Prev: SMD Code E6G
Next: MAKE UPTO $5000 PER MONTH! $2000 IN FIRST 30 DAYS!
From: Archimedes' Lever on 18 Jun 2010 22:41
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:30:55 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Stephan Goldstein" <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:146o165n58f60jinj4v3a0jmaq4v3llm7t(a)4ax.com...
>> Come on, Jim, Usenet is not your personal soapbox. This
>> is getting tiresome.
>
>He just forgot to stick an "OT:" in front of it. :-)


Even that doesn't matter. MAYBE it did back in the POTS days, but not
now.

I hate netkkop wanna be retards. The only thing they succeed in
getting from their wanna be is the 'retard' part.
From: Copacetic on 18 Jun 2010 22:49
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:49:16 -0500, legg <legg(a)nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:03:44 -0700, Copacetic
><Copacetic(a)iseverythingalright.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0500, legg <legg(a)nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>It's the responsibility of the operators and owners, not the coast
>>>guard.
>>
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about the rules and laws regarding waterways
>>and bodies of water and watercraft in the US and its coastal regions.
>>
>> They have EVERY right to board your vessel, and they have every right
>>to require safety gear, AND check to insure that it is there.
>>
>> The problem was with the choice to do that NOW, as opposed to 'while
>>underway' or 'while on scene' or at some other time.
>
>The owners and operators are responsible before any inspection might
>take place.

Yes, they are, and that does not guarantee that they will or did, and
that is why the Coast Guard has done examinations... FOR DECADES.

>If this had been seen to, there'd be no need now.

Actually, such inspections are an annual exercise, and for all we know,
it just came up on the CG normal schedule.


> Whoever failed in
>this respect, is obviously not suffering.
>

Should they be?
From: Copacetic on 18 Jun 2010 23:00
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:37:44 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>It will if a spark ignites a pile of rags and someone can put it out
>before it spreads to the cargo.


There are plenty of rag piles on a barge on a mission to collect highly
flammable materials. Sure, Bub.

Not only that, but on such a vessel there is going to be NO ignition
sources present at all.

And if there IS a spark, it will likely result in an explosion, not a
fire. The fumes from that stuff are wild and wooly.
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 18 Jun 2010 23:45
Copacetic wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:37:44 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >It will if a spark ignites a pile of rags and someone can put it out
> >before it spreads to the cargo.
>
> There are plenty of rag piles on a barge on a mission to collect highly
> flammable materials. Sure, Bub.
>
> Not only that, but on such a vessel there is going to be NO ignition
> sources present at all.
>
> And if there IS a spark, it will likely result in an explosion, not a
> fire. The fumes from that stuff are wild and wooly.

So then lets just not equip them with fire extinguishers. Right?

I wouldn't let you take a row boat out in a pond.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within
From: Copacetic on 19 Jun 2010 01:07
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:45:19 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>Copacetic wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:37:44 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It will if a spark ignites a pile of rags and someone can put it out
>> >before it spreads to the cargo.
>>
>> There are plenty of rag piles on a barge on a mission to collect highly
>> flammable materials. Sure, Bub.
>>
>> Not only that, but on such a vessel there is going to be NO ignition
>> sources present at all.
>>
>> And if there IS a spark, it will likely result in an explosion, not a
>> fire. The fumes from that stuff are wild and wooly.
>
>So then lets just not equip them with fire extinguishers. Right?
>
If you are so goddamned stupid that you think that they would have ZERO
extinguishers, you should go marry John Larkin, or the other retard, KRW.


>I wouldn't let you take a row boat out in a pond.

I probably know more about boating and the sea than you ever will.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SMD Code E6G
Next: MAKE UPTO $5000 PER MONTH! $2000 IN FIRST 30 DAYS!