shitting on below. 

Go find someone else's leg to hump.

images (1).png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you seriously believe the crap you write and write and write Jack, then take the friendly wager. In your eyes clearly P is at fault and MSQ should apportion most of the blame to them. I say they wont. Is it that you can’t afford the bottle or don’t believe your own drivel?  :P

And no way am I going to stop. The stuff you post is great comedic relief. Every time I think you can’t say anything more stupid, you do.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pap I appreciate the edit as clearly I can't be a sock. However looking at your post history above here in total, my "Battle of Agincourt" reference about "lazy partesan posts" was clearly directed at you and those of your ilk.

As clearly there to see you have contributed fuckin zip except going the "sock smear" on those that do make the effort and bracketing contributers into "petals, muppets and sweet peas".

Like Wheezy not a sock but a complete useless fuckwit, but he at least tries to substantiate his argument even though it is gobblygook and more fluid than water.

Sorry mate but for this thread I'm now recalling your "PapSmear" moniker if you want to continue in that crap vein.

Well if the socks fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured any sensible conversation in this thread died along with the original.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wess said:

If you seriously believe the crap you write and write and write Jack, then take the friendly wager.

No problem but your collateral is a problem.

15873532553_fa86f703ed_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true Jack.  Mom's place has a basement just like yours.

Has S been fully vindicated by the MSQ yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a beer can race, not like it's the RSHYR or something.........oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, paps49 said:

It was a beer can race, not like it's the RSHYR or something.........oops.

But both races still awaiting on controversial outcomes to be decided! 

 

I wish they would hurry up, I have cash to collect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we play hypotheticals for a moment.

Lets say hypothetically, if one was a highly paid  "Expert Witness"  in the maritime field, and had been posting in an online sailing forum a view that was inconsistent with evidence to be given in a formal inquiry,  how would said witnesses evidence be viewed if his forum posts came to light?

Just ask'n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wess said:

If you seriously believe the crap you write and write and write Jack, then take the friendly wager. In your eyes clearly P is at fault and MSQ should apportion most of the blame to them. I say they wont. Is it that you can’t afford the bottle or don’t believe your own drivel?  :P

 

^^^^^ Wheezer before you make this 2nd Bet you are going to have to settle up on first on your 1st Bet failure last week that repairs were underway.

On 2/20/2019 at 11:25 AM, Wess said:

Hey Drama Lama. Sorry for the delay. 

You seem to have limited your novelette to while a PC usually dings one or the other boat, a regulator (federal/state) will usually apportion blame across both....I'll bet you a handle of rum  that repairs are underway - and maybe even insurance checks written well prior to said statutory outcome.   

As for this 3rd Bet here saying P now takes all the blame, I couldn't find any stupid gamblers wanting to take it on. How about you make that bet with yourself. Then at least one of you will be rich.

2 hours ago, Wess said:

Has S been fully vindicated by the MSQ yet?

Wheezer I really don't think you are too good at this gambling thing so should stop before the Repo guys take your box.

images (48).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Can we play hypotheticals for a moment.

Lets say hypothetically, if one was a highly paid  "Expert Witness"  in the maritime field, and had been posting in an online sailing forum a view that was inconsistent with evidence to be given in a formal inquiry,  how would said witnesses evidence be viewed if his forum posts came to light?

Just ask'n.

As long as the "Expert Witness" didn't get his heads mixed up giving evidence at the Enquiry, he should be viewed strangely obviously, but other than that fine.

tenor (2).gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can we play hypotheticals for a moment.

Lets say hypothetically, if one was a highly paid  "Expert Witness"  in the maritime field, and had been posting in an online sailing forum a view that was inconsistent with evidence to be given in a formal inquiry,  how would said witnesses evidence be viewed if his forum posts came to light?

Just ask'n.

Highly paid!!!!! Mmmmm there is a few there not narrowing it down at all! But in other online fields they have deleted their posts, even with gravytrain fanboys there for support.

 

Another hypothetical could be, since all past best selling books were from one off events, could some be making the mole hill bigger, because there is more money in a "Trilogy"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Highly paid!!!!! Mmmmm there is a few there not narrowing it down at all! But in other online fields they have deleted their posts, even with gravytrain fanboys there for support

Turkey I only viewed the original thread briefly before the OP nuked it.

Other than the PC decision I don't recall anyone saying anything other than under COLREGS the Beachball/P would be apportioned the "majority" of the blame.

Was there a view contry to that??

Share this post


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

under COLREGS the Beachball/P would be apportioned the "majority" of the blame.

Jack - stop playing silly word games.  Insurance is going to cover all insured losses and by your own weasel words are already engaged.  And even if you are correct re above - and I don't think you are - P's losses will be covered by insurance.  No matter how much you, Gramps and associated socks whine and cry, the PC decision appears sound and S has a fair amount of issues to deal with in a COLREG inquiry.  You keep blowing it off but JimC (and many others in the prior thread where folks didn't have to wade through your endless huge chunks of word vomit) has pointed out and the nature of the damage confirms S appears to have made a number of significant errors.  Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Wess said:

Jack - stop playing silly word games.  Insurance is going to cover all insured losses and by your own weasel words are already engaged.  And even if you are correct re above - and I don't think you are - P's losses will be covered by insurance. 

Only weasel words are coming out of your mouth..no one has said anyone's Insurance is at risk only you. You have said repairs are underway. They are not.

On 2/20/2019 at 11:25 AM, Wess said:

 ...I stand by my original comment.  Will bet you a handle of rum  that repairs are underway - and maybe even insurance checks written well prior to said statutory outcome.   

 

On 2/22/2019 at 5:36 AM, jack_sparrow said:

...Wheezer as for your claim the incident was not severe as claimed and repairs are underway and insurance companies are simply writing cheques you are dead wrong.

The P/Beach Ball vessel it is understood has been deemed a "write off" by its insurer. 

Wheezer the Welcher..Wheezer with Dementia. Now fuck off you stupid cunt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please spare us your weaseling drivel. Repair, replacement, whatever. For all the drama lama word vomit you still can’t manage to explain why this will have any material impact. At most it’s a minor effect on insurance subrogation. And even that is still in doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 5:45 AM, jack_sparrow said:

This is regulatory issue not a court issue. If it did happen to escalate to that, then last time I looked Queensland is not a state of the USA and US judicial precedents mean Jack Shit in Australia including its territorial waters in the absence of others.

BTW I think you have more pressing issues if enamoured with US legal precedent to deal with...like their craning boats into the water.

unnamed.jpg.c8b6f356b6c203ddb9b00324c31a9a6c.jpg

 

Take it to PA you overactive baboon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 4:24 PM, Parma said:

it would probably be helpful to a lot of readers if they saw a photo of a Seawind 1000.

Good God almighty

Why is that?  There are no visibility issues in sailing or racing the Seawind.  What an idiot.

On 2/16/2019 at 4:59 PM, MRS OCTOPUS said:

The view looking forward^^

Image result for seawind 1000

I long white cane is an option, apparently.  :)

Just joking, my bestie has a Seawind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 8:18 PM, Turkey Slapper said:

Jack, I like your analysis, spot on in a lot of areas, but personally, I'm more worried about the bigger picture, a picture the event was more created around! Fun, and an Aussie tradition in yachting! ....... .. ... .... ..... ..... ..!

 

I'm waiting for DNA tests to confirm if some of the mentioned above are actually of a male varient, as there is more school girl tantrums, and claims of alledged offence than a catholic girl school lunch break! 

 

And in all honesty, its embarrassing thinking a club opened by the Queen of Australia with such rich heritage and history of great sailors, past and present coming from it, is being dragged down with un heard of Wynnum behaviour!

Another man of virtue I see.  And you wonder why more women don't race.  Many idiots in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Hooded Sailor said:

@MRS OCTOPUS

its good to know that the level of BS that comes out of your mouth in person and online is the same.

when one of your own crew in the bar stated that the final course after everything was beam reach it brings it all into close occurance. when one attempts to question the actions of the Cat (for those not present on a different discussion the following were commentary by the PC Chair -)

Major significant damage occurred to the port tacker the

the starboard tacker just needs a small can of polish

image.thumb.png.b0788294fa7c7dc7481962877844abe8.png

 

now, why oh why would the cat do that..... unless...... there was a stretching of the 45 alteration to the PC........ maybe just a little bit...

not being there but hearing the "bar talk" and commentry i reckon this would be close to the truth

1300768477_KMBB_My_Concept.thumb.gif.c37833ec76159824f8f727d438343da4.gif

 

and yes while the cat did bear away attempting to clear the danger, which yes he didnt tack.... but hang on cats dont like tacking

so the question is not was the cat in the right or wrong...... but was the Port tacker doing all she can to keep clear..... and should she therefore be exhonerated using 16.2

the question then goes to is

- just because she is sailing to pass astern of the other vessel the other vessel still feels there is a danger and risk of collision..... there is no requirement or restriction on the starbd tacker to tack, so a bear away is permissable

for the port tack boat to be exhonerated as commented by the PC chair - how on earth could that ever be possible when there is major damage.

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I come across an even bigger idiot saying even dumber things.  If you are trying to defend the catamaran it would be hard to put more damaging statements into print.  Given you appear to not know, the catamaran in question can tack just fine.  You win the award for the weakest link of the thread.  Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LMI said:

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I come across an even bigger idiot saying even dumber things.  If you are trying to defend the catamaran it would be hard to put more damaging statements into print.

you must be a Muppet.

did you even read the post...  think you need some ECT. might make ur brain useful.... or consign one drooling idiot to the loony bin

Share this post


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

Can we play hypotheticals for a moment.

Lets say hypothetically, if one was a highly paid  "Expert Witness"  in the maritime field, and had been posting in an online sailing forum a view that was inconsistent with evidence to be given in a formal inquiry,  how would said witnesses evidence be viewed if his forum posts came to light?

Just ask'n.

hmmm,

 

this language is too intelligent for you.  one would guess, your lawyer is writing this for you.

 

OR ur MASTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LMI said:

Take it to PA ..

OK ..as long as you take that cock out of your mouth.  I don't think I will be packing my bags anytime soon.

Share this post


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

Another man of virtue I see.  And you wonder why more women don't race.  Many idiots in this thread.

Maybe I should reword it as LMI tantrums, you little bitch! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Image result for tell me more

Wheezer's ailments are well documented. For you my guess is you have hit your head and forgotten you're the other head.

658854320_tenor(2).gif.69cbf7827aa247dc22bdd01c30e85987.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 3:41 PM, jack_sparrow said:

I don't have any concern providing the MSQ investigating officer has some sailboat understanding. The two regulatory arrangements can coexist quite comfortably.

Not really. The Colregs are not intended to regulate vessels moving very close to each other at racing speed. For example, Rule 13 would prevent anyone luffing an overtaking boat.  The overtaking vessel must also keep a safe distance away. In the Colregs cases, things like "safe distance" are defined in a way that indicates that vessels must stay much further away than they do in races; on book on the Colregs says it is good seamanship even for the vessel being overtaken to move as far away as is safe and practicable to the correct side of the fairway AND TO SLOW DOWN TO ENSURE THE OVERTAKING MANOEUVRE IS COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Try running an Etchells, Laser or 49er championship in which boats that may be overtaken have to slow down!

One Colregs dissertation reckons that the vessel being overtaken should start taking avoiding action if an overtaking vessel is within a mile and not taking avoiding action. If a 300ft ship should start dodging away from an overtaking vessel a mile away, it would seem likely that a 30ft Etchell, limited in manoeuvrability, should take action to get away from an overtaking yacht 1/10 of a mile astern. How's that going to work?

How does rule 6, governing safe speed, work in racing? It requires you to slow down in the presence of traffic. How can a boat do that and also get a good start?  The Admiralty cases provide oceans of evidence that if a master feels that any hazardous RoW situation could arise, they must usually slow down - how will that work at a sportsboat bottom mark?

The Colregs also place a duty of seamanship which requires the master to maintain the vessel under a high degree of control.Although I cannot recall precise cases and don't have access to them at the moment, there is no doubt that Colregs would find fault with any skipper who carried a kite downwind in 25 knots even if they were straightlining on starboard and two boat lengths from a port tacker.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, jack_sparrow said:

 

Furthermore that Juno v Endeavour precedent did not apply to the decision making of a "statutory" authority but simply a "sporting/sailing body" decision making authority.

No, Juno v Endeavour was a precedent in which a higher court reversed a lower court's decision. A lower court is not a sailing/sporting authority.

The appeals court said that the lower court should not have over-ruled the sport's decison making authority; "the International jury found the Endeavour solely responsible for the collision, and it was inappropriate for the district court to have gone beyond this decision in the assignment of fault. We find that the findings in that forum were final and binding on the parties".

The appeals court in Juno also noted that there is a "well established public policy encouraging the private resolution of disputes" and that a protest committee was a suitable example of a private resolution mechanism. The appeals court noted that the insistence on blind application of Colregs" in yacht racing is "logically unsound" and that in racing "participants have voluntarily adopted a different set of rules for application among themselves".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Curious said:

Not really. The Colregs are not intended to regulate vessels moving very close to each other at racing speed. For example, Rule 13 would prevent anyone luffing an overtaking boat.  The overtaking vessel..

 

41 minutes ago, Curious said:

No, Juno v Endeavour was a precedent in which a higher court reversed a lower court's decision. A lower court is not a sailing/sporting authority.

The appeals court said that the lower court 

Curious you are going to have to take the "Mischievous Quote Snip Award" to make  your two points that I happen to fully agree with.

For "coexist" I said on the "same body of water" being used by racing and non-racing vessels. I cited both a RC decision and one of a statutory authority having a different regulatory environment to base their decisions upon. I did not say COLREGS co-existing with RRS other than how they do now and which are subservient to the RRS.

Likewise as for Juno v Endeavour court of appeal decision I made it abundantly clear it applies to RRS decision making only but it does not apply to decision making by a statutory body administering COLREGS. If it did it would make COLREGS and Maritime Law subservient to the RRS which is a nonsense.

I'm appreciative of your very informed post, but strongly object to your selective quoting indicating I had said or suggested something I hadn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no intention to misquote. The way your reference to "co existing" was written can make it seem as if both RRS and Colregs "co existed" as two sets of rules that governed the right of way obligations of racing yachts against other racing yachts.

Similarly, to say that the Juno v Endeavour court of appeal decision "applies to RRS decision making only" makes your meaning unclear. The case didn't hinge on the decision making under the RRS, which found Endeavour at fault and DSQd her, but on whether that decision affected who paid the repair bill.

The lower court found that the RRS cannot over-ride Colregs and therefore assessed fault under Colregs.  The lower court found that Charles Jourdan (which won the protest) was 60% at fault under Colregs and therefore had to pay for 60% of the repair bill.

 The appeals court disagreed.  The appeals court noted with approval outcome of The Satanita, which they said was that RRS "were a valid basis for seeking all damages suffered".  The appeals court also noted the Clark v Thayer matter where "although (US federal government navigation) laws were imperative, nothing prevented a person from voluntarily waiving them."  It also looked at De Sole, where a US court basically followed the protest committee's outcome and noted that there was a "traditional role of encouraging private determination of liability". 

The appeals court basically said that the RRS were the rules that governed racing boats and that the lower court should not have applied Colregs when assigning fault. The appeals court confirmed the PC's finding, which was that Endeavour was at solely at fault under RRS and therefore had to pay for all damage to Charles Jourdan. 

Yes, MSQ may of course investigate, but the main thing most people here are probably worried about are paying for repair bills.

Oh, and by the way having read up on various maritime law pieces it seems that under Colregs the cat was mostly in the wrong. They must maintain course and give the burdened vessel a chance to avoid them. They are not supposed to act as if the burdened vessel will not give way unless they have reasonable evidence that it will not. Of course if one strictly applied Colregs they'd all be plodding along under short sail and keeping hundreds of metres away from each other, the starting boat and the buoys, and hopefully MSQ will understand that therefore Colregs cannot really apply as far as governing RoW issues between racing vessels.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow these Northern coconuts really go for it don't they !!


First up they get a good barney thread going on in here.

Not content with that they spill out into other social media until the whole thing just goes ballistic!

Threads get nuked, curmudgeons scatter like mice, you might be thinking this might be a moment of sanity and be the end of it but no....

This thread starts mostly as a bit of a giggle, what heppened to you Muppets? 

You know, throw a few petals LB's way thet kinda thing.

Nek thing you know one by one thar all bek here too......

I think you might be in danger Jek.  

There's at least 3 petals, a scholarly sweet pea, a turkey and one of the petals lawyer mates, he's very good by the way.

I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole bro.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paps49 said:

I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole bro.

Paps unfortunately Curious Bro has decided to touch it not with pole but fingers.

To-date including that piece earlier today has been very bi-partisan and very informative unlike some here. However for some inexplicable reason he has suddenly gone the eye patch on COLREGS as decided by the authorities (MSQ) with that last cockwarbler piece.

Maybe it is a reaching for the bottle to to be reminded "Curiosity Killed the Cat" thing that has overcome that bi-partisan commentary until just now? Very strange?

Maybe he should be suspicious of a 100 year old bottle of Scotch Whisky in cut crystal called "Beachball" arriving out of no where in the mail today?

8574606.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to see that Teacher Jack didn't get tenure and got kicked to the curb to be replaced by Professor Curious.  Try to pay attention Jackster.  School is in session.  You might just learn something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Curious said:

There was no intention to misquote. The way your reference to "co existing" was written can make it seem as if both RRS and Colregs "co existed" as two sets of rules that governed the right of way obligations of racing yachts against other racing yachts.

Curious both you and I know you misquoted me deliberately to misrepresent my view for what ever reason you have going. 

Curious you have two simple choices now.  Own up and I forgive or I will go to the effort of showing by back reference to your posts in the last week you are not who you are and a fuckwit.

Your choice son. Clocks ticking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, paps49 said:

 

This thread starts mostly as a bit of a giggle, what heppened to you Muppets? 

 

There's at least 3 petals, a scholarly sweet pea, a turkey and one of the petals lawyer mates, he's very good by the way.

 

I'm just here to fathom what the + & - things are under our handle, mind you I have been away for a few years and haven't taken much notice! 

 

And Paps, carefull of the puppetry references, wouldn't want observers panties to get into a bunch.

Share this post


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

Sorry to see that Teacher Jack didn't get tenure and got kicked to the curb to be replaced by Professor Curious.  Try to pay attention Jackster.  School is in session.  You might just learn something!

Wheeze I can see why you warm to Professor Curious as like you he too forgets about what he has already posted and is now also fucked. Where do you sycophants all come from? Beachball is only a 40 footer, like only 4 berths?

6e0720305b77c82649070136f967099f.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many GIFs and so many word but so little intelligence from the little sparrow. Sorry Jack but S screwed up and MSQ ain't gonna save them, or cause the sky to fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wess said:

So many GIFs and so many word but so little intelligence from the little sparrow. Sorry Jack but S screwed up and MSQ ain't gonna save them...

So Wheezy that is now your 4th bet against a MSQ decision and the only thing you have left to wager with is now your shoes? 

1248459672_images(48).jpeg.224a35c338362e51e701920accda4cbd.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you are duplicating pics Jack, my comment was neither a bet, nor was it a 4th variation of anything.  My position has always been that you are making much to do over nothing.  A non-event.  Its but a bump in the road.  A hassle.  The insured will still be insured and have their losses covered be it a repair or a replacement.  Racing will not be impacted. And S is going to have to live with the PC decision, and likely an MSQ decision, that places some significant extent of blame on them.  I know you like word games  and parsing things out of context but absent new information not in this thread or the PC facts, I think the majority of blame will be apportioned to S in the MSQ inquiry.  Clearly you don't.  We shall see.

The real shame though is for your professed love of the sport - cough, cough, gag, what a ton of crap that statement is - there really are some interesting learnings that could come from this but are being lost and glossed over by your chicken little drama lama routine.  But that is fine too.  Its fun either way.

Bottom line is that if MSQ apportions more than 50% of blame to P, you win. Tell me where and I will promptly send the handle of rum.  I wonder though if you will pay up if MSQ puts more than 50% on S?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Wess said:

 My position has always been that you are making much to do over nothing.  

A non-event.  Its but a bump in the road.  A hassle.  The insured will still be insured and have their losses covered be it a repair or a replacement. 

A thread nuked and people deleting threads is hardly nothing.

Wheezer you keep banging on about Insurance to suit your story but forget what you were told over a week ago that Insurance was irrelevant and now you have just caught up? Not good.

Mate can't you see we are worried about you. Like what if a wheel falls off while you are playing dodgems?

On 2/16/2019 at 8:19 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Insurance has nothing to do with it, save for there being a unlicensed vessel and or person involved. Plus if there is culpability apportioned, both insurers will do a deal based upon that and it may also have a bearing on excess liability for anyone deemed 100% not at fault.

 

 

images (53).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New pic at least.  But more ducking, dodging, deflection.  All that typing, cutting, and pasting, and yet still you are so wrong Jack.  Lets see if I can keep you up all night responding; you seem kinda hooked.

Share this post


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

The real shame though is for your professed love of the sport - cough, cough, gag, what a ton of crap that statement is -

 

53 minutes ago, Wess said:

But more ducking, dodging, deflection.  All that typing, cutting, and pasting, and yet still you are so wrong Jack.  Lets see if I can keep you up all night responding; you seem kinda hooked.

Yep Wheezer you are dead right. Caught me out having no real interest in the sport, zip knowledge and experience, fuck any rules and just cut and paste shit really quickly just to titillate and hook you Wheezy. I must have some psychological feedee/feeder complex going. Your right mate I need to get unhooked quick smart.

So I'm really kinda hoping you go slow, you listened if only to one person in life being the one who taught you how to tie a slip knot and you don't forget to fertilise that tree with your shit.

Bye for ever Wheezer and hang in there.

giphy-downsized-large.gif.8c60ea212b1cbdd30af0eed089fb1723.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it!  You may not be very bright but you do have lots of funny pics and GIFs I can borrow and use. Thanks!

Did MSQ lock up the VC yet and throw away the key?

Share this post


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

Curious both you and I know you misquoted me deliberately to misrepresent my view for what ever reason you have going. 

Curious you have two simple choices now.  Own up and I forgive or I will go to the effort of showing by back reference to your posts in the last week you are not who you are and a fuckwit.

Your choice son. Clocks ticking.

Curious while you ponder the above question of you these three quotes may provide some guidance starting with your own;

16 hours ago, Curious said:

Oh, and by the way having read up on various maritime law pieces it seems that under Colregs the cat was mostly in the wrong...

 

On 2/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, JimC said:

I fully admit to having no legal expertise. 

 

On 2/17/2019 at 11:09 PM, Turkey Slapper said:

You may be right on the legal side of things, I have no idea on that!

I do detect a trend here.

Curious you go on to state with your recently acquired knowledge of COLREGS the following;

"Oh, and by the way having read up on various maritime law pieces it seems that under Colregs the cat was mostly in the wrong. They must maintain course and give the burdened vessel a chance to avoid them. They are not supposed to act as if the burdened vessel will not give way unless they have reasonable evidence that it will not. Of course if one strictly applied Colregs they'd all be plodding along under short sail and keeping hundreds of metres away from each other, the starting boat and the buoys, and hopefully MSQ will understand that therefore Colregs cannot really apply as far as governing RoW issues between racing vessels."

16 hours ago, Curious said:

Oh, and by the way having read up on various maritime law pieces it seems that under Colregs the cat was mostly in the wrong. They must maintain course and give the burdened vessel a chance to avoid them. They are not supposed to act as if the burdened vessel will not give way unless they have reasonable evidence that it will not. Of course if one strictly applied Colregs they'd all be plodding along under short sail and keeping hundreds of metres away from each other, the starting boat and the buoys, and hopefully MSQ will understand that therefore Colregs cannot really apply as far as governing RoW issues between racing vessels.

Curious could you please substantiate that viewpoint with specific reference to COLREGS. To make it easy for you here are the Facts as found by the RC of the incident and absent of any conjecture about evidence provided. See Footnote below.

"1. Wind speed was approx. 15 knts from the North-East with a choppy sea state.

2. Beachball and Catherine Mary were approaching the port hand lateral mark east of St Helena Island with Beachball on port tack and Catherine Mary on starboard tack.

3. There was a boat overlapped with and to windward of Beachball. 

4. At approximately 100 m (10 boat lengths) separation Catherine Mary hailed Beachball.

5. At approximately 80 m (8 boat lengths) separation Catherine Mary commenced altering course slightly to his port.

6. At approximately the same time Beachball also commenced altering course to starboard.

7. As the boats closed on a collision course Catherine Mary altered course a second time to port and Beachball also altered course but to starboard.

8. Catherine Mary and Beachball were now bow to bow on a collision course separated by approximately two boat lengths.

9. Both boats made further alteration to course, Beachball to starboard and Catherine Mary also to starboard to a void a head-on collision.

10. There was contact between the port side of Beachball and the port hull of Catherine Mary causing serious damage to Beachball

11. Beachball return to harbour under power and retired from the race.

12. Catherine Mary continued to race.

13. No turns were taken."

In addition RRS Case Book #92  was used by the RC to formulate their decision under the RSS which obviously quite seperate to COLREGS. See Footnote below; "Rules that apply rule 16.1 a rule 14 and case 92"

RRS Case Book #92

medium.png.cb15c16be1238d50164e55a07d89b5ce.png

In addition a recreation of the above RC Facts as found courtesy of @Hooded Sailor

KM:BB_My_Concept.gif

 

Curious look forward to hearing you substantiate your opinion with specific reference to COLREGS  that "under Colregs the cat was mostly in the wrong."

https://www.rqys.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Beachball-v-Cathjerine-Mary-DRAFT-DECISIONv2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Professor Curious?" Wow,  considering my contract only says casual lecturer in a minor and occasional subject, that promotion will get the law faculty common room buzzing.

My Colregs knowledge is not, as you claim, 'recently acquired'.  If it was I'd probably be able to throw case citations at you from my undergrad thesis. However, while I wrote it years ago I can still recall that a vessel's master is supposed to reduce speed and sail to ensure that the vessel remains under full control at all times, which is one reason why we cannot follow Colregs fully while racing. I cannot give citations for that because I don't have a copy of the thesis with me and I CBF driving to look up Lloyd's Reports etc.

I am not claiming to be an expert in this area, nor have I done that earlier. As to why the cat may have been mostly in the wrong, Colreg 17(a)(1) requires the stand on vessel to keep her course and speed, subject to the exclusion of 17 (b).  This is to ensure that we don't get the sort of collision under discussion. NEPIA notes that the stand-on vessel "cannot do anything unexpected", like ducking a port tacker as the port tacker is also ducking. Gard, another marine insurance firm, says "under no circumstances must assumptions be made (ie by the stand on vessel) as to the intentions of the other (ie burdened) vessel".

As an expert in this area you will, of course, be familiar with Sir David Cairns' judgment in "The Savina" where he rejected the claim that there was "a higher duty on the give-way ship to  keep out of the way of the stand-on ship than there was to maintain course and speed. No authority was cited for this proposition and we do not accept it.  In any particular case the need for the give-way ship to take helm or engine action may assume greater or lesser importance than the need for the stand-on ship not to embarrass the give-way ship by alteration of course or speed".

As you will be all too aware from your own expertise, in "The MCC Jakarta" it was found that "the duty of the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed under rule 17(a)(i)is of equal importance to the duty of the give-way vessel to give way". Also check "Matter of Shaun Fisheries", 

In this case, I tend to think that the cat's actions breached 17(a)(1) and turned a regular ducking move by the Benny into a collision. The cat's turn was in breach of a rule that is as important as the rule the Benny was under, as the cases noted above indicate.

In contrast, the Benny was following the rules (or as much as any racing yacht does, probably) in the normal manner and on the available information all would have been fine if the cat had also followed the rules.

As noted in "The Maloja III", the Colregs are designed to ensure that vessels do not enter a close quarters situation where there is a risk of collision. If MSQ impose Colregs on racing boats, the sport will basically die in Qld since just about every skipper in just about every race will be breaching Colregs. Oh, and racing will probably be banned anyway for noise pollution since under the Colregs,yachts will have to go around with horns blasting whenever there is any doubt if a collision may occur. Have fun with all that!  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Curious both you and I know you misquoted me deliberately to misrepresent my view for what ever reason you have going. 

Curious you have two simple choices now.  Own up and I forgive or I will go to the effort of showing by back reference to your posts in the last week you are not who you are and a fuckwit.

Your choice son. Clocks ticking.

I did NOT misquote you deliberately - you wrote your comments in an ambiguous way. There's no reason for me to deliberately misrepresent you; not even the chance to get on a Beachball since with no disrepect to the 40.7, my wife and I prefer our own owners' cabin.

As for your silly threat - try your worst, it will only make you look sillier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told ya Jek, he's got at least 3 para legals workin on dis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Curious said:

"Professor Curious?" Wow,  considering my contract only says casual lecturer in a minor and occasional subject, that promotion will get the law faculty common room buzzing.

My Colregs knowledge is not, as you claim, 'recently acquired'.  If it was I'd probably be able to throw case citations at you from my undergrad thesis. However, while I wrote it years ago I can still recall that a vessel's master is supposed to reduce speed and sail to ensure that the vessel remains under full control at all times, which is one reason why we cannot follow Colregs fully while racing. I cannot give citations for that because I don't have a copy of the thesis with me and I CBF driving to look up Lloyd's Reports etc.

I am not claiming to be an expert in this area, nor have I done that earlier. As to why the cat may have been mostly in the wrong, Colreg 17(a)(1) requires the stand on vessel to keep her course and speed, subject to the exclusion of 17 (b).  This is to ensure that we don't get the sort of collision under discussion. NEPIA notes that the stand-on vessel "cannot do anything unexpected", like ducking a port tacker as the port tacker is also ducking. Gard, another marine insurance firm, says "under no circumstances must assumptions be made (ie by the stand on vessel) as to the intentions of the other (ie burdened) vessel".

As an expert in this area you will, of course, be familiar with Sir David Cairns' judgment in "The Savina" where he rejected the claim that there was "a higher duty on the give-way ship to  keep out of the way of the stand-on ship than there was to maintain course and speed. No authority was cited for this proposition and we do not accept it.  In any particular case the need for the give-way ship to take helm or engine action may assume greater or lesser importance than the need for the stand-on ship not to embarrass the give-way ship by alteration of course or speed".

As you will be all too aware from your own expertise, in "The MCC Jakarta" it was found that "the duty of the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed under rule 17(a)(i)is of equal importance to the duty of the give-way vessel to give way". Also check "Matter of Shaun Fisheries", 

In this case, I tend to think that the cat's actions breached 17(a)(1) and turned a regular ducking move by the Benny into a collision. The cat's turn was in breach of a rule that is as important as the rule the Benny was under, as the cases noted above indicate.

In contrast, the Benny was following the rules (or as much as any racing yacht does, probably) in the normal manner and on the available information all would have been fine if the cat had also followed the rules.

As noted in "The Maloja III", the Colregs are designed to ensure that vessels do not enter a close quarters situation where there is a risk of collision. If MSQ impose Colregs on racing boats, the sport will basically die in Qld since just about every skipper in just about every race will be breaching Colregs. Oh, and racing will probably be banned anyway for noise pollution since under the Colregs,yachts will have to go around with horns blasting whenever there is any doubt if a collision may occur. Have fun with all that!  

 

Ha ha. Adjunct Professor then?  Regardless I am glad to see that the school is finally dealing with Jack, their rogue Teaching Assistant.  He doesn't seem to be from your department.  Maybe escaped from the basket weaving course?  Anyway it sounds like its your turn to watch him.  Good luck; he does like to drone on in endless do loops.  He said he was leaving a few times now, but I bet he will be back.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 1:45 PM, Curious said:

Have fun with all that ...

Curious haven't forgotten you, I'm  just a bit snowed under ATM so will get back to you.

21 hours ago, Wess said:

.  He said he was leaving a few times now, but I bet he will be back.  :lol:

Wheezer I have never left a debate behind in my life and I will be back. You now bet I will be back. The only bet you got right in your entire life Wheezy and you are now fail #4 on bets going here you welch on.

2 hours ago, paps49 said:

We will miss you dearly Wes.

Yes Paps judicious use of the sarcastic font there. Everyone's fear here is Wheezer has gone to his drug store/chemist and has stocked up.

1110132370_images(3).jpeg.4eaec6b335a4081c83dee6a4bd8f5d11.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Jack.  I am sticking around.  Would not want to miss your response.  But why so slow?  Thought Gramps LB was doing your homework for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites