The link that he posted offered no confirmation that Federal law (46 U.S.C. 2304) "only applies to distress calls" as he stated.

Please cite in the link where it said any of this. It does not. It is as detailed as linking the Constitution and saying that it does.

You're assuming they'll lose tax revenue and that they aren't spending more money on Paramount than they get back. Given this country's penchant for corporate welfare, I wouldn't assume that Paramount leaving would be tax-flow-negative. More specifically, after all of the incentives, tax credits, etc. are taken into account, I wouldn't assume that the loss from Paramount leaving would be greater than the loss from Warner Brothers largely ceasing to exist except as an IP licensing subsidiary of Paramount.

Yes, of course. I'm not saying it relieves them of responsibility. It just doesn't preclude that other people could *also* be held responsible. :-)

If they were monitoring the Coast Guard VTS channel and the boat that came to help was monitoring channel 16, the latter could easily have arrived before the Coast Guard forwarded the request to the VTS channel.

So I would say it is at least somewhat plausible, but only if his yacht falls into that larger vessel category.

That's true... unless either:

• The captain called the boat's owner and asked for permission and was told "No."
• The boat's owner had given specific instructions not to assist other boats.

Unfortunately, both of those has a small but nonzero chance of being the case. Oral instructions like "Say nothing so you have plausible deniability" would be hard to prove, of course.

If they heard the call and did not help, it is implied it was a refusal to aid. So the yacht's excuse could be they never heard the call. But the call was on an emergency channel that they should be monitoring while sailing. However it would be unlikely that both ships somehow missed the call for aid.

To review, I stated his link did not actually say what he claims it says. His response was not clarification of his claim but to claim I was too stupid/young to read.

You want to quibble that it was an ad hominem attack, go ahead.

Neither vessels responded to the call. We do not know if any actions will be taken yet against the crews as there is not an investigation yet.

Your link says nothing about what you claim it is. Ad hominem attacks do not answer the lack of detail in your answer.

No, that's not what that means. It means that vessels in the area are not required to drop everything and rush immediately to the vessel. It means assist if they can.

If they can means "if they can."

Seeing how there has not been any investigation, it is extremely early to say that "no laws were broken."

Bahahahahahaha. So your answer to your lie that there "was not a distress call" is to ask other to disprove your claims.

The yacht DID NOT help. That was the refusal.

So you refuse to post links validating what you claim then?

So your answer to you having the facts wrong which you won't support is to claim I did not search. How do you know how much I researched? You don't.

Ad hominem attack. Your answer is to attack other people who challenge you. Got it.

The superyacht passed by the vessel in distress. The superyacht had no mechanical issues. Thus it could have helped.

I never said one thing about Zuckerbug. You on the other hand seem ready to defend him at all costs.

Captains. Zuckerburg owned two vessels in the area. Neither of them assisted. These are facts. They seem inconvenient to you that both Zuckerburg ships did nothing.

Nowhere does your link say "applies if it's a distress call".

I doubt it. The crew might be investigated but the call was not the most extreme level of emergencies. The yacht should have helped if it could, and the crew might have to explain why it could not.

Especially the emergency channel that they are supposed to be monitoring. Also not mentioned is Zuckerburg had 2 vessels in the area: the superyacht and the support vessel. Neither of them responded to the call for assistance.