Jump to content

Is this USA?


mr surly

Recommended Posts

There are 2 sites that i know of that let you search the USCG database of documented vessels:

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1//CoastGuar...sselByName.html

http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXSearch.aspx

 

The first one gives you more info including owner, displacements etc. USA 71, 76, 87, and 98 are all there. Claims to be updated once a month.

The second shows no owner info but claims to be updated weekly. And looky what shows up:

 

http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=1012814

 

Vessel Name: USA

VIN: CG1012814

Hull Number:

Vessel Flag: UNITED STATES

Vessel Call Sign:

Build Year: 2009 Service: Recreational

Length: 113.3 ft

Breadth:

Depth:

Alternate VINs: CG1012814,

IMO Number:

 

I don't remember exactly when I last looked here, but this USA was definitely not there then.

Might be the CHR being slowtracked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Geez - I missed this - Great job!

 

e1vrn.jpg

 

The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geez - I missed this - Great job!

 

e1vrn.jpg

 

The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

 

Build Year: 2009

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geez - I missed this - Great job!

 

The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

 

Build Year: 2009

It could be that with the new floats DZ is at 113' but by the way it floats in the dock parallel to the Crab Shack, I think it's unlikely. The retrofit tent was barely 108' too, I doubt they added a section onto it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

I am waiting to see what is said about it tomorrow, if anything is said at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

 

 

In service means it is being used: sailed, fished, freight, passengers, recreated on! lol... if you look in the archives it will show some out of service whether it is due to homeport change (causing a duplicate entry) or loss or just Decomm'd. Removed from service by will usually be the USCG District that did the paperwork....

 

13

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

I am waiting to see what is said about it tomorrow, if anything is said at all.

Ah, then it must not be so simple after all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geez - I missed this - Great job!

 

The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

 

Build Year: 2009

It could be that with the new floats DZ is at 113' but by the way it floats in the dock parallel to the Crab Shack, I think it's unlikely. The retrofit tent was barely 108' too, I doubt they added a section onto it.

Sorry, I was wrong on the tent length. We tried but I forget if we ever established it accurately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

I am waiting to see what is said about it tomorrow, if anything is said at all.

Ah, then it must not be so simple after all?

 

Maybe it's "light relief" for MM?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

 

 

you know the answer to that......... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

 

 

you know the answer to that......... ;)

 

She's saving that information so she can post another link. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question for me is... Is this DZ? I'm not sure DZ is this long, I think it's shorter. And yet this does say "In Service" - Wow. What would "In service" mean, could they be servicing the registry?

Don't get too excited. There's a simple explanation.

If there is a simple explanation then why not tell me what it is? Are you trying to play games?

I am waiting to see what is said about it tomorrow, if anything is said at all.

Ah, then it must not be so simple after all?

It's actually very simple. The only problem is that it won't be simple until she gets the press release from Alinghi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

 

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

Surely that would be a very bdangerous game. The document clearly says it is for USA and that the boat is built and in service. While I have always believed that a boat can be extensively modified after theCHR is delivered, I do hope we aren't going to get into a debate over what is modified and what is a new boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

 

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

 

When/If a second "USA" appears in the registry, you won't know is it is the boat we know as the BOR90 either.

 

SNG will get a CHR that matches the Challenge and we may see two boats out sailing with USA on the transom. SNG won't know which of the "USA"s is the one they have a CHR for. SNG won't know which of the "USA"s is *the* boat GGYC will use to challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

I'm telling you that it IS the boat we know as the BOR90

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

I'm telling you that it IS the boat we know as the BOR90

How can you tell?

 

I think it is too, but that's a lot different from being able to support it with anything convincing. If "in service" means the obvious, then that's certainly something to point to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

I'm telling you that it IS the boat we know as the BOR90

How can you tell?

I am 100% sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

I'm telling you that it IS the boat we know as the BOR90

How can you tell?

I am 100% sure.

Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But again, what is your evidence? This is a very simple question Marian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuime question. Not rrying to be smart or anything like that.

Do we think this has to apply to BOR90 and if so, does that mean we ahev now seen to 2 boats that will race against each other, admitedly in their undeveloped state. Do we have a tri vs a cat?

It DOES apply to the BOR90, but it does not mean this is the boat BOR intends to call USA.

The vessel in this document is Named USA, what you don't know is if it is the boat we know as the BOR90.

I'm telling you that it IS the boat we know as the BOR90

How can you tell?

I am 100% sure.

 

I don't doubt that you are. My point is, that from this bit of information and from looking at photos of the boat, no one can KNOW that the document applies to the boat.

 

You could measure the LOA of a boat Named USA and it could be 120 feet and you would not KNOW that this document does not apply to the boat you measured.

 

The one unique thing that links the vessel to the document is the Official Number. Without seeing that number you cannot be sure if the vessel "USA" you are looking at is the "USA" named in the document. US registered vessels are not required to display their official number on an exterior surface. The marking requirements are Name and Hailing Port on the transom for vessels with Recreational endorsement, AND the official number permanently fixed to the 'main beam'.

 

The first line on the back of a USCG-1270: (Certificate of Documentation)

"This certificate is not valid for operation of the vessel until the vessel is marked with the name, official number, and hailing port as shown on the certificate."

 

If the BOR90 does not have the required markings, this certificate is not valid, so to say that you are 100% sure, is a bit of a stretch ... unless you have evidence that the BOR90 carries the markings that will make the certificate valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But again, what is your evidence? This is a very simple question Marian.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the last two posts are the only ones you have made, in response to something I've said, without insulting me. I can't think of a single reason for me to answer any question you put, however simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But again, what is your evidence? This is a very simple question Marian.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the last two posts are the only ones you have made, in response to something I've said, without insulting me. I can't think of a single reason for me to answer any question you put, however simple.

In that case, I'll go back to my normal ways.

 

I understand that evidence isn't important to you when it comes to what you write for BYM, so I'm just wondering if the same standards apply to what you post in the forums.

 

Feel better now?

 

Oh, and for the record, it was Stingray's question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't doubt that you are. My point is, that from this bit of information and from looking at photos of the boat, no one can KNOW that the document applies to the boat.

You could measure the LOA of a boat Named USA and it could be 120 feet and you would not KNOW that this document does not apply to the boat you measured.

The one unique thing that links the vessel to the document is the Official Number. Without seeing that number you cannot be sure if the vessel "USA" you are looking at is the "USA" named in the document. US registered vessels are not required to display their official number on an exterior surface. The marking requirements are Name and Hailing Port on the transom for vessels with Recreational endorsement, AND the official number permanently fixed to the 'main beam'.

"This certificate is not valid for operation of the vessel until the vessel is marked with the name, official number, and hailing port as shown on the certificate."

If the BOR90 does not have the required markings, this certificate is not valid, so to say that you are 100% sure, is a bit of a stretch ... unless you have evidence that the BOR90 carries the markings that will make the certificate valid.

Contrary to what some claim, I do not rely on bits of information and looking at photos. I can assure you that the boat the CG has registered in that document IS the BOR90.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't doubt that you are. My point is, that from this bit of information and from looking at photos of the boat, no one can KNOW that the document applies to the boat.

You could measure the LOA of a boat Named USA and it could be 120 feet and you would not KNOW that this document does not apply to the boat you measured.

The one unique thing that links the vessel to the document is the Official Number. Without seeing that number you cannot be sure if the vessel "USA" you are looking at is the "USA" named in the document. US registered vessels are not required to display their official number on an exterior surface. The marking requirements are Name and Hailing Port on the transom for vessels with Recreational endorsement, AND the official number permanently fixed to the 'main beam'.

"This certificate is not valid for operation of the vessel until the vessel is marked with the name, official number, and hailing port as shown on the certificate."

If the BOR90 does not have the required markings, this certificate is not valid, so to say that you are 100% sure, is a bit of a stretch ... unless you have evidence that the BOR90 carries the markings that will make the certificate valid.

Contrary to what some claim, I do not rely on bits of information and looking at photos. I can assure you that the boat the CG has registered in that document IS the BOR90.

If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

It's simple as I said on the Hunt for USA thread whilst being hijacked and shouted down by the boys from the BMWO PR machine. It looks like cheating and it smells like cheating. GGYC are on the rack over this. TE should be asked if this registration is owned by them and/or BMWO boat BOR90 and if not NYSC should get BMWO to produce a different boat for the AC or be DSQ. Might be a good idea for the JK to demand sight of an insurance certificate and get an independent survey done for the court too? If the registration does in fact refer to BOR90 then TE should be asked why no CHR yet? I forecast rough seas ahead for TE and GGYC at the NYSC Monday. Not to mention the fact that Spithill has told the world he thinks he's racing BOR90 aka USA in the AC. The words creek and no paddle come to mind. Better be an official launch day for USA aka BOR90 on Tuesday otherwise it's a deep stall for the GGYC challenge!

Bonsoir mes amis, RB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

It's simple as I said on the Hunt for USA thread whilst being hijacked and shouted down by the boys from the BMWO PR machine. It looks like cheating and it smells like cheating. GGYC are on the rack over this. TE should be asked if this registration is owned by them and/or BMWO boat BOR90 and if not NYSC should get BMWO to produce a different boat for the AC or be DSQ. Might be a good idea for the JK to demand sight of an insurance certificate and get an independent survey done for the court too? If the registration does in fact refer to BOR90 then TE should be asked why no CHR yet? I forecast rough seas ahead for TE and GGYC at the NYSC Monday. Not to mention the fact that Spithill has told the world he thinks he's racing BOR90 aka USA in the AC. The words creek and no paddle come to mind. Better be an official launch day for USA aka BOR90 on Tuesday otherwise it's a deep stall for the GGYC challenge!

Bonsoir mes amis, RB.

Only one small snag, what if TE isn't there to be asked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

It's simple as I said on the Hunt for USA thread whilst being hijacked and shouted down by the boys from the BMWO PR machine. It looks like cheating and it smells like cheating. GGYC are on the rack over this. TE should be asked if this registration is owned by them and/or BMWO boat BOR90 and if not NYSC should get BMWO to produce a different boat for the AC or be DSQ. Might be a good idea for the JK to demand sight of an insurance certificate and get an independent survey done for the court too? If the registration does in fact refer to BOR90 then TE should be asked why no CHR yet? I forecast rough seas ahead for TE and GGYC at the NYSC Monday. Not to mention the fact that Spithill has told the world he thinks he's racing BOR90 aka USA in the AC. The words creek and no paddle come to mind. Better be an official launch day for USA aka BOR90 on Tuesday otherwise it's a deep stall for the GGYC challenge!

Bonsoir mes amis, RB.

Only one small snag, what if TE isn't there to be asked?

Whoever?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, I understand that TE will not be available for the court hearing. How convenient is that? Send in the office junior to run the gauntlet of perjury... I'm beginning to think that if the senior officers have decided to stand back and send in the other ranks that something really is lowsy in the GGYC camp. God Bless USA Tuesday! :lol: OMG where's the paddle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

 

Very good. ;)

 

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

 

post-19034-1249843203_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

 

Very good. ;)

 

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

 

Very good. ;)

 

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

 

You are not blind. ;)

 

As far as the information that is displayed ... look at the completed information I posted.

 

Tell me what kind of a vessel it is:

How many hulls?

What it the measured length of the boat overall?

What id the water line length?

What is the draft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

What's so un-normal now? Is the database Oracle-based and down at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's so un-normal now? Is the database Oracle-based and down at the moment?

The database was working fine last time I looked, except that this particular entry could not be found on most searches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol: :lol:

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol: :lol:

Be careful. I know you're just joking around, but Marian's likely to publish an article claiming this as fact!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol: :lol:

Be careful. I know you're just joking around, but Marian's likely to publish an article claiming this as fact!

He is not joking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol: :lol:

Be careful. I know you're just joking around, but Marian's likely to publish an article claiming this as fact!

I'm just hoping that SNG legal team are checking out SAAC before Monday! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

These are not normal circumstances, obviously and GGYC are clearly backed in their attempts a obfuscation by the state. Grounds for summary DSQ! :lol::lol:

Exactly.

 

 

Marian has just said that GGCY will be summarily DSQ'd on Monday, or whenever the judge issues her ruling on this hearing.

 

Pretty bold prediction Marian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

 

I do not think that is correct. For this database ... the ownership information is available online elsewhere however.

 

Due to Privacy Act safeguards protecting owners of undocumented U.S. vessels (private individuals) and the manner in which data was placed in the data warehouse we are obligated to withhold owner/operator information. However, we are planning to post this data in the future, once our new database comes on line. Please read the Upcoming Events section below, for information about changes to our website. In the meantime, information about Owners/Operators can be obtained from the following sources:
Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

 

I do not think that is correct.

 

Due to Privacy Act safeguards protecting owners of undocumented U.S. vessels (private individuals) and the manner in which data was placed in the data warehouse we are obligated to withhold owner/operator information. However, we are planning to post this data in the future, once our new database comes on line. Please read the Upcoming Events section below, for information about changes to our website. In the meantime, information about Owners/Operators can be obtained from the following sources:

Fine except the owners of BOR90 aka USA are BMWO a corporate not an individual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

I do not think that is correct. For this database ... the ownership information is available online elsewhere however.

Due to Privacy Act safeguards protecting owners of undocumented U.S. vessels (private individuals) and the manner in which data was placed in the data warehouse we are obligated to withhold owner/operator information. However, we are planning to post this data in the future, once our new database comes on line. Please read the Upcoming Events section below, for information about changes to our website. In the meantime, information about Owners/Operators can be obtained from the following sources:

I don't think USA is owned by a private individual ............ or is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi again, I understand that TE will not be available for the court hearing. How convenient is that? Send in the office junior to run the gauntlet of perjury... I'm beginning to think that if the senior officers have decided to stand back and send in the other ranks that something really is lowsy in the GGYC camp. God Bless USA Tuesday! :lol: OMG where's the paddle?

 

Nah, more like it's not going to be a big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi again, I understand that TE will not be available for the court hearing. How convenient is that? Send in the office junior to run the gauntlet of perjury... I'm beginning to think that if the senior officers have decided to stand back and send in the other ranks that something really is lowsy in the GGYC camp. God Bless USA Tuesday! :lol: OMG where's the paddle?

 

Nah, more like it's not going to be a big deal.

Looks terminal to me! :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

 

I do not think that is correct.

 

Due to Privacy Act safeguards protecting owners of undocumented U.S. vessels (private individuals) and the manner in which data was placed in the data warehouse we are obligated to withhold owner/operator information. However, we are planning to post this data in the future, once our new database comes on line. Please read the Upcoming Events section below, for information about changes to our website. In the meantime, information about Owners/Operators can be obtained from the following sources:

Fine except the owners of BOR90 aka USA are BMWO a corporate not an individual?

This particular data base is made up of entries from both documented and undocumented vessels. The ownership information for documented vessel if a matter of public record. Undocumented vessels are mostly state registered vessels. Those records, like the ownership information tied to the license plates on a car, are not public record. Until they update this particular database to sort the private information out where it is protected by state laws, this database does not contain ownership information.

 

Other US vessel registration databases that contain only documented vessel also show the ownership information.

 

USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But again, what is your evidence? This is a very simple question Marian.

 

Since when has Marian felt the need to actually corroborate anything she posts?

 

Remember, she just posts things for "light relief".

 

We'd all get some light relief if she'd pop her Circle of Willis or something...

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

 

We have done this before when registering our yachts where we have wanted to secure the name and then the final points are decided and lodged later

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

 

 

Possibly because the CHR has not yet been processed. The one thing the courts will understand is that government (or at least the US Government) is not a fast acting entity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

We have done this before when registering our yachts where we have wanted to secure the name and then the final points are decided and lodged later

The important word there is the first one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

We have done this before when registering our yachts where we have wanted to secure the name and then the final points are decided and lodged later

The important word there is the first one.

Which you know because your official people have given you all the official information. Unfortunately, you won't officially share any of these super secret facts because you don't feel the need to waste your valuable time debating people on this silly website. Of course, you've spent most of the day playing around on here, so obviously you're not all that busy.

 

Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC. However Jonsailor has provided a very logical explanation for why the partial information regarding a future CHR for USA exists. Please don't let any facts (or lack there of) get in the way of your opinion though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC.

Oh dear, you really have not grasped anything have you. I have never suggested that "the info on that link means USA has a valid CHR". Make a more careful study of DRTB's posts.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

 

Pick one (or more):

 

USA is not complete

The owners have submitted an incomplete application

She is a USCG Inspected Vessel in the construction and certification process (see MSP for details)

BMWO have to borrow the registration fee

The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

BMWO started the documentation process while they were the legal challenger (in 2008) and after the Appellate Division ruling stopped the process

BMWO have decided that to document this boat as USA when it is not the USA they plan to race would confuse posters on SA that cannot think for themselves

 

The simple fact is that BMWO can own any number of vessels named "USA" they can get and have in their possession documentation for every one of these "USA"s. The only CHR that is owed to SNG inder the Deed is the CHR for the USA they will race. There is no limitation on the time they have to select which USA is the USA named in the challenge.

 

When either side does something that I feel is outside the intent of the deed I cry foul and try to back up my opinion. The rules case is a good example. While I personally find the actions taken by SNG to gut part 4 of the RRS completely distasteful, I will not argue against their right to do so under the Deed.

 

IMO the intent of the deed is to require the challenger to identify in very broad terms what vessel they will challenge with and give those dimensions to the defender at the time of the challenge. GGYC has done just that.

 

The dimensions were decried as giving the defender too much information back in 1887, Schuyler pointed out that two very dissimilar vessels could have exactly the same dimensions. No real information is given up by the dimensions required in the deed.

 

90x90x90x3 could be a barge, could be a cathedral hull houseboat, could be a catamaran, could be a trimaran. It could have overhangs fore and aft, but cannot have very much flare in the topsides at maximum beam (total beam and water line beam each being 90). These dimensions give no idea of hull shape or volume distribution, they do not limit the boat as much as some people want to think.

 

As I have said (too many times), I don't see any reason for GGYC not to provide a CHR. Doing so does not limit there options in any meaningful way. As long as they use part of the marked 'main beam or structural member' that has the official number on it, they can build a completely new boat around that part. As far as US law goes it is still the same vessel. I cannot find anything in the US Code that *requires* a new number after a complete rebuild or repair. This is particularly true for Recreational Vessels. The measured vessel can differ from the dimensions stated on the document and the document is still valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC.

Oh dear, you really have not grasped anything have you. I have never suggested that "the info on that link means USA has a valid CHR". Make a more careful study of DRTB's posts.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "We".

I used this loosly as "we".....my buisiness...whether myself, company, secretary.....submits the form work.

Actually, come to think of it, it is always "Me"..

 

Did I use the wrong word???

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

 

We have done this before when registering our yachts where we have wanted to secure the name and then the final points are decided and lodged later

 

Under US law there is no reason to do that. Vessel names are not unique in the US register. Canadian law does require registered vessels to have unique names, from your post I assume that this is true in Oz as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

 

We have done this before when registering our yachts where we have wanted to secure the name and then the final points are decided and lodged later

 

Under US law there is no reason to do that. Vessel names are not unique in the US register. Canadian law does require registered vessels to have unique names, from your post I assume that this is true in Oz as well.

 

That is correct, we are not allowed to use Joe Blow II or Joe Blow III etc.

Im going back to the porridge debate, it made more sense :blink::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC.

Oh dear, you really have not grasped anything have you. I have never suggested that "the info on that link means USA has a valid CHR". Make a more careful study of DRTB's posts.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "We".

I used this loosly as "we".....my buisiness...whether myself, company, secretary.....submits the form work.

Actually, come to think of it, it is always "Me"..

 

Did I use the wrong word???

Face it Jon, you're busted. All of SAAC is now aware of the fact that you're in on it. In fact, we're holding you personally responsible for the entire CHR fiasco. I don't know how you can sleep at night! :lol:

 

Apparently USA is also going to be documented in Australia!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

 

:lol: . I wonder if anyone has told them the vessel will be sailed adjacent to Iranian territorial waters? Will that cause a melt down?

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

Pick one (or more):

USA is not complete

The owners have submitted an incomplete application

She is a USCG Inspected Vessel in the construction and certification process (see MSP for details)

BMWO have to borrow the registration fee

The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

BMWO started the documentation process while they were the legal challenger (in 2008) and after the Appellate Division ruling stopped the process

BMWO have decided that to document this boat as USA when it is not the USA they plan to race would confuse posters on SA that cannot think for themselves.

None of those things. Take another look at DRTB's posts, it seems like he may have been down the road that I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

Pick one (or more):

USA is not complete

The owners have submitted an incomplete application

She is a USCG Inspected Vessel in the construction and certification process (see MSP for details)

BMWO have to borrow the registration fee

The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

BMWO started the documentation process while they were the legal challenger (in 2008) and after the Appellate Division ruling stopped the process

BMWO have decided that to document this boat as USA when it is not the USA they plan to race would confuse posters on SA that cannot think for themselves.

None of those things. Take another look at DRTB's posts, it seems like he may have been down the road that I have.

 

I didn't realize this was a gaming forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

Pick one (or more):

USA is not complete

The owners have submitted an incomplete application

She is a USCG Inspected Vessel in the construction and certification process (see MSP for details)

BMWO have to borrow the registration fee

The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

BMWO started the documentation process while they were the legal challenger (in 2008) and after the Appellate Division ruling stopped the process

BMWO have decided that to document this boat as USA when it is not the USA they plan to race would confuse posters on SA that cannot think for themselves.

None of those things. Take another look at DRTB's posts, it seems like he may have been down the road that I have.

 

I don't doubt that we have all been down many roads ... ;)

 

USA exists, a Vessel of that name exists, I'll even assume that you have looked at the BOR90 and seen that id number (the only way to be certain that the document and the vessel are the same)

 

This vessel is A vessel (one of many) that has an official name "USA" it also has an official number.

 

No one knows if this "USA" is THE "USA" named in the challenge.

 

SNG is looking for the CHR for THE USA, not just any USA

 

SNG cannot demand that the first USA owned by the sailing team BMWO be the vessel that the challenging yacht club, GGYC, will use in the match.

 

When GGYC accepts the vessel vessel USA named in their challenge, they will provide the CHR for that boat. It was not until just days ago that the measurement rules were published. GGYC cannot have verified that USA (if indeed it is the BOR90) meets the measured dimensions that GGYC stated in their challenge. GGYC is not going to allow a vessel named USA that does not meet their certificate of challenge to represent them. Modifications to BMWO's "USA" may be required before the vessel measures correctly.

 

On one hand you cannot expect a vessel to measure if the measurement method is not known. Thus it is just a bit silly to expect a CHR before the process is known. The Deed is quite specific that the dimensions stated in the challenge cannot be exceeded. Measurement conditions can effect the actual number of all the dimensions.

 

Does anyone think it reasonable for a vessel to measure the same under these sets of conditions?

 

1. Ready to sail, less sails crew, and consumables

2. Ready to sail, with rig and one set of sails, less crew and consumables

3. Ready to sail, with rig and all sails, less crew and consumables

4. Ready to sail, with rig and all sails, and with crew and consumables aboard

 

There has been talk about the tolerance GGYC will be allowed on the shall not be exceeded dimensions. It is not likely that the same boat will measure within a 6 inch tolerance under all 4 of the conditions I listed.

 

It is my position that a CHR cannot be provided until GGYC can verify that USA will measure as required. Since "ALL sails" do not exist at this time, she cannot be measured for compliance under condition #4. Add the fact that she has at least 3 rigs, and the measurement verification will take three times as long.

 

I don't think there is much legal danger here for GGYC on the CHR, just as I don't think there is much legal danger for SNG over their choice of venue.

 

That said, it is a tossup if BMWO should just provide a CHR and then fight later if SNG tries some crap like, "The CHR you provided states the length as 113.3 feet. The boat is 117 feet, the boat does not match the CHR so you are DSQ."

 

In the example I posted above, the Yacht YEMAYA measures 47.5 feet LOA, but the CHR says 42.3 feet. Is the CHR still valid? ... of course it is. LOA measured includes a swim platform and an anchor bow sprit. There are simply NO measurements on the CHR that can show the vessel is not the one described in the challenge except beam (total). LWL, beam waterline, draught of water are just not part of a CHR. Neither is hull form/type, nor rig type. The CHR verifies who the owner is, and the country of origin, beyond that it does not have much/any information that is relevant to sailboat racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USA exists, but as far as the databases go, she is not yet documented. Thus ownership information is not yet available.

Spot on! The next question is "Given that the vessel USA exists, why has a CHR not been provided?"

Pick one (or more):

USA is not complete

The owners have submitted an incomplete application

She is a USCG Inspected Vessel in the construction and certification process (see MSP for details)

BMWO have to borrow the registration fee

The USCG is an arm of "Homeland Security", they read the deed and saw "competition between nations" ... thought "war" ... and they have stamped the information "top secret"

BMWO started the documentation process while they were the legal challenger (in 2008) and after the Appellate Division ruling stopped the process

BMWO have decided that to document this boat as USA when it is not the USA they plan to race would confuse posters on SA that cannot think for themselves.

None of those things. Take another look at DRTB's posts, it seems like he may have been down the road that I have.

 

I don't doubt that we have all been down many roads ... ;)

 

USA exists, a Vessel of that name exists, I'll even assume that you have looked at the BOR90 and seen that id number (the only way to be certain that the document and the vessel are the same)

 

This vessel is A vessel (one of many) that has an official name "USA" it also has an official number.

 

No one knows if this "USA" is THE "USA" named in the challenge.

 

SNG is looking for the CHR for THE USA, not just any USA

 

SNG cannot demand that the first USA owned by the sailing team BMWO be the vessel that the challenging yacht club, GGYC, will use in the match.

 

When GGYC accepts the vessel vessel USA named in their challenge, they will provide the CHR for that boat. It was not until just days ago that the measurement rules were published. GGYC cannot have verified that USA (if indeed it is the BOR90) meets the measured dimensions that GGYC stated in their challenge. GGYC is not going to allow a vessel named USA that does not meet their certificate of challenge to represent them. Modifications to BMWO's "USA" may be required before the vessel measures correctly.

 

On one hand you cannot expect a vessel to measure if the measurement method is not known. Thus it is just a bit silly to expect a CHR before the process is known. The Deed is quite specific that the dimensions stated in the challenge cannot be exceeded. Measurement conditions can effect the actual number of all the dimensions.

 

Does anyone think it reasonable for a vessel to measure the same under these sets of conditions?

 

1. Ready to sail, less sails crew, and consumables

2. Ready to sail, with rig and one set of sails, less crew and consumables

3. Ready to sail, with rig and all sails, less crew and consumables

4. Ready to sail, with rig and all sails, and with crew and consumables aboard

 

There has been talk about the tolerance GGYC will be allowed on the shall not be exceeded dimensions. It is not likely that the same boat will measure within a 6 inch tolerance under all 4 of the conditions I listed.

 

It is my position that a CHR cannot be provided until GGYC can verify that USA will measure as required. Since "ALL sails" do not exist at this time, she cannot be measured for compliance under condition #4. Add the fact that she has at least 3 rigs, and the measurement verification will take three times as long.

 

I don't think there is much legal danger here for GGYC on the CHR, just as I don't think there is much legal danger for SNG over their choice of venue.

 

That said, it is a tossup if BMWO should just provide a CHR and then fight later if SNG tries some crap like, "The CHR you provided states the length as 113.3 feet. The boat is 117 feet, the boat does not match the CHR so you are DSQ."

 

In the example I posted above, the Yacht YEMAYA measures 47.5 feet LOA, but the CHR says 42.3 feet. Is the CHR still valid? ... of course it is. LOA measured includes a swim platform and an anchor bow sprit. There are simply NO measurements on the CHR that can show the vessel is not the one described in the challenge except beam (total). LWL, beam waterline, draught of water are just not part of a CHR. Neither is hull form/type, nor rig type. The CHR verifies who the owner is, and the country of origin, beyond that it does not have much/any information that is relevant to sailboat racing.

 

 

 

 

 

I think there's a very specific issue with regard to dimensions and the newly published measurement rules: the 'new rules' say the rudder is part of the LWL. I believe that previous AC, applicable ISAF measurement rules, and the CHR all have explicitly excluded the rudder from LWL. If you have a transom hung rudder that is not all below the waterline on a boat with a hull that measures 90ft on the waterline, SNG now says that is too long.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marian has just said that GGCY will be summarily DSQ'd on Monday, or whenever the judge issues her ruling on this hearing.

 

Pretty bold prediction Marian.

I'm sure Marian has a perfectly simple explanation for everything.

 

It's just that the explanation is still way over everyone else's head, being as full of rubbish as they are. She doesn't have the time to bother anyway. After all, the posts on this forum serve as just occasional light relief to her, merely a diversion from her serious works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marian has just said that GGCY will be summarily DSQ'd on Monday, or whenever the judge issues her ruling on this hearing.

 

Pretty bold prediction Marian.

I'm sure Marian has a perfectly simple explanation for everything.

 

It's just that the explanation is still way over everyone else's head, being as full of rubbish as they are. She doesn't have the time to bother anyway. After all, the posts on this forum serve as just occasional light relief to her, merely a diversion from her serious works.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I am not a partisan in this contest. Rooting for a team has never been part of my ego. But Marian is starting to provoke the worst flaws in my character. Her casual, flippant regard for these discussions, and her utter condemnation of anything positive to the Oracle boat, team or philosophy, is pushing me toward personal attack and condemnation.

 

I have a background in journalism. Both Marian and Clean are testing my temperance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a partisan in this contest. Rooting for a team has never been part of my ego. But Marian is starting to provoke the worst flaws in my character. Her casual, flippant regard for these discussions, and her utter condemnation of anything positive to the Oracle boat, team or philosophy, is pushing me toward personal attack and condemnation.

 

I have a background in journalism. Both Marian and Clean are testing my temperance.

 

very well stated

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a certificate exists for USA and it applies to the BOR90, it is not yet valid.

I haven't said a thing about certificates, valid or otherwise. I just said that the boat in the document at the start of this thread IS the BOR90. I expect Stingers will chime in soon, when TE gets back to him.

Very good. ;)

FWIW this is what the entry will look like after documentation is complete:

Am I blind, or is the owner not shown? So, it could be ~any~ USA?

Under normal circumstances you could search the database for that entry and identify the owner.

 

I do not think that is correct.

 

Due to Privacy Act safeguards protecting owners of undocumented U.S. vessels (private individuals) and the manner in which data was placed in the data warehouse we are obligated to withhold owner/operator information. However, we are planning to post this data in the future, once our new database comes on line. Please read the Upcoming Events section below, for information about changes to our website. In the meantime, information about Owners/Operators can be obtained from the following sources:

Fine except the owners of BOR90 aka USA are BMWO a corporate not an individual?

 

Aren't an individual and a corporation pretty much the same thing under American law? I was pretty sure I read somewhere that in the US Corporations were intitled to many of the same rights as a private individual. Mind you my memory aint what it used to be and I might be wrong, any lawyers out there...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC.

Oh dear, you really have not grasped anything have you. I have never suggested that "the info on that link means USA has a valid CHR". Make a more careful study of DRTB's posts.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word.

Oh dear Marian. It appears that you might have your info wrong.

 

Johnsailor comes from AUSTRALIA. A large island in the Pacific.

 

BMWO comes from AMERICA or the USA. Not quite as good as Australia mentioned above, but quite satisfactory :ph34r:

 

Funny, it sounded like you thought Johnsailor was a part of BMWO, rather than being a boat builder with a number of fast mono's to his name.

 

Should realy check your info before you post. I realy dont know how you became a jurno

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, you have not proven in any way that the information on that link means USA has a valid CHR and that it is being withheld by GGYC.

Oh dear, you really have not grasped anything have you. I have never suggested that "the info on that link means USA has a valid CHR". Make a more careful study of DRTB's posts.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word.

Oh dear Marian. It appears that you might have your info wrong.

Johnsailor comes from AUSTRALIA. A large island in the Pacific.

BMWO comes from AMERICA or the USA. Not quite as good as Australia mentioned above, but quite satisfactory :ph34r:

Funny, it sounded like you thought Johnsailor was a part of BMWO, rather than being a boat builder with a number of fast mono's to his name.

Should realy check your info before you post. I realy dont know how you became a jurno

You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

 

if I read some posts carefully, or at least where they seem to lead to, is this a case of "We" as used in pluralis majestatis ? but with the exception that in the USA everyone's a king ?

 

Why weep or slumber America

Land of brave and true

With castles and clothing and food for all

All belongs to you

 

 

Ev'ry man a king, ev'ry man a king

For you can be a millionaire

But there's something belonging to others

There's enough for all people to share

When it's sunny June and December too

Or in the winter time or spring

There'll be peace without end

Ev'ry neighbor a friend

With ev'ry man a king

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

if I read some posts carefully, or at least where they seem to lead to, is this a case of "We" as used in pluralis majestatis ? but with the exception that in the USA everyone's a king ?

Nah, just "We" as in first person, same would apply if he had used "I".

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

if I read some posts carefully, or at least where they seem to lead to, is this a case of "We" as used in pluralis majestatis ? but with the exception that in the USA everyone's a king ?

Nah, just "We" as in first person, same would apply if he had used "I".

..as in "WE are not amused!" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is it like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

 

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

 

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

There's a simple explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

 

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

There's a simple explanation.

hang on ... are you Marian's alter ego ? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is it like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

Stingers, I believe you are off to Dago for the party. Why don't you call in at the Coast Guard office there and ask how that document came to exist? You won't have any problem, under the US Freedom of Information Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is it like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

Stingers, I believe you are off to Dago for the party. Why don't you call in at the Coast Guard office there and ask how that document came to exist? You won't have any problem, under the US Freedom of Information Act.

can anybody fill in that document, and can anybody fill in a half document, as it seems to be the case ? that's what I was wondering about, all this has probably a very simple explanification ... but if I would dare to bring in a half filled in registration form for my puny little yacht I'd get zilch for a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is it like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

Stingers, I believe you are off to Dago for the party. Why don't you call in at the Coast Guard office there and ask how that document came to exist? You won't have any problem, under the US Freedom of Information Act.

 

Unbelievable. This document everyone is freaking out about is incomplete and will stay so until USCG certifies the rest of the information, then the processing office will update and post. As Jon earlier posted you can request a partial cert to reserve the name, which I am sure BOR has done. So you can conclude that this vessel is under-construction or just completing sea trials, whichever fits your conspiracy theory the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole lotta tin hats running around this thread ;)

 

It will be very quiet on SA today, at least for a while, as Stingray is boarding his flight this AM for "Dago (do not drink all the beer before I get there this time :P )

 

Looking forward to the party ;)

 

WL

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should read posts more carefully before you post a reply.

You might also contemplate why "We" is the important word and you might then understand that I was pointing out the difference between Jonsailor's scenario and the USA/BOR scenario.

Is it like a scenario where "By the dawn's early stars we come dancing in from the east" ?

You could be onto something there, Marian! Do keep us informed..

Stingers, I believe you are off to Dago for the party. Why don't you call in at the Coast Guard office there and ask how that document came to exist? You won't have any problem, under the US Freedom of Information Act.

Why would he have to travel all the way to San Diego to bother the Coast Guard there? Just like all you fancy Europeans, our government has started using these fancy new "computer" type things. (Feel free to let me know if I spelled that wrong. All this new technology is scary.) Apparently, all this research can be done with something called email.

 

Go do your own homework. No one here except for you, including Stingray, has claimed to have 100% correct knowledge of why that partial document is there. So there's no reason why he should waste his vacation time helping you. If one of us does happen to get bored and do all your fact checking for you, are you going to credit us with the work, or just plagiarize again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, how can you tell? Not saying you're wrong, but wondering what the evidence is.

One very good thing about the USA is the ease with which one can get official information from officials.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But again, what is your evidence? This is a very simple question Marian.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the last two posts are the only ones you have made, in response to something I've said, without insulting me. I can't think of a single reason for me to answer any question you put, however simple.

 

How about you just answer the question politely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable. This document everyone is freaking out about is incomplete and will stay so until USCG certifies the rest of the information, then the processing office will update and post. As Jon earlier posted you can request a partial cert to reserve the name, which I am sure BOR has done. So you can conclude that this vessel is under-construction or just completing sea trials, whichever fits your conspiracy theory the best.

and as somebody else, thought it was RHough, also mentioned ... in the USA there is no need to reserve a name.

 

doesn't need to be a conspiration, there can be 1001 other reasons, like a simple administrative cockup, but as it goes with just about anything onhere, it's food for yet another funny round of "leave no stone unturned, and while we're at it, and for lack of stones we'll also turn the whole sahara upside down, grain by grain" ;)