OK Bob, I'll bite. correct answer is : none of the above. You don't qualify as a vessel engaged in fishing----commercial vessel with trolls or seines, you are not a NUC just because you aren't at the helm, you are underway and not making any weigh. and you certainly don't qualify as restricted in maneuverability.
Bob / CaptainNoah / FrayedKnot1955 / Whatever other persona Boulderback has created is nothing more than a posse of trolls, who add nothing to this site, and for some reason finds pleasure in tearing down what somebody else has built.
What a steller example he is setting for his children. He must be very proud of himself.
Edit: I forgot to add Knotme to the list of trolls.
What a steller example he is setting for his children. He must be very proud of himself.
Edit: I forgot to add Knotme to the list of trolls.
Capt. Bill1
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- RO Number
- 2017
- Messages
- 6,127
Great, now we have Internet sock puppets! And to think some people really believe this place doesn't need at least some level of active moderation.
If you really are Bob, I'm sorry I welcomed you back. Now please go away.
If you really are Bob, I'm sorry I welcomed you back. Now please go away.
CaptainNoah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- RO Number
- 27175
- Messages
- 15
So commenting on a previous thread where the question was never really answered is a no-no? Hmmm, yet another unwritten rule that was apparently broken.
regardless of the poster and his reputation I think it IS a legitimate (and interesting) question
Fishing with "trolling lines" is NOT fishing under the rules (Rule 3b)
"Restricted maneuverability" is related to the vessel's WORK (3g) and I don't think just sitting there qualifies.
"Not Under Command" (3f) IMO is a "maybe" engine off, no-one at the helm (probably no lookout) pretty well means the vessel is unable to get out of the way. The circumstances are not "exceptional" though. It could be argued though that one could start the engine, man the helm, and maneuver. If the engine or steering is broken down, there's no argument, you're not under command.
"Underway" is defined as "not anchored, or made fast to the shore, or aground"(3i/h). So yes the vessel is underway whether it is making way or not. IMO any of the first three answers would qualify as underway.
I guess the correct answer is "none of the above" though there's that argument for not under command.
What LIGHTS would be appropriate??? Day signals???
Fishing with "trolling lines" is NOT fishing under the rules (Rule 3b)
"Restricted maneuverability" is related to the vessel's WORK (3g) and I don't think just sitting there qualifies.
"Not Under Command" (3f) IMO is a "maybe" engine off, no-one at the helm (probably no lookout) pretty well means the vessel is unable to get out of the way. The circumstances are not "exceptional" though. It could be argued though that one could start the engine, man the helm, and maneuver. If the engine or steering is broken down, there's no argument, you're not under command.
"Underway" is defined as "not anchored, or made fast to the shore, or aground"(3i/h). So yes the vessel is underway whether it is making way or not. IMO any of the first three answers would qualify as underway.
I guess the correct answer is "none of the above" though there's that argument for not under command.
What LIGHTS would be appropriate??? Day signals???
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- RO Number
- 3813
- Messages
- 9,936
It's a question that was answered in 2007.
It is only brought up by Bob so that he can stir the pot by acting stupid and luring RO's into an argument with him - that is his MO, and why he was booted off this site.
Notice how he posted a comment to revive it and then disappeared?? Please don't fall for his BS.
It is only brought up by Bob so that he can stir the pot by acting stupid and luring RO's into an argument with him - that is his MO, and why he was booted off this site.
Notice how he posted a comment to revive it and then disappeared?? Please don't fall for his BS.
CaptainNoah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- RO Number
- 27175
- Messages
- 15
I have not disappeared, I am watching this topic intently. Thanks, Willie, for the insightful comments.
Bob,
What's really bothering me here is not your resurrection of a 4 year old thread. It's your complete lack of respect for the site owner, wherever he may be. Les, after more of your pain than I could endure, kicked you off the board because you categorically refused to follow the rules; HIS rules. This thread started 10 months and 2 days after your first appearance where Les had to remind you of the rules you agreed to when you signed on. After countless reprimands for inappropriate postings and the gift of an anchor so you could bring your silliness to NBR you still would not follow the rules. Les kicked you off the site; HIS site. He did not kick the blouderback profile off the site, he kicked off Bob Louderback.
Now you have the utter gall to show up under an alias. How dare you?
I don't know if Les is aware of your actions and if he is, whether he plans to do anything about it.
Bob, there is case history both for and against trespass as it relates to websites. I would invite you to read a 1996 article The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Websites, by I. Trotter Hardy. Mr. Hardy is a an attorney who specializes in intellectual property. He is also a professor at William and Mary Law School. I believe you would find the article to be quite an eye opener.
What's really bothering me here is not your resurrection of a 4 year old thread. It's your complete lack of respect for the site owner, wherever he may be. Les, after more of your pain than I could endure, kicked you off the board because you categorically refused to follow the rules; HIS rules. This thread started 10 months and 2 days after your first appearance where Les had to remind you of the rules you agreed to when you signed on. After countless reprimands for inappropriate postings and the gift of an anchor so you could bring your silliness to NBR you still would not follow the rules. Les kicked you off the site; HIS site. He did not kick the blouderback profile off the site, he kicked off Bob Louderback.
Now you have the utter gall to show up under an alias. How dare you?
I don't know if Les is aware of your actions and if he is, whether he plans to do anything about it.
Bob, there is case history both for and against trespass as it relates to websites. I would invite you to read a 1996 article The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Websites, by I. Trotter Hardy. Mr. Hardy is a an attorney who specializes in intellectual property. He is also a professor at William and Mary Law School. I believe you would find the article to be quite an eye opener.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- RO Number
- 2553
- Messages
- 560
I really don't know the history of "Bob" but it's obvious that he thrives on the fact that you guys feed his trolls.... why not just fight temptation and ignore him. If you want him to go away that's the only way it will happen.
JMHO.
JMHO.
CaptainNoah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- RO Number
- 27175
- Messages
- 15
As far as I can see, I have not violated any rules. Please point out where I am wrong.
CaptainNoah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- RO Number
- 27175
- Messages
- 15
YOU GUYS ARE SO FRUSTRATING!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- RO Number
- 3813
- Messages
- 9,936
How about this Bob, a/k/a Captain Noah a/k/a knotme, you have a new user name and a new start here:
Why don't you cut out the crap that got you kicked off before and try to become a contributing member?
Because you know that sooner or later, you'll be gone again if you keep up your 'games'.
Why don't you cut out the crap that got you kicked off before and try to become a contributing member?
Because you know that sooner or later, you'll be gone again if you keep up your 'games'.