What An Idiot!

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillygirl

How do you know he didn't mean he looked behind him many times in those 5 minutes? I'm not arguing boating laws here, I'm arguing reading comprehension! So I guess I should make an insulting comment about people who can't parse a couple of sentences not knowing the boating laws because they don't understand what they're reading!

And the OP stated her husband didn't even see the boat that passed them within 9 feet until it was happening. Where's the outrageous indignation about that? Oh, that's right, she's not a junior member.

So by your logic he intentionally turned into the path of the Formula??? And as to the OP, you are correct. Perhaps there was a bit of negligence on their part as well. I'd love to hear more on that story.

And Chaselady, I was not the person who called someone an ***hole. laserp came on to this forum calling someone a nasty name and insulting them. Now I am the big bad senior member?

There is no conspiracy theories at play here. I didn't appreciate laserp's tone in their post calling someone and offensive name and then describing a story where they were clearly in the wrong as much as the Formula. The resulting debate has been kind of silly. How can anyone think that laserp was keeping a proper watch when he deliberately turned into the path of the overtaking boat? Why would any sane captain do that?

Sorry if I have come off a bit harsh but the tone of the original message from lp was offensive.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 08:06 AM

..and gilly. Please tell me how we are supposed to interpret this?

"..Looked behind me many times and there was no boat within 500 yards. I may have been cruising for 5 minutes when I was getting to my destination"

Was the entire cruise 5 minutes?

I don't see how anyone could read this any other way than he was cruising for 5 minutes after he had been looking behind his vessel. He ASSUMED in that 5 minute period that nobody could have closed in on him as fast as the Formula did. Now we all know assumptions in boating can lead to disaster. Maybe the Formula was speeding? Who knows. Also I am not even calling out lp for taking a 5 minute break from checking his stern. No big deal at all. Where I and a few others are taking issue is the fact that lp turned his vessel and changed speed BEFORE looking astern to see if by chance there was a vessel approaching. Why is this an issue with a few here? I would be alarmed if people thought it was a good idea to make speed and course changes without doing a THOROUGH check of ones surroundings.

How is this still a discussion??

gillygirl · 09-16-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

..and gilly. Please tell me how we are supposed to interpret this?

"..Looked behind me many times and there was no boat within 500 yards. I may have been cruising for 5 minutes when I was getting to my destination"

Was the entire cruise 5 minutes?

I don't see how anyone could read this any other way than he was cruising for 5 minutes after he had been looking behind his vessel. He ASSUMED in that 5 minute period that nobody could have closed in on him as fast as the Formula did. Now we all know assumptions in boating can lead to disaster. Maybe the Formula was speeding? Who knows. Also I am not even calling out lp for taking a 5 minute break from checking his stern. No big deal at all. Where I and a few others are taking issue is the fact that lp turned his vessel and changed speed BEFORE looking astern to see if by chance there was a vessel approaching. Why is this an issue with a few here? I would be alarmed if people thought it was a good idea to make speed and course changes without doing a THOROUGH check of ones surroundings.

How is this still a discussion??

Yeah, I read it that his cruise took 5 minutes and he was looking around during the journey. I don't understand how you can't acknowledge that possibility. YOU are doing a lot of assuming in your argument, including thinking that I don't hold laserp responsible at all. I jumped into the discussion BECAUSE of all the assumptions being made.

I've done a lot of technical writing in the past, so I know one of the biggest errors that can be made is assuming you know exactly what the original writer meant. You need to ask for clarification, which we won't get now due to the responses he received. And did you notice the title of this thread? Guess it's okay to call someone an idiot.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 09:12 AM

So then laserp deliberately turned into the path of the formula?

I am baffled here. Gilly and ITD. I am not addressing the op or anything else. My point all along has been that laserp came on to the forum calling someone else an a##hole and then illustrated a story that CLEARLY shows that he steered his vessel towards an overtaking vessel. No assumptions necessary here. That is a fact that lp himself stated. So NO BIG DEAL. I take issue with his attitude in his op. He blamed the other captain entirely. THEY WERE BOTH WRONG. What is your crusade on this one? Are you mad that I am not calling out Greens Basin Girl? When I read this thread and got involved in this discussion I was irritated by lp's story more than GBG's story. Would you like me to go back and pick her story apart? Would it then be ok and we could call a truce.

No matter how you read this, being a technical writer, or a Masters Degree holder (me), how can you not see the fact that lp made a navigational error and steered INTO the path of another vessel. The Formula could have been DEAD wrong in that they themselves did not leave enough room. All I know is that I have to assume that lp is a sane and maybe even a FANTASTIC captain with YEARS of experience. Heck he may be one of the better boaters on the lake. Unfortunately HE made an error in failing to keep proper lookout. (FACT NOT OPINION) unless we play the "sane" card lol, as I said. So he messed up. Whoops.... no biggie.

So he steered into the path of the overtaking vessel,

Started to pull off plain and pull to the right. Turned around and this guy was 20ft from me doing at least 30.

Then made a move to recover:

I hit the throttle and cut hard right and fortunately he cut hard left. Missed me by 20ft... AT NIGHT!!

lp came on this forum and called another boater an A##hole. His words not mine. He then illustrated a story that calls into question his skills as a captain. It's pretty plain and simple. I don't know either captain. The Formula captain is not held blameless in this scenario. And that is all this is, a scenario.

ITD to your point, there would have been an extensive investigation and honestly I do not know what the outcome would be. If alcohol was involved we all know what the outcome would be. However, if lp told the story to the police as he did here it would be quite interesting to say the least as to what the outcome would be. Can we all just say thank god that didn't happen.

gillygirl · 09-16-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So then laserp deliberately turned into the path of the formula?

I am baffled here. Gilly and ITD. I am not addressing the op or anything else. My point all along has been that laserp came on to the forum calling someone else an a##hole and then illustrated a story that CLEARLY shows that he steered his vessel towards an overtaking vessel. No assumptions necessary here. That is a fact that lp himself stated. So NO BIG DEAL. I take issue with his attitude in his op. He blamed the other captain entirely. THEY WERE BOTH WRONG. What is your crusade on this one? Are you mad that I am not calling out Greens Basin Girl? When I read this thread and got involved in this discussion I was irritated by lp's story more than GBG's story. Would you like me to go back and pick her story apart? Would it then be ok and we could call a truce.

No matter how you read this, being a technical writer, or a Masters Degree holder (me), how can you not see the fact that lp made a navigational error and steered INTO the path of another vessel. The Formula could have been DEAD wrong in that they themselves did not leave enough room. All I know is that I have to assume that lp is a sane and maybe even a FANTASTIC captain with YEARS of experience. Heck he may be one of the better boaters on the lake. Unfortunately HE made an error in failing to keep proper lookout. (FACT NOT OPINION) unless we play the "sane" card lol, as I said. So he messed up. Whoops.... no biggie.

So he steered into the path of the overtaking vessel,

Started to pull off plain and pull to the right. Turned around and this guy was 20ft from me doing at least 30.

Then made a move to recover:

I hit the throttle and cut hard right and fortunately he cut hard left. Missed me by 20ft... AT NIGHT!!

lp came on this forum and called another boater an A##hole. His words not mine. He then illustrated a story that calls into question his skills as a captain. It's pretty plain and simple. I don't know either captain. The Formula captain is not held blameless in this scenario. And that is all this is, a scenario.

ITD to your point, there would have been an extensive investigation and honestly I do not know what the outcome would be. If alcohol was involved we all know what the outcome would be. However, if lp told the story to the police as he did here it would be quite interesting to say the least as to what the outcome would be. Can we all just say thank god that didn't happen.

Holy cow, how can you still not see what I am saying when I have stated explicitly that I didn't hold laserp unaccountable in his actions. He probably is. But note how I said "probably. " The problem is you are making a lot of assumptions and then stating your conclusion as fact. You argue that laserp said it himself, giving snippets which can be interpreted a couple of ways, but stating your interpretation is the correct one. My biggest issue is with you stating AS A FACT that he didn't look behind his boat for 5 minutes. HE NEVER SAID THAT...THAT'S YOUR READ ON IT.

I brought up my tech writing past to illustrate the importance of looking at what you're reading from all angles so that if it is ambiguous in any way, you need to get clarification before coming to a conclusion. I am explaining my method of analysis, not getting into a pissing contest, if that's what you assume I was doing.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillygirl

Holy cow, how can you still not see what I am saying when I have stated explicitly that I didn't hold laserp unaccountable in his actions. He probably is. But note how I said "probably. " The problem is you are making a lot of assumptions and then stating your conclusion as fact. You argue that laserp said it himself, giving snippets which can be interpreted a couple of ways, but stating your interpretation is the correct one. My biggest issue is with you stating AS A FACT that he didn't look behind his boat for 5 minutes. HE NEVER SAID THAT...THAT'S YOUR READ ON IT.

I brought up my tech writing past to illustrate the importance of looking at what you're reading from all angles so that if it is ambiguous in any way, you need to get clarification before coming to a conclusion. I am explaining my method of analysis, not getting into a pissing contest, if that's what you assume I was doing.

So holy cow yourself. My point is simple. A reasonable person can deduce from the statement that lp made a little mistake. NO BIG DEAL. Relax about it. My bigger point is that his post was OFFENSIVE when he himself was PROBABLY, and IMO based in MANY years of boating, ACTUALLY at fault himself. Formula was wrong lp was wrong.

He called the other boater an A##HOLE AND THEN:

The lake is full of morons on the weekend, with boats that they buy to compensate for their manhood. Can't handle them.

All extremely offensive. Where is the outrage?

gillygirl · 09-16-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So holy cow yourself. My point is simple. A reasonable person can deduce from the statement that lp made a little mistake. NO BIG DEAL. Relax about it. My bigger point is that his post was OFFENSIVE when he himself was PROBABLY, and IMO based in MANY years of boating, ACTUALLY at fault himself. Formula was wrong lp was wrong.

He called the other boater an A##HOLE AND THEN:

The lake is full of morons on the weekend, with boats that they buy to compensate for their manhood. Can't handle them.

All extremely offensive. Where is the outrage?

So it's not okay to call someone an %$^hole, but it is okay to call them unreasonable. Or to make this statement:

"gilly,

It has nothing to do with being a KNOW it all. The man said in his own words that DIRECT QUOTE:

He "..Looked behind me many times and there was no boat within 500 yards. I may have been cruising for 5 minutes when I was getting to my destination"

If you can't read that as, he waited 5 minutes before looking behind his vessel or the fact that he didn't state that he checked behind his vessel before making the maneuver then ummmm wow... is all I can say."

Okay, so you can't read that as, he looked behind his boat many times during the 5 minutes it took to reach his destination? Do you actually think he would come on here and say he didn't look behind for 5 minutes? Does that actually bolster his case? No, it doesn't.

I'm outraged that you won't admit you could be reading the whole 5 minute thing wrong. I'm outraged that when someone's opinion is different from yours, you make snide comments. Okay, I'm not really outraged, but one minute you say it's no big deal that he nearly caused a collision because he didn't keep a proper watch, and then you want me to be outraged by his language. Language doesn't outrage me unless it's not telling the truth. But the passive-aggressive stuff does tend to drive me nuts.

upthesaukee · 09-16-2013, 11:57 AM

this thread has gotten way out of control. Time to end it with a padlock!!!!

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillygirl

So it's not okay to call someone an %$^hole, but it is okay to call them unreasonable. Or to make this statement:

"gilly,

It has nothing to do with being a KNOW it all. The man said in his own words that DIRECT QUOTE:

He "..Looked behind me many times and there was no boat within 500 yards. I may have been cruising for 5 minutes when I was getting to my destination"

If you can't read that as, he waited 5 minutes before looking behind his vessel or the fact that he didn't state that he checked behind his vessel before making the maneuver then ummmm wow... is all I can say."

Okay, so you can't read that as, he looked behind his boat many times during the 5 minutes it took to reach his destination? Do you actually think he would come on here and say he didn't look behind for 5 minutes? Does that actually bolster his case? No, it doesn't.

I'm outraged that you won't admit you could be reading the whole 5 minute thing wrong. I'm outraged that when someone's opinion is different from yours, you make snide comments. Okay, I'm not really outraged, but one minute you say it's no big deal that he nearly caused a collision because he didn't keep a proper watch, and then you want me to be outraged by his language. Language doesn't outrage me unless it's not telling the truth. But the passive-aggressive stuff does tend to drive me nuts.

I'm sorry gilly. I really think you need to step away from the keyboard. Somewhere along the way you took this way way too personally. I am not being passive aggressive nor am I being anything aggressive. You were the first one here to throw around your education and knowledge, not me. Now you're "outraged" oh wait now you're not? Relax, it's a debate about an issue. You see things one way, I see them another. IT IS NOT PERSONAL! Do you go on the internet to have a love fest and just agree with everything you read? I have to say in this instance, sorry no disrespect, that you are reaching for theories. I feel as though you are letting things cloud your judgement on this one. lp MADE A MISTAKE. That is the central issue. Not whether or not I am more educated than you or you are smarter than all of us. Forget about the 5 minutes, before the maneuver, he made a navigational move into the path of another boat. THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW!!! Yes I am really really perplexed that you can't see that simple fact that lp turned into another boats path and HE ADMITTED IT! lol I guess I give up on this one. Take a breath and relax. It's ok to debate people. You have your theory, I have mine. Enjoy the day.

gillygirl · 09-16-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I'm sorry gilly. I really think you need to step away from the keyboard. Somewhere along the way you took this way way too personally. I am not being passive aggressive nor am I being anything aggressive. You were the first one here to throw around your education and knowledge, not me. Now you're "outraged" oh wait now you're not? Relax, it's a debate about an issue. You see things one way, I see them another. IT IS NOT PERSONAL! Do you go on the internet to have a love fest and just agree with everything you read? I have to say in this instance, sorry no disrespect, that you are reaching for theories. I feel as though you are letting things cloud your judgement on this one. lp MADE A MISTAKE. That is the central issue. Not whether or not I am more educated than you or you are smarter than all of us. Forget about the 5 minutes, before the maneuver, he made a navigational move into the path of another boat. THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW!!! Yes I am really really perplexed that you can't see that simple fact that lp turned into another boats path and HE ADMITTED IT! lol I guess I give up on this one. Take a breath and relax. It's ok to debate people. You have your theory, I have mine. Enjoy the day.

Pot, kettle, black. You're obviously not reading what I wrote for comprehension.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillygirl

Pot, kettle, black. You're obviously not reading what I wrote for comprehension.

For the pot to be calling the kettle black you would be making the hugely wrong assumption that I am taking any of this personal, which I am not. I find this to be a fantastically fun debate on a subject that is very very interesting.

I believe that no matter what, the 5 minutes, the 20 feet the 150 feet the dark night sky, the size of the boats, whatever, laserp steered his vessel into the path of an overtaking vessel. That is the one irrefutable fact that nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Even if the Formula was doing 35, 40, 45 MPH and breaking a whole slew of laws, laserp didn't see the boat ( again assuming he is a sane captain

) and he turned into the path of the Formula. So like I said, my one and only point in all of this is that laserp called another driver an a##hole and then proceeded to call his manhood into question, all while illustrating that he made a mistake himself.

It's been fun and interesting discussing this. VERY eye opening too.

Happy Gourmand · 09-16-2013, 08:13 AM

"Why would any sane captain do that?"
So, now Laser is insane? LOL
C'mon, people, lighten up. We only have the "facts" from one side. And even those probably don't tell the whole story as he saw it.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

"Why would any sane captain do that?"
So, now Laser is insane? LOL
C'mon, people, lighten up. We only have the "facts" from one side. And even those probably don't tell the whole story as he saw it.

Phantom, why are you stirring the pot? I am making a point to the contrary. I am sure lp is SANE. My point is that he was negligent in his failure to keep watch. He did not deliberately steer into the path of the Formula. Of course he wouldn't do that. He did it because he had a temporary lapse in judgement and assumed that there were no boats behind him because 5 minutes earlier there were not.

Please don't troll.

Happy Gourmand · 09-16-2013, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Phantom, why are you stirring the pot? I am making a point to the contrary. I am sure lp is SANE. My point is that he was negligent in his failure to keep watch. He did not deliberately steer into the path of the Formula. Of course he wouldn't do that. He did it because he had a temporary lapse in judgement and assumed that there were no boats behind him because 5 minutes earlier there were not.

Please don't troll.

You do not have the facts to make the accusation that LP is negligent.
My post was not to stir the pot, but ask that everybody lighten up a bit.
And now you accuse me of being a troll?

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

You do not have the facts to make the accusation that LP is negligent.
My post was not to stir the pot, but ask that everybody lighten up a bit.
And now you accuse me of being a troll?

Ugh!

Phantom. Read the posts carefully. lp turned into the path of the Formula. He himself said that here:

I "Started to pull off plain and pull to the right. Turned around and this guy was 20ft from me doing at least 30. My guess is he was passing me on the right and wasn't looking."

I am sure lp is sane. He wouldn't have ever decided to make the move if he saw the boat correct? How much evidence do I need. Either he deliberately turned into the path of the boat or he accidentally did. I am going to assume that he accidentally did. Because to assume that he deliberately steered his vessel into the path of the formula then... well... then we would have to play the sanity card. lol So if we can ALL ASSUME that he accidentally steered into the path of the Formula then he is guilty of failure to keep a proper lookout. This is NO BIG DEAL here people. I am sure as &*%$ that I have done that and have committed many errors in my years of boating.

Phantom, it was a troll post. You sir are not a troll. I enjoy your restaurant reviews. The post itself twisted the meaning of my words in a troll like fashion. No hard feelings.

ITD · 09-16-2013, 08:52 AM

So let's suppose in this example there was a few witnesses nearby and God forbid boat A (being passed) was run over by boat B (the boat doing the passing). (I purposely did not use laser and formula to describe the boats because boat brands is the last thing I'm thinking about here and I'm a little disturbed it was even brought up.) So again, let's suppose the captain is alone in boat a and is killed in the crash, Boat b has minor injuries. A forensic team determines that Boat B was passing boat A, no one knows if Boat A was maintaining proper lookout or not, who do you think would be found responsible for the crash??

Woodsy · 09-16-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

So let's suppose in this example there was a few witnesses nearby and God forbid boat A (being passed) was run over by boat B (the boat doing the passing). (I purposely did not use laser and formula to describe the boats because boat brands is the last thing I'm thinking about here and I'm a little disturbed it was even brought up.) So again, let's suppose the captain is alone in boat a and is killed in the crash, Boat b has minor injuries. A forensic team determines that Boat B was passing boat A, no one knows if Boat A was maintaining proper lookout or not, who do you think would be found responsible for the crash??

That's up to the Forensics team. We would only have Boat B's side of the story. Assuming Boat B was being truthful in his description of the incident, and the reconstruction team did their homework... (Boat B's story is plausible) my guess would be BOTH parties would be to blame. Perhaps with differing levels. Boat A would be partially to blame - Failing To Keep a Proper Lookout and turning into the path of the Boat B. Boat B would be partially to blame - Failure to Keep a Proper Distance not taking the appropriate evasive action.

The way the rules are written for the Sea, there usually requires a screw-up by BOTH vessels for a vessel on vessel accident to occur. In the instance we have been debating, Boat B did in fact have enough distance as there was no collision.

Here is a link to a video in which a USCG boat runs over a small runabout in broad daylight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0lR5hPJkQc

Both are at fault here! The small speedboat has right of way and is the Stand On vessel. The USCG boat is the GIVE WAY vessel. In the video you can clearly hear there are no sirens or horns blaring on the USCG vessel. Just a loudhailer that you cannot hear in the video.

The small boat didn't see the USCG boat.. and the USCG boat didn't GIVE WAY.

Woodsy

Pricestavern · 09-16-2013, 09:55 AM

"The way the rules are written for the Sea, there usually requires a screw-up by BOTH vessels for a vessel on vessel accident to occur. In the instance we have been debating, Boat B did in fact have enough distance as there was no collision."

Missing the overtaken boat by a mere 20' is not indicative of having provided enough distance. That's too darn close and falls in the realm of a luck close call.

My point in this thread all along has been that the overtaking vessel did not provide enough distance between the two boats.

hazelnut · 09-16-2013, 09:58 AM

Price and you are probably correct. I think many of us that have taken up issue with this is that lp came on and insulted the other boater and then insulted a class of boaters. lp himself made an error in navigation by his own admission. Although some seem to fail to grasp that concept. Anyway, you are most very likely correct that the captain of the Formula messed up and should have given much more space than he did. Especially at night.

NH_boater · 09-16-2013, 08:46 AM

Laser did show up here with an agenda and with a major attitude, as depicted by his/her choice of language. It is hard for me to be sympathetic when someone makes this grand booming entrance, third post, expecting support but appears to be in the wrong. I think many people had two reactions. (1) Why the language and tone? (2) Wait a minute, Laser seems to be in the wrong by his/her own description.

I expect that if laser posted with a civil tone and appropriate language, he/she would have been treated differently.

09-16-2013, 11:57 AM	#8
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,604 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,470 Thanked 1,983 Times in 1,083 Posts	time for a thread lockdown. this thread has gotten way out of control. Time to end it with a padlock!!!! __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

09-16-2013, 09:55 AM	#18
Pricestavern Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle) Posts: 389 Thanks: 135 Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts	Too close "The way the rules are written for the Sea, there usually requires a screw-up by BOTH vessels for a vessel on vessel accident to occur. In the instance we have been debating, Boat B did in fact have enough distance as there was no collision." Missing the overtaken boat by a mere 20' is not indicative of having provided enough distance. That's too darn close and falls in the realm of a luck close call. My point in this thread all along has been that the overtaking vessel did not provide enough distance between the two boats.

09-16-2013, 08:06 AM	#2
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	..and gilly. Please tell me how we are supposed to interpret this? "..Looked behind me many times and there was no boat within 500 yards. I may have been cruising for 5 minutes when I was getting to my destination" Was the entire cruise 5 minutes? I don't see how anyone could read this any other way than he was cruising for 5 minutes after he had been looking behind his vessel. He ASSUMED in that 5 minute period that nobody could have closed in on him as fast as the Formula did. Now we all know assumptions in boating can lead to disaster. Maybe the Formula was speeding? Who knows. Also I am not even calling out lp for taking a 5 minute break from checking his stern. No big deal at all. Where I and a few others are taking issue is the fact that lp turned his vessel and changed speed BEFORE looking astern to see if by chance there was a vessel approaching. Why is this an issue with a few here? I would be alarmed if people thought it was a good idea to make speed and course changes without doing a THOROUGH check of ones surroundings. How is this still a discussion??

09-16-2013, 09:12 AM	#4
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	So then laserp deliberately turned into the path of the formula? I am baffled here. Gilly and ITD. I am not addressing the op or anything else. My point all along has been that laserp came on to the forum calling someone else an a##hole and then illustrated a story that CLEARLY shows that he steered his vessel towards an overtaking vessel. No assumptions necessary here. That is a fact that lp himself stated. So NO BIG DEAL. I take issue with his attitude in his op. He blamed the other captain entirely. THEY WERE BOTH WRONG. What is your crusade on this one? Are you mad that I am not calling out Greens Basin Girl? When I read this thread and got involved in this discussion I was irritated by lp's story more than GBG's story. Would you like me to go back and pick her story apart? Would it then be ok and we could call a truce. No matter how you read this, being a technical writer, or a Masters Degree holder (me), how can you not see the fact that lp made a navigational error and steered INTO the path of another vessel. The Formula could have been DEAD wrong in that they themselves did not leave enough room. All I know is that I have to assume that lp is a sane and maybe even a FANTASTIC captain with YEARS of experience. Heck he may be one of the better boaters on the lake. Unfortunately HE made an error in failing to keep proper lookout. (FACT NOT OPINION) unless we play the "sane" card lol, as I said. So he messed up. Whoops.... no biggie. So he steered into the path of the overtaking vessel, Started to pull off plain and pull to the right. Turned around and this guy was 20ft from me doing at least 30. Then made a move to recover: I hit the throttle and cut hard right and fortunately he cut hard left. Missed me by 20ft... AT NIGHT!! lp came on this forum and called another boater an A##hole. His words not mine. He then illustrated a story that calls into question his skills as a captain. It's pretty plain and simple. I don't know either captain. The Formula captain is not held blameless in this scenario. And that is all this is, a scenario. ITD to your point, there would have been an extensive investigation and honestly I do not know what the outcome would be. If alcohol was involved we all know what the outcome would be. However, if lp told the story to the police as he did here it would be quite interesting to say the least as to what the outcome would be. Can we all just say thank god that didn't happen.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to upthesaukee For This Useful Post:
Billy Bob (09-16-2013), Happy Gourmand (09-16-2013), Phantom (09-17-2013)

09-16-2013, 08:13 AM	#12
Happy Gourmand Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ruskin FL Posts: 1,027 Thanks: 188 Thanked 322 Times in 179 Posts	"Why would any sane captain do that?" So, now Laser is insane? LOL C'mon, people, lighten up. We only have the "facts" from one side. And even those probably don't tell the whole story as he saw it.

09-16-2013, 08:52 AM	#16
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,937 Thanks: 480 Thanked 695 Times in 390 Posts	So let's suppose in this example there was a few witnesses nearby and God forbid boat A (being passed) was run over by boat B (the boat doing the passing). (I purposely did not use laser and formula to describe the boats because boat brands is the last thing I'm thinking about here and I'm a little disturbed it was even brought up.) So again, let's suppose the captain is alone in boat a and is killed in the crash, Boat b has minor injuries. A forensic team determines that Boat B was passing boat A, no one knows if Boat A was maintaining proper lookout or not, who do you think would be found responsible for the crash??

09-16-2013, 09:58 AM	#19
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Price and you are probably correct. I think many of us that have taken up issue with this is that lp came on and insulted the other boater and then insulted a class of boaters. lp himself made an error in navigation by his own admission. Although some seem to fail to grasp that concept. Anyway, you are most very likely correct that the captain of the Formula messed up and should have given much more space than he did. Especially at night.

09-16-2013, 08:46 AM	#20
NH_boater Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 298 Thanks: 14 Thanked 147 Times in 62 Posts	Laser did show up here with an agenda and with a major attitude, as depicted by his/her choice of language. It is hard for me to be sympathetic when someone makes this grand booming entrance, third post, expecting support but appears to be in the wrong. I think many people had two reactions. (1) Why the language and tone? (2) Wait a minute, Laser seems to be in the wrong by his/her own description. I expect that if laser posted with a civil tone and appropriate language, he/she would have been treated differently.