Z
zeekstah@ktc.com
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 12:32 AM
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
C
capnrich@cnw.com
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 2:38 AM
...and sight gauge not site gauge...
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeke Anderson" zeekstah@ktc.com
To: "TWL" trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: TWL: for the good of the order
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
...and sight gauge not site gauge...
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeke Anderson" <zeekstah@ktc.com>
To: "TWL" <trawler-world-list@samurai.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: TWL: for the good of the order
> For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
> we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
>
> Fire Away!!
>
> Zeke Anderson
> Kerrville, TX
>
>
W
weidner@waterw.com
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 2:44 AM
Watta 'bout "cite"?
73
Jim Weidner
Prof. of Linguistics (Ret.)
K2JXW, Founder and President of the
Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society (ARLHS)
US Coast Guard Lightship Sailors Association
http://arlhs.com
---=====================
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh.
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
Watta 'bout "cite"?
-
73
Jim Weidner
Prof. of Linguistics (Ret.)
K2JXW, Founder and President of the
Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society (ARLHS)
US Coast Guard Lightship Sailors Association
http://arlhs.com
======================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com
> [mailto:owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com]On Behalf Of Richard
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 21:39 PM
> To: TWL
> Subject: TWL: Re: for the good of the order
>
>
> ...and sight gauge not site gauge...
> Richard
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zeke Anderson" <zeekstah@ktc.com>
> To: "TWL" <trawler-world-list@samurai.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:32 PM
> Subject: TWL: for the good of the order
>
>
> > For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh.
> As long as
> > we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
> >
> > Fire Away!!
> >
> > Zeke Anderson
> > Kerrville, TX
> >
> >
S
scaramouche@tvo.org
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 2:49 AM
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
I'm not sure whether Zeke is complaining or being amused. I personally feel these little typos or grammar errors are often great fun and should be left alone. One of the best ones was when a sailor reported that he now had "two selftailing wenches" on
his boat. Keep it up. Helps me get through the long icebound winter season...
George of Scaramouche, Lake Ontario, Canada
>Zeke Anderson wrote:
>
>> For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
>> we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
I'm not sure whether Zeke is complaining or being amused. I personally feel these little typos or grammar errors are often great fun and should be left alone. One of the best ones was when a sailor reported that he now had "two selftailing wenches" on
his boat. Keep it up. Helps me get through the long icebound winter season...
George of Scaramouche, Lake Ontario, Canada
W
weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 1:42 PM
Zeke:
"Weigh" is a vaiant form of "way" and, since one "weighs anchor" before
one can move one's vessel, I view "under weigh" as an fully acceptable
nautical turn of speech.
My opinion only
Wesley
weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Zeke Anderson wrote:
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
Zeke:
"Weigh" is a vaiant form of "way" and, since one "weighs anchor" before
one can move one's vessel, I view "under weigh" as an fully acceptable
nautical turn of speech.
My opinion only
Wesley
weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Zeke Anderson wrote:
>
> For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
> we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
>
> Fire Away!!
>
> Zeke Anderson
> Kerrville, TX
T
tobyboat@worldnet.att.net
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 8:44 PM
I know that it will not impact us! Right?
Effective March 29, 2002, the Coast Guard is requiring that children under
age 13 aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs),
or lifejackets.
*** I have known personally - two couples who have
' lost ' grandchildren - while docked at their slip and not paying
attention ... tragic and avoidable deaths ...
I wanna see the kids - below age 10 wear them on the dock -- but then
I'm a old meanie .....
Ken
m/v Mrs. Hudson
Baltinore
> I know that it will not impact us! Right?
> --------
> Effective March 29, 2002, the Coast Guard is requiring that children under
> age 13 aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs),
or lifejackets.
*** I have known personally - two couples who have
' lost ' grandchildren - while docked at their slip and not paying
attention ... tragic and avoidable deaths ...
I wanna see the kids - below age 10 wear them on the dock -- but then
I'm a old meanie .....
Ken
m/v Mrs. Hudson
Baltinore
G
glennwaus@netspace.net.au
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 9:50 PM
Wes.
To weigh something is to ascertain it's weight. Right?
The term to weigh anchor came from those mythic days of sail when a bunch of
the boys tramped around a capstan feeling the weight of the anchor as they
hauled it up.
I'm with Zeke.
Cheers
Glenn Williams
"Stirling" Universal 36
Port Phillip
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wesley Eldred" weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
To: "TWL" trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Sent: 02 March, 2002 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: TWL: for the good of the order
Zeke:
"Weigh" is a vaiant form of "way" and, since one "weighs anchor" before
one can move one's vessel, I view "under weigh" as an fully acceptable
nautical turn of speech.
My opinion only
Wesley
weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Zeke Anderson wrote:
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Fire Away!!
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
Wes.
To weigh something is to ascertain it's weight. Right?
The term to weigh anchor came from those mythic days of sail when a bunch of
the boys tramped around a capstan feeling the weight of the anchor as they
hauled it up.
I'm with Zeke.
Cheers
Glenn Williams
"Stirling" Universal 36
Port Phillip
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wesley Eldred" <weldred@zoo.uvm.edu>
To: "TWL" <trawler-world-list@samurai.com>
Sent: 02 March, 2002 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: TWL: for the good of the order
> Zeke:
>
> "Weigh" is a vaiant form of "way" and, since one "weighs anchor" before
> one can move one's vessel, I view "under weigh" as an fully acceptable
> nautical turn of speech.
>
> My opinion only
>
> Wesley
> weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
>
> Zeke Anderson wrote:
> >
> > For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
> > we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
> >
> > Fire Away!!
> >
> > Zeke Anderson
> > Kerrville, TX
D
deyoung1@mindspring.com
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 10:43 PM
Since everyone loves taking shots at the USCG - here is the latest change to
the US CFR.
I know that it will not impact us! Right?
derrick
Effective March 29, 2002, the Coast Guard is requiring that children under
age 13 aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs),
or lifejackets. 33 CFR 175 is changed as follows:
3. Amend 175.15 by....adding a new paragraph (c), to read as follows:
175.15 Personal flotation devices required.
(c) No person may use a recreational vessel unless each child under 13 years
old aboard is wearing an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard; or (1)
Each child not wearing such a PFD is below decks or in an enclosed cabin;
or
(2) The vessel is not under way.
4. Add a new 175.25 to subpart B, to read as follows:
175.25 Adoption of States' requirements for children to wear personal
flotation devices.
(a) This section applies to every operator of a recreational vessel on
waters within the geographical boundaries of any State that has established
by statute a requirement under which children must wear PFDs approved by the
Coast Guard while aboard recreational vessels.
(b) If the applicable State's statute establishes an age under which
children must wear PFDs, that age, instead of the age provided in
175.15(c) of this part, applies within the geographical boundaries of that
State.
Since everyone loves taking shots at the USCG - here is the latest change to
the US CFR.
I know that it will not impact us! Right?
derrick
--------
Effective March 29, 2002, the Coast Guard is requiring that children under
age 13 aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs),
or lifejackets. 33 CFR 175 is changed as follows:
3. Amend 175.15 by....adding a new paragraph (c), to read as follows:
175.15 Personal flotation devices required.
* * * * *
(c) No person may use a recreational vessel unless each child under 13 years
old aboard is wearing an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard; or (1)
Each child not wearing such a PFD is below decks or in an enclosed cabin;
or
(2) The vessel is not under way.
4. Add a new 175.25 to subpart B, to read as follows:
175.25 Adoption of States' requirements for children to wear personal
flotation devices.
(a) This section applies to every operator of a recreational vessel on
waters within the geographical boundaries of any State that has established
by statute a requirement under which children must wear PFDs approved by the
Coast Guard while aboard recreational vessels.
(b) If the applicable State's statute establishes an age under which
children must wear PFDs, that age, instead of the age provided in
175.15(c) of this part, applies within the geographical boundaries of that
State.
D
deyoung1@mindspring.com
Sat, Mar 2, 2002 1:37 AM
Ken,
I meant that comment as tongue in cheek - we have a six year old and we have
taught him since he was old enough to crawl to put on his PFD when we get to
the marina. The only time he takes his off is when he goes below.
derrick
Ken,
I meant that comment as tongue in cheek - we have a six year old and we have
taught him since he was old enough to crawl to put on his PFD when we get to
the marina. The only time he takes his off is when he goes below.
derrick
C
cculotta@iamerica.net
Sat, Mar 2, 2002 3:20 AM
Ken, et al,
I have always demanded all children, that includes all up to and including
their senior yr. in high school, to wear PFD's when aboard my ski boat. Note
I have the jacket type and not those UNCOMFORTABLE horse collar things. We
cannot expect kids to want to wear something like that all day.
The jacket style costs only few dollars more but as the commercial says--
it is priceless!!!
The payoff was that none ever complained and compliance was never a problem.
CCC
LETS ROLL
CHARLES and PAT CULOTTA
Patterson, La.
http://www.geocities.com/charlesculotta/
Ken, et al,
I have always demanded all children, that includes all up to and including
their senior yr. in high school, to wear PFD's when aboard my ski boat. Note
I have the jacket type and not those UNCOMFORTABLE horse collar things. We
cannot expect kids to want to wear something like that all day.
The jacket style costs only few dollars more but as the commercial says--
it is priceless!!!
The payoff was that none ever complained and compliance was never a problem.
CCC
LETS ROLL
CHARLES and PAT CULOTTA
Patterson, La.
http://www.geocities.com/charlesculotta/
