its not that I dont have a sense of HUMOUR, its a matter that I did not understand your server comment, nothing more nothing less.

If you noticed my actual comment on Darryl's reply when I quoted him was suppost to be funny and sarcastic.

Robi: The server this forum resides on are sponsored by Mary and Rick, ditto for the bandwith. I think they hope to finance it trough banner ads and onlinemarinestore.com eventually.
Obese posts, and quoting of same posts takes capacity, is annoying and not really useful. If the store resides on the same server, it also effect the user experience there. Not just this post, but in sum it adds up, hence it's not a good practice.

I value these forums a great deal (what are the alternatives for catsailors?), so I try to support them by subscribing to "Catamaran Sailor" magazine and order stuff from the store from time to time.. (I like to follow "Catamaran Sailor", so I dont subscribe just to support Mary and Ricks efforts )


I notice that Sam are executing the royal prerogative, keeping us waiting for his royal replies.

But you guys have a misconception regarding bandwidth.

I do not want to press this issue so I will keep it short.

You can write the entire bible in ONE post. The text will NOT cause a server crash, bandwidth exceedence, ect ect...

Make a notepad file as big as posible. Have you seen 1MB of text? It is a LOT, a 1MB post will be almost 100 times that one post with all the laws. A long winded POST WILL NOT cause catsailor.com to go offline. Even if it had the smallest account. I know this because I own three domains. I also webmaster four websites. Two of which are on totally separate servers and accounts.

Enough said on bandwidth though! On with catsailing!!

Sorry, Robi. You take things much too literally. I was just doing a tongue-in-cheek segue from what Clayton said, to get a point across.

I am sorry for the length of the post MARY, but I just couldn't resist posting a SMALL extract (this is only about 1/50th of the Californian code alone) concerning the laws and the coast guard for Sam’s perusal. If I had just posted a link I would then have had to rely on him actually looking at it whereas there is now a SMALL, pertinent extract in plain view that is hard for even him to ignore. I do have reams and reams of boating laws from other states as well as federal AND the penal code from most states as well but I shall resist the temptation of posting. SAM goaded me for it and I felt somewhat obliged to respond, at least in this instant. It won't happen again.

So JAKE you’re saying that "A figure of speech" should be taken metaphorically and not literally? (I’ll drink to that –a figure of speech – metaphor – Then again Ill drink to anything – literally)

Darryl,

If it's OK with you, I'll drink to that too.

We need to work out some sort of work exchange program where I get to come there in November through March and you come here April through October. I'm feeling sorry for you in all that chilly drizzle....as a matter of fact, I think I'll drink to that too!

September through to April is just fine warm to hot sailing weather here Jake, AND no snow, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, hardly even any thunderstorms and sea breezes from 15 to 20 knots most afternoons. You can see why it is such a "pain" for us when the weather actually does turn into "winter"
You would be made more welcome here than you would be "going home" for thanksgiving there Jake. There is an unwritten law here Jake, that if we don't make visitors welcome they shut off our supply of beer, and that's "not a matter of life or death" (metaphor?) “it's much worse than that” (literal fact)!

"HOLLY COPY PASTE BATMAN POST" Have you been sitting up late at night watching "reruns" of Batman on cable ROBI?

So smokers and heavy coffee drinkers aren't allowed to use a boat!? Harsh!

Mary-
If you really want to save bandwidth why don't you ban personal attacks and delete them from all the forums? Certain members who make inflammatory posts generally generate many other posts that have little or nothing to do with sailing and are generally negative.
Every other forum I have ever been a member of bans personal attacks and bans members who engage in them.
I realize this is your and Rick's site and forums but don't you think enough is enough?

Hope you and Rick are well-

Kirt

Kirt,
I agree.

Personal attacks really are counter productive to promoting the sport of catamaran sailing.
I usually give them the priority they deserve and just skip past them.
It concern me that new and not so new people to the sport/forum see how individuals are attacked for little or no reason.
Why risk the same abuse?

Regards,
Phill

It is very difficult to "restrict" anyone from posting, but I feel that if any perpetrator of "personal abuse" postings has the basis of their questionable "abuse/dogma/incorrect information" postings responded to in a manner that shows - without doubt, to all (particularly the perpetrator of the abuse) - that the "abuse/dogma/incorrect information is total rubbish, then they tend to "skulk" away when they start to appear ridiculous even to themselves. It would appear that COULD be the case on this particular post right now (maybe?). A difference of opinion is one thing, unjustified abuse is a totally different animal, and, if that “abuse is unfounded and not based on any fact at all, it is completely “unjustified” and should be seen, and treated as “worthless”.
Perhaps I am putting my neck on the chopping block here but if I ever post “abusively” (as opposed to “heatedly”) on these forums, I would hope that someone would politely point it out to me so that I could reconsider and retract, with apologies. (Please, don’t everyone rush to ask me for apologies for past postings)

So, you want me to ban personal attacks?
Hmm! just which ones?
Wouter, Darryl, Simon, Sam, Robi, et al? Sam is not the only guilty one here, you know.

As for our server, we have two dedicated servers.., one for the site, the other for the store. Long posts will not slow anything down, it is just annoying. When I see a post of any length, I simply quit reading it. For example, I have ready very little of Wouter's post for that very reason. If a poster could condense their post to a readable size.., and not "War and Peace" size more people would probably get more out of it.
Just an observation.
Rick

Rick,

I don't see why the question of who is the most guilty is really relevant. I don't believe that Kirt or Phill were asking for any individual(s) to be treated any differently from anyone else, but just that some judgement be applied in a consistent way to ensure that the discussions here remain within the reasonable bounds of civility. I suspect that many people in this community would be be pretty pleased if there was some more active moderation going on, and would want it to be applied equally, without favor to everyone who posts here.

If this is something you don't feel you have the time to deal with, why don't you nominate one or two people on the forums who you consider to be trustworthy and give them adminstrative privileges to be able to remove posts they consider inappropriate and to send a note back to posters explaining why they were bounced. I can think of several people around here who I think would do a good job. You could also attach a sticky post at the top of the forum with a simple statement indicating the standards of verbal behavior that you/we expect. If you like, I'd be happy to help you draft something.

Mark.

Let's finish this up.

jflint,
Thank you for providing the link the the California boating laws.
It helps to show the differences between thoses laws and Coast Guard regulations, which is what I said in the first place.
Of course the laws in other states have their differences too.


Robi,
Again, you refuse to answer my simple questions.
I gave you an opportunity to impress us all and you failed.
I am shocked and disappointed that Darryl, in Australia, was able to find out the answers before you. For shame.
You are claiming that your job at the Coast Guard give you special qualifications for this discussion, and yet you haven't given us your rank and duty assignment?
Obviously you aren't an officer, so what are your qualifications as a legal expert?
For all we know you could be a cook's helper or on shore duty as a clerk, answering phones.
TELL US YOUR RANK AND JOB
Be careful, tell the truth, you don't want another Page 7 in your record.

Perhaps I could have said "you continue to disappoint me", but what's the difference?

"Cutters", how childish of you, ships, boats, vessels, whatever generic term you want to use.
Are you sayiing that ALL Coast Guard vessels are called "cutters"?
Do you still insist that ALL Coast Guard vessels carry breathalyzers? (Quick, do another "google" search)
By the time we have finished this discussion, you will be qualified to join J.A.G.


Darryl,
I have definitely brought out the child in you.
No Darryl, as I have previously stated that I an not an expert.
The point is that neither are you despite your extensive "googling" of information from the web.
You have only proved that you can look up information AFTER you make a statement.

Do you actually expect us to believe that you "have taken the time to actually read ALL the available information"?
That is the single most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this forum.
Even if you had read it, your original statements were still wrong.
You have done a very good job of proving me right and yourself wrong.

On 7/13/05 you said: "Any other response that I make to you would only be stooping to your own very low level. BYE BYE SAMMY."
You have posted eight (8) times since then.
I guess we can't believe anything you say unless it is a "cut-and-paste".

So you are trying some KW tricks, changing the subject and complaining about things never said.
You haven't said anything about your country, proud or otherwise.
I haven't said anything bad about your country or any other.
That is what we call "grasping at straws" when someone is losing an argument.


Clayton,
I did plenty of research.
I never said that there were No Coast Guard regulations about drinking and driving.
I said that they were DIFFERENT from state laws. (EX: a B.A.C. of 0.04 is DIFFERENT from a B.A.C. OF 0.08)
If you had been paying attention, you would see that Darryls massive "cut-and-paste" only serves to prove my original statements.


SUMMARY:
Lawyers have an old expression, "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to".
I was surprised at how long it took for someone else to find the answers.

Robi and Darryl et al are under the mistaken impression that doing research NOW is somehow retroactive to the statements they made days ago.
WRONG!!!!
At the time they made their original statements they were ignorant. (definition: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified)
They have provided no proof whatsoever that they had adequate prior knowledge of the subject AT THE TIME OF THEIR STATEMENTS.

My statements about the wide variety of boating laws, including different legal B.A.C. limits have been proven correct by many posters.

What is left to discuss?

Your a sad sad person Sam

One night, this guy come into a bar and asks the bartender for a drink.

Then he asks for another. After a couple more drinks, the bartender gets worried.

"What's the matter?" the bartender asks.

"My wife and I got into a fight," explained the guy

"and now she isn't talking to me for a whole 31 days."

The bartender thought about this for a while.

"But, isn't it a good thing that she isn't talking to you?" asked the bartender.

"Yeah, except today is the last night."


Maybe Sam won't talk to us for 31 days?

Hopefully

You are so sad SAM. You talk about all sorts of things other than your original response to my original post on this subject.
I will "cut and paste" my "original post" so that we all can see just how it relates to your continuing "tirade"

Quote
“Were they "breath tested" for being "under the influence"?? If it was a car accident instead of "at sea" being in control of a car whilst "under the influence" is an offence is it not?
In most countries today the same applies to being in control of a boat whilst "under the influence" and carries similar penalties as the loss of life can occur through "impaired awareness". A crime is a crime - no matter how many taxes you pay!”
End quote

As you can see SAM, I never said that
1. I was an expert on law; My QUESTION was whether or not they were breath tested. SAM this was a QUESTION not any sort of statement of “the law”
2. Next I made the (undeniable) STATEMENT that being under the influence while driving a car IS A CRIME. I presume that you have no argument against that coming from either an “expert” or a “non expert”
3. For hundreds of years the laws at sea (or on water) whilst in control of a vessel have been far greater and more consistently “regulated” than equivalent land based laws. You don’t have to be any sort of “expert” on law to be AWARE of that (AWARE SAM not expert). Even quite young children, when first being exposed to “history” are subjected to that reality. (well, in Australia they are, I was, my children were, and my grandchildren are)
4. And then a statement of pure, undeniable fact that "A crime is a crime - no matter how many taxes you pay!”

I find it difficult to see why you were so “incensed” over this innocuous posting.