"Morris Dovey" wrote:
> Just outside the harbor at Gustavia in Saint Barts I saw a 15m
> catamaran (demasted) and being decked over completely with solar
> panels. I've wondered ever since how well that worked out...
>
> ...and whether the mast was replaced once the electrical work had
> been completed. Interesting solar project.
-------------------------------------------------
A Cat makes a great platform for solar panels, and yes I'm quite
certain they restepped that stick when they were ready.
Biggest problem is trying to keep them oriented for max effiency which
isn't easy on a moving platform such as a sailboat.
Bottom_line.........................................
When designing a system you seriously derate the panels to CYA.
50% will get you in the ball park.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> I don't see what age has to do with having experience being chased
> by
> pirates. As for being chased by rapers and murderers, one is far
> more
> likely to be chased by rapers and murderers on the way to high
> school than
> in the middle of the ocean, but if she was 21 or 31 or 41 or 101 she
> still
> wouldn't have any relevant experience in being chased by such unless
> she had
> phenomenally bad luck.
-------------------------------------------------
The whole pirate thing is a little overblown.
If you bother to read her proposed sail plan, this will be a nonstop,
fast as possible given prudent safety issues such as avoiding ice
bergs.
(The closer you sail to Antarctica, the shorter the trip, but the
higher the risk.)
That route will put her a long way from known piracy activities.
Lew
"Swingman" wrote:
> It's not the whole truth in any event. What he's not telling you is
> that many sailboats have auxiliary power, particularly the larger
> ones, but not limited to just size as many smaller ones do also. I
> worked on a two masted schooner out of Port Moresby, PNG (back when
> PNG was under Australian rule) that we used exclusively as a supply
> boat for the rest of our four boat fleet, and it ran under sail and
> diesel engine.
---------------------------------
Different horses for different courses.
Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
sailors, a whole different can of worms.
Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover which
are the sails.
The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a prime
mover.
It had a design range of about 1,000 miles under power.
IOW, not much if you plan an open ocean voyage.
Not uncommon to find engine-generator sets on boats in the 50HP range.
Engines on sailboats are not uncommon.
Depending on them for anything other than as an auxiliary is foolish.
Abby's boat, the boat in question is clearly a race boat weighing
about 7500 pounds, equipped with an 18HP Yanmar diesel.
My guess is it may have a 20 gallon diesel tank(Any more and extra
weight becomes a factor) and a "Yanny" that size consumes fuel at
about a 3 hour/gallon rate.
IOW, full range of the engine is about 60 hours.
Being generous by assuming a maintained hull speed approaching 10
knots, you have a range under power of maybe 600 miles.
600 miles when faced with a 25,000 mile journey puts the engine in the
same class as "tits on a bore hog" as a propulsion mechanism.
Using that engine to drive a reverse osmosis unit for potable water
and an alternator to recharge batteries are more appropriate uses of
that diesel fuel.
Lew
"Leon" wrote:
> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
> see, how would you put that,
>
> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
> on a boar hog.
>
> Does that sound about right?
---------------------------------------
Sorry but I don't understand this gibberish.
Lew
>
REPOSTING
=============================
"Lee Michaels" wrote:
> I know nothing of power on a sailboat.
>
> The backpackers now have some super filtering divices for water. I
> beleive they use ceramic filters. Iunderstand that themilitaryhave
> these too. They filter out everything. Any way that something like
> this could be adapted to sailing?
================================
Basic problem with salt water is the salt.
R/O development for almost all applications are under constant
development.
The biggest problem to overcome is the huge amount of power required
to get clean water because of the high pressure membranes used.
================================
> Also, couldn't some solar panels and a little wind device be used to
> charge batteries?
============================
Very common and as development continues, marine solar panels are
finding an ever bigger market.
Cost and required space are the limiting factors.
Wind mills have been around for years, but they have some problems.
Physically you have to mount them someplace away from people and they
require 15-20 knots of wind to produce any real power.
================================
> Also, if you were sailing around the world, wouldn't you catch some
> fish to eat now and then? And would you have a way to cook it?
===============================
Fishing for food is rather straight forward.
A couple of hundred feet of clothes line, 10-20 ft of steel leader,
some surgical tubing and some jigs and some down weights.
Definitely keep a pair of gloves handy.
Trail the rig.
When you catch something, keep going for 15-20 minutes to drown the
critter, then a gaff and a baseball bat to finish the deed.
You eat a lot of fish for a couple of days, but without a reefer,
that's it.
Propane stoves take care of cooking, dehydrated food solves the need
for a reefer.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
> century
> you know.
============================
You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if you
are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a day, and
sattelite coverage is spotty.
Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
Lew
"Leon" wrote:
> That is all you have to do??? Just make sure the jack lines are
> secured and your harness line is attached?
>
> That simple statement will cover every possibly thing that could or
> has ever happed gone wrong while in high seas?
>
> That sound a bit naive doesn't it?
================================
Actually it is about as basic as remembering to tie your shoes and
making sure your pants are pulled up.
If you don't remain secured to the boat, you probably won't have a
chance to do anything else.
Lew
>
SFWIW:
Abby is scheduled to leave tomorrow; however, we have a series of
winter storms headed into SoCal which will put the winds on her nose
and build the waves again on the nose.
May have to wait until next week end.
She at the mercy of mother nature.
BTW:
Murphy's third law: Mother Nature is a BITCH.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You're kidding, right? I didn't see a smiley or wink, so I will
> assume you were.
<snip>
Not at all.
As stated elsewhere, this 16 year old has been sailing since she was a
rug rat.
She is NOT just any 16 year old kid being thrown to the devil, but an
experienced sailor who is part of a sailing family who has also done
some single handed sailing.
Single handled sailing requires a certain focus.
You do it right or you do it dead.
IOW, you mature in a hurry.
She obviously has spent a lot of time not only developing a well
thought out game plan, but also the equipment needed and her required
personal preparation to accomplish the desired end result.
This is not some hocus pocus 15 minutes of fame gig, but a well
thought out plan of an experienced sailor who just happens to be 16
years old.
BTW, the Modesto Bee needs to get a sailor on staff if they want to
cover a seafaring event.
Being land locked in the central valley gives them a good perspective
on growing crops, but sailing, not so much.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
>
> Using that engine to drive a reverse osmosis unit for potable water and an
> alternator to recharge batteries are more appropriate uses of that diesel
> fuel.
>
I know nothing of power on a sailboat.
The backpackers now have some super filtering divices for water. I beleive
they use ceramic filters. Iunderstand that themilitaryhave these too. They
filter out everything. Any way that something like this could be adapted to
sailing?
Also, couldn't some solar panels and a little wind device be used to charge
batteries?
Also, if you were sailing around the world, wouldn't you catch some fish to
eat now and then? And would you have a way to cook it?
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> You can even climb Mt Everest today with a little experience and
> $60,000.
You definitely WILL NOT sail around the world for $60,000.
The toughest part is not the sailing, but getting the sponsors.
Having talked to a couple of people who have done it, sponsorship is
the biggest hurdle.
Lew
Lew
"LDosser" wrote:
> The good news for me is I now seem to be allergic to tobacco smoke.
> Somebody lights up or smokes anywhere near me and my nose starts
> running, I'm sneezing and start getting a headache.
It just keeps getting worse.
Pretty soon you can smell a butt in an ash tray from 100 yards in a
hurricane and you're upwind<G>.
BTDT (01/1978)
Lew
"Robatoy" wrote:
These modern day pirates are after big settlements from insurance
companies.
I suppose that if the opportunity presented itself, they might hold
her for ransom, but they want container ships and tankers.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually, a British couple, experienced sailors, deep into their 50s,
who basically sold the house and bought a boat to go cruising, are
being held for ransom right now in Somalia.
The pirates are demanding $500K, the couple doesn't have it.
They chose to sail off the coast of Somalia and paid the price.
Poor decisions are not limited to the young.
Lew
"Leon" wrote:
> Lets do it with out a motor so that we will be at the mercy of the
> sea.
-----------------------------------------
Clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the endeveaor.
An engine (motor) on a sail boat is about as useful as a set if tits
on a boar hog.
Other than recharging batteries, it has limited use.
Lew
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:01:25 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:33:58 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dadiOH" wrote:
>>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>>> you a fur piece :)
>>---------------------------------------
>>200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
>>ballast?
>
>Diesel has a density about 70% of water. Negative ballast. ;-)
>
Nope, not negative ballast. If it is inside the hull, it is applying
downward force.
On Jan 17, 12:52=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:58:20 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 10:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:01:07 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Leon wrote:
> >> >>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >> >>>>> ---------------------------------
> >> >>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>
> >> >>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as mo=
tor
> >> >>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>
> >> >>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have=
an
> >> >>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
> >> >>>>> which are the sails.
>
> >> >>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deer=
e
> >> >>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
> >> >>>>> prime mover.
>
> >> >>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, =A0le=
ts
> >> >>>> see, =A0how would you put that,
>
> >> >>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sai=
l
> >> >>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
> >> >>>> on a boar hog.
>
> >> >>>> Does that sound about right?
>
> >> >>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. =A0Also nice o=
n
> >> >>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>
> >> >> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
> >> >> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
> >> >> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
> >> >> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
> >> >> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not muc=
h.
>
> >> >Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take y=
ou a
> >> >fur piece =A0:)
>
> >> There is a reason people use sail power for almost all
> >> circumnavigations. Where are you gonna put all this fuel?
>
> >> And, for a non-stop circumnavigation, you would need more like 2500
> >> gallons.
>
> >> Let's see... 2500 gallons at about 10 pounds a gallon...
>
> >> Hoist the Sails!
>
> >They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
> >into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
> >would it?
>
> Sailboat really doesn't need it. They have been circling the globe for
> hundreds of years without engines of any sort.
My bad...I forgot my smily. (It would make sails a bit redundant if
one had a nuclear powerboat, no? :-))
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:58:20 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
>into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
>would it?
Wouldn't that be cool?
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:58:20 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 10:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:01:07 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Leon wrote:
>> >>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>> ---------------------------------
>> >>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>>
>> >>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>> >>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>
>> >>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>> >>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>> >>>>> which are the sails.
>>
>> >>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>> >>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>> >>>>> prime mover.
>>
>> >>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
>> >>>> see, how would you put that,
>>
>> >>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
>> >>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
>> >>>> on a boar hog.
>>
>> >>>> Does that sound about right?
>>
>> >>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on
>> >>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>>
>> >> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
>> >> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
>> >> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
>> >> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
>> >> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
>>
>> >Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take you a
>> >fur piece :)
>>
>> There is a reason people use sail power for almost all
>> circumnavigations. Where are you gonna put all this fuel?
>>
>> And, for a non-stop circumnavigation, you would need more like 2500
>> gallons.
>>
>> Let's see... 2500 gallons at about 10 pounds a gallon...
>>
>> Hoist the Sails!
>
>They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
>into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
>would it?
RTGs are pretty heavy for the energy produced. A hundred watts
(1/5HP), isn't going to move a sailboat very fast.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:58:20 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 10:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:01:07 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Leon wrote:
>> >>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>> ---------------------------------
>> >>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>>
>> >>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>> >>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>
>> >>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>> >>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>> >>>>> which are the sails.
>>
>> >>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>> >>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>> >>>>> prime mover.
>>
>> >>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
>> >>>> see, how would you put that,
>>
>> >>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
>> >>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
>> >>>> on a boar hog.
>>
>> >>>> Does that sound about right?
>>
>> >>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on
>> >>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>>
>> >> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
>> >> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
>> >> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
>> >> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
>> >> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
>>
>> >Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take you a
>> >fur piece :)
>>
>> There is a reason people use sail power for almost all
>> circumnavigations. Where are you gonna put all this fuel?
>>
>> And, for a non-stop circumnavigation, you would need more like 2500
>> gallons.
>>
>> Let's see... 2500 gallons at about 10 pounds a gallon...
>>
>> Hoist the Sails!
>
>They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
>into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
>would it?
Sailboat really doesn't need it. They have been circling the globe for
hundreds of years without engines of any sort.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dadiOH wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> As for "systems failing
>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an
>>> effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>
>> And winches,
>
> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>
>> stays,
>
> Just ropes.
>
>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>
> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>
>> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>>
>> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
>> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do as
>> well as they do.
>
> Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for their
> failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them. If it was really so
> complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how would
> being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
You can find an way to remedy for most anything... That is what a sailor
does...
In rough seas you slip and fall, break both arms.... now what? Not a far
reach of what could happen.
A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
one with longer life experiences.
She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of how her
life would change should any harm come to her.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:21:23 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible.
>>>>> Suppose a hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a
>>>>> ball with her....literally, that is my problem..
>>>>
>>>> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
>>>> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
>>>> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
>>>
>>>
>>> The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
>>
>> How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how
>> old
>> do you consider to be "old enough"? Hillary Clinton has a mighty
>> shitload
>> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat and
>> some gang of pirates decided to rape her exactly how would she use that
>> experience to protect herself?
>
>She'd cut their nuts off!
That fits with a joke I received via email on Friday:
--snip--
While trying to escape through Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden found a
bottle on the sand and picked it up.
Suddenly, a female genie rose from the bottle and with a smile said,
"Master, may I grant you one wish?"
Osama responded,"You ignorant, unworthy daughter-of-a-dog! Don't you
know who I am? I don't need any common woman giving me anything."
The shocked genie said, "Please, I must grant you a wish or I will be
returned to that bottle forever."
Osama thought a moment, then grumbled about the impertinence of the
woman and said,"Very well, I want to awaken with three American women
in my bed in the morning. So just do it and be off with you.
"The annoyed genie said, "So be it!" and disappeared.
The next morning Bin Laden woke up in bed with Lorena Bobbitt, Tonya
Harding, and Nancy Pelosi at his side.
His penis was gone, his knees were broken, and he had no health
insurance.
--snip--
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Jan 15, 9:57=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> As for "systems failing
> >> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an
> >> effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
> >> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>
> > And winches,
>
> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>
> > stays,
>
> Just ropes.
>
Actually, only a few of the "ropes" on a boat are called ropes.
Ropes or wires that hold up masts are collectively known as standing
rigging and are called shrouds or stays (the stay connecting the top
of the mast to the bow is called the forestay or headstay).
Ropes or wires that control the sails are known collectively as
running rigging. Those that raise and lower sails are called halyards.
Ropes that adjust (trim) the sails are called sheets. These are often
referred to using the name of the sail they control (eg. "main sheet",
or "jib sheet").
Ropes used to tie the boat up when alongside are called docklines.
There are some ropes: A few examples, the bell rope (to ring the
bell), a bolt rope (attached to the edge of a sail for extra
strength), a foot rope (on old square riggers for the sailors to stand
on while reefing or furling the sails), and a tiller rope (to
temporarily hold the tiller and keep the boat on course).
[email protected] wrote:
>
> This is a girl that can't even legally drive a car without an adult in
> it.
>
> (Yeah I know, I am waiting for the farm boys to chime in and tell us
> they started driving on their grandpa's lap at 4 yrs. old.... save
> it.)
OK then, I piloted an airplane at 12. I was under age to sign a contract
myself when I bought my first house, but I did buy one. It was not easy
because most realtors did not want to talk to be.
I'm not about to set off around the world in a boat, but that does not mean
the 16 yo is not qualified. I don't know here or her experience so I'm not
going to say if she should or not. Yes, it certainly has a lot of risk. I
just don't see that any of us here can make the assessment as we don't know
her, and her abilities, at all.
>
> I don't care how much it is, but the claim that "gotten a good deal of
> relevant experience" doesn't include being pursued by pirates/rapers/
> muderers, handling her boat when the systems fail in a storm, say in
> "sailor's graveyard", etc.
Just like going to the mall some days.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:41:55 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:07:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>The question is irrelevant. We aren't talking about choice of companions
>>for a trip, we're talking about how much experience one should have before
>>undertaking the trip at all.
>
>And as usual, you tap dance (very poorly I might add) around the fact
>that age always gives one experience. A teenager is not fully grown,
>not fully mature and simply enough, not as experienced as she or he
>might be with a few years of adulthood under their belt. Besides
>practical experience which you seem to be focused on, there's
>emotional and life experience. Both these things contribute to the
>practical decisions that are made. There's your problem and what you
>are failing to admit.
So what are your qualifications for persons considering
circumnavigation, Uppy? I'd like to hear them.
It doesn't seem that anyone has them, listening to you 3 naysayers.
I'm an AGWK skeptic, you three are circumnavigation skeptics. Small
world. ;)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:07:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>The question is irrelevant. We aren't talking about choice of companions
>for a trip, we're talking about how much experience one should have before
>undertaking the trip at all.
And as usual, you tap dance (very poorly I might add) around the fact
that age always gives one experience. A teenager is not fully grown,
not fully mature and simply enough, not as experienced as she or he
might be with a few years of adulthood under their belt. Besides
practical experience which you seem to be focused on, there's
emotional and life experience. Both these things contribute to the
practical decisions that are made. There's your problem and what you
are failing to admit.
*That's* what you're refusing to acknowledge and it's exactly that
fact that shoots down any premise that you can offer for this girl to
be fully competent on this lark of a voyage.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:57:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
>>> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
>>> You haven't met either one of them before.
>>>
>>> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
>>> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>>>
>>> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
>>> your reasoning for that choice.
>>
>> I'd flip a coin. What the one person has done in five years may be
>> far superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip
>> for 20 years. The more years experience "usually" translates into
>> being better equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and
>> agility work better than wisdom and creaky joints. Too many
>> variables here to pick a clear advantage.
>
>I know one thing. If I had to choose a companion for circumnavigation I'd
>take Abby Sunderland or Jessica Watson over Leon any day. And I'd take
>Abby's 18 year old brother over _anybody_ on this newsgroup.
>
I have logged more ocean miles in sailboats than Abby's brother. A lot
more.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:57:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>I know one thing. If I had to choose a companion for circumnavigation I'd
>take Abby Sunderland or Jessica Watson over Leon any day. And I'd take
>Abby's 18 year old brother over _anybody_ on this newsgroup.
I suspect we'd all appreciate it if you actually went on such a trip.
Oh, and make it as soon as possible will you?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>
>> You can even climb Mt Everest today with a little experience and
>> $60,000.
>
>You definitely WILL NOT sail around the world for $60,000.
>
>The toughest part is not the sailing, but getting the sponsors.
>
>Having talked to a couple of people who have done it, sponsorship is
>the biggest hurdle.
>
>Lew
>
A buddy of mine circumnavigated in a 27 foot boat. Took him four
years. He wasn't in a big hurry. It wasn't a cheap 4 years, even
though he did it on a tight budget. That's a lot of wear and tear on
the boat, and of course you also have to eat, and pay all sorts of
"fees" anywhere you land. He didn't have any sponsors to speak of. One
factor is that once you circumnavigate, you can make money doing
appearances and lectures. You can also write magazine articles. My
friend is also an artist, and he painted all during the voyage. His
paintings now go for much higher prices than before he
circumnavigated.
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
> that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
> sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
> settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
> stuff here.
From CBC Radio's "As It Happens" last night:
<http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20100115.shtml>
SC/MUSIC: MONTEGRO HIPPO
Duration: 00:04:11
DA:: MONTENEGRO HIPPO
CH
JAN. 15/10
CH:
One of the most prominent residents of Plavnica, Montenegro is at
large. Extremely large.
Montenegro is one of several countries in southeastern Europe currently
experiencing flooding. Dozens of homes there have been evacuated. And
while that's a problem for most of those who've been forced to leave
their living quarters, one immigrant to the country is finally in her
element. While Montenegrins are cooped up by the heavy rains, Nikica is
lumbering free.
Nikica is an eleven-year-old hippopotamus. When flooding hit the zoo,
she was able to swim right out of her cage. And for the past few days,
she's been wandering around Plavnica at will -- followed, at a
distance, by two security guys from the zoo. And Plavnicans have
welcomed her -- or, at least, felt sufficiently nervous about her to
placate her with stale bread and hay.
According to the zoo's owner, Dragan Pejovic, the townsfolk have
nothing to worry about. "Nikica does not represent a threat to anyone,"
he said, "unless someone attacks and kicks her." But that is not
entirely true. The evacuation of Nikica's cage is one thing -- but when
Nikica herself evacuates, it can be dangerous.
The thing about hippos is that they're not neat when it comes to
excretion. They like to mark as much territory in one go as possible.
So when they rid themselves of waste, they spin their tails around,
which has the efficient effect of distributing whatever's coming out of
them in all directions. There's an expression about fans that I think
would be appropriate, but I can't remember it.
Regardless of the tail-spinning, the situation is far from a tailspin.
When the water recedes, zoo officials figure Nikica will just head
home. According to one zookeeper, "she loves mud more than life
itself." Of course, she might just find that she loves freedom more
than mud. Given that Nikica weighs about fifteen hundred kilograms, and
can backfire catastrophically at any time, I'm guessing what happens
next is up to her.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What I was saying is that kids grow up/mature a whole lot earlier
> today than they did when we were kids. Many are _much_ more mature.
> You can accept that or not.
So a couple of years more mature/grown up does not make them wise.
>
>
>>(BTW - you would think I am a genius using those parameters! Well...
>>not so much any more, but 25 - 30 years ago you would have been
>>impressed.)
>
> Robert, had her parents not seen that she showed extraordinary
> maturity, she wouldn't have been allowed to go. End of story.
> <shrug>
LOL... Now what parents don't think that their child is the smartest,
prettiest, bla bla. Her parent may be idiots compared to her. She the
child may very well rule the roost as many teenagers do.
On 1/15/2010 9:13 AM, Leon wrote:
> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
> one with longer life experiences.
Yeah, just watch as a teenage girl goes by, sitting with left leg up on
the car seat, texting with one hand, while doing 70mph, all the while 5'
from the bumper of the car in front of her, then tell me how much
"potential danger" the majority of them understand.
If you drive anywhere other than the grocery store and maintain you
haven't seen this ubiquitous phenomenon with young female drivers, then
+you+ damn sure aren't paying enough attention while driving either ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:09:21 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 1/15/2010 11:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>>
>>
>>> A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
>>
>> Indeed!
>
>Well ... actually, that's not counting all the damn weight you can gain
>in 19 years by quitting smoking. :(
I put on 10 or 15 pretty quick, but that's all that usually happens.
Some of that was muscle, too, as I got healther and was up and out
more. But quitting smoking doesn't mean that weight continues to
build, that's just old age catching up with your declining activity.
I'm 30+ pounds now above my high school weight, 39 years later, but I
was a swimmer in high school. (2nd place, JV letter, breast stroke.)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Jan 15, 11:24=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 15, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
> > of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat =
and
> > some gang of pirates decided to rape her
>
> That would NEVER, NEVER happen...NEVER!
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Unless one of the pirates was Janet Reno...
>
OOOOOOooooooooooo Janet with a strap-on....kinkeeeeeee
.
.
.
.
You are a sick man, Mr. Marlow. May I kiss your ring?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Sunderlands,
> who know a mighty shitload more about teenaged circumnavigation than you
> are
> ever going to know, disagree with you.
>
Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
stuff here.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:01:07 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>>>>> which are the sails.
>>>>>
>>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>>>>> prime mover.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
>>>> see, how would you put that,
>>>>
>>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
>>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
>>>> on a boar hog.
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound about right?
>>>
>>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on
>>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>>
>> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
>> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
>> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
>> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
>> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
>
>Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take you a
>fur piece :)
There is a reason people use sail power for almost all
circumnavigations. Where are you gonna put all this fuel?
And, for a non-stop circumnavigation, you would need more like 2500
gallons.
Let's see... 2500 gallons at about 10 pounds a gallon...
Hoist the Sails!
On Jan 15, 6:05=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> These modern day pirates are after big settlements from insurance
> companies.
> I suppose that if the opportunity presented itself, they might hold
> her for ransom, but they want container ships and tankers.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Actually, a British couple, experienced sailors, deep into their 50s,
> who basically sold the house and bought a boat to go cruising, are
> being held for ransom right now in Somalia.
>
> The pirates are demanding $500K, the couple doesn't have it.
>
> They chose to sail off the coast of Somalia and paid the price.
>
> Poor decisions are not limited to the young.
>
> Lew
I am aware of that case and they were fools to go that deep into
pirate territory.
Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ---------------------------------
>> Different horses for different courses.
>>
>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>
>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>> which are the sails.
>>
>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>> prime mover.
>
>
> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
> see, how would you put that,
>
> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
> on a boar hog.
>
> Does that sound about right?
Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on those days
when there *is* no wind.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:26:19 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
someone said:
>>>As records for 'The Youngest' keep being challenged, at some point in
>>>the future it will have to be a 6-year old who sets sail.
and I said:
>> And it'll be featured on the "Who Wants To Be a Masochist?" TV show!
>>
>> (Next month will mark my 3rd happy year without the boob tube and my
>> 22nd without cigs.)
>
>Well Done!! May 1st I'm four years off cigarettes.
Congrats in advance. (I know you won't be wanting to smell like a
dirty ashtray to everyone you meet in the next few months, so you'll
stay ciggy-free.)
I quit when it cost less for a carton than it does for a single pack
today. Today's ex-smokers can purchase major power tools or truckloads
of wood for the annual price of their habit, so they benefit even
more than I did. (bringing the drift back on topic, just to annoy)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Jan 14, 11:50=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 5:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>
> > Apparently not.
>
> Just another example of what would otherwise be a noble adventure of
> personal achievement in the privacy of the open ocean, cheapened by the
> blogging, hype, and orchestrated media involvement into nothing more
> than a publicity stunt for milking "pop culture" of the perceived
> rewards of '15 minutes of fame' ... barely half a peg higher than the
> balloon boy's.
>
This.
On Jan 17, 10:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:01:07 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Leon wrote:
> >>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> ---------------------------------
> >>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>
> >>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
> >>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>
> >>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
> >>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
> >>>>> which are the sails.
>
> >>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
> >>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
> >>>>> prime mover.
>
> >>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, =A0lets
> >>>> see, =A0how would you put that,
>
> >>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
> >>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
> >>>> on a boar hog.
>
> >>>> Does that sound about right?
>
> >>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. =A0Also nice on
> >>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>
> >> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
> >> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
> >> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
> >> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
> >> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
>
> >Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take you =
a
> >fur piece =A0:)
>
> There is a reason people use sail power for almost all
> circumnavigations. Where are you gonna put all this fuel?
>
> And, for a non-stop circumnavigation, you would need more like 2500
> gallons.
>
> Let's see... 2500 gallons at about 10 pounds a gallon...
>
> Hoist the Sails!
They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
would it?
On Jan 15, 1:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I live in a city where the streets are made of
> chocolate, we grow candy canes in our front yards, no one ever ages
> past 30, and when it feels like the sun is shining, it is actually
> just a warm group feeling of good will that spreads over the
> neighborhood in a blanket of comfort and security.
>
*I* happen to know that South Texas is too hot for chocolate streets.
I think you are pulling our legs.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> In rough seas you slip and fall, break both arms.... now what? Not
>> a far reach of what could happen.
>
> And how does being `18 or 28 or 180 make a difference when that happens?
What? Were we talking about 28 or 180 yearold people sailing? You are
changing the subject.
>
>> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as
>> developed as one with longer life experiences.
>
> Neither is a 40 year old's. So what?
Do you have kids? If you do,, did they always make their own decisions with
out any of your input?
Did you "ever" veto their decisions? Why?
>
>> She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of
>> how her life would change should any harm come to her.
>
I see. So how old would that be?
Answer this. Would you rather you or your child go into a dangerous
situation.
And what is so special about sailing that
> she shouldn't be allowed to do that while she is allowed to cross the
> street
> and risk getting hit by a drunk driver?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 16 year old sailing. Did I say
that a 16 year old sailing was a problem or was that you changing the
landscape of the situation. It's the months on end around the world that
adds the element of danger.
And if you cannot see the point.... it further clairifies your mentality.
Crossing the street only takes seconds of your time to pay close enogh
attention to what you are doing. Sailing alone around the world require
continuious attention. A better example to compair to would be to have
your 16 year old daughter walk alone in a seedy part of town late at night,
every night, for several months.
On Jan 14, 10:41 pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> With driver training, many states allow that. consider that many girls
> her age are also having sex and smoking for years. Kids grow up far
> earlier these days in the constantly-connected age.
Your comments make me feel really disconnected to the group society.
I had no idea that driving with a supervising adult in the car was an
indication of maturity.
If you further think that screwing, smoking and texting are any sign
of maturity, development of good judgment, I will have to confess I
don't get that at all. Those are things monkeys can do. I never
equated hedonistic pleasure to maturity, but it isn't up to me to set
standards for you.
(BTW - you would think I am a genius using those parameters! Well...
not so much any more, but 25 - 30 years ago you would have been
impressed.)
> Have you ever heard of a girl being raped, drowning, or getting
> crushed in a car wreck in the same neighborhood you live? Live is
> dangerous _everywhere_, Robert. Acknowledge it!
Why no, Larry. I live in a city where the streets are made of
chocolate, we grow candy canes in our front yards, no one ever ages
past 30, and when it feels like the sun is shining, it is actually
just a warm group feeling of good will that spreads over the
neighborhood in a blanket of comfort and security.
Your hyperbole is dismissive and stupid.
I see you don't understand the difference between being in harm's way,
or putting yourself in harm's way.
Sometimes these threads have a way of sorting themselves out. And
when I see an arrogant scolding from someone that comes off as a
sanctimonious, proselytizing know-it-all that doesn't even know me, I
know it is indeed time to move on.
Continue the chest thumping.
Robert
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>
I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
insisting in staying this loop.
See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:48 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for "systems failing
>>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an
>>>> effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>>
>>> And winches,
>>
>> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>>
>>> stays,
>>
>> Just ropes.
>>
>>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>>
>> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>>
>>> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
>>> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do as
>>> well as they do.
>>
>> Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for their
>> failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them. If it was really so
>> complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how would
>> being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
>
>You can find an way to remedy for most anything... That is what a sailor
>does...
>
>In rough seas you slip and fall, break both arms.... now what? Not a far
>reach of what could happen.
It that happened to anyone, they might die, regardless of gender or
age. Or they might figure out how to open the bags of tuna and eat
them off the floor. YMMV. (There's an idea for stocking your BOB,
huh?)
>A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
>one with longer life experiences.
True, but knowledge doesn't necessarily mean the older person will
know WTF to do when something strange happens. A crafty young person
might well do better than a sedate old fart.
>She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of how her
>life would change should any harm come to her.
Tell ya what: You do that with your kid and let these fine folks raise
their own the way they (and she) see fit. Deal? Good. ;)
Your opinion is noted. Their opinion is being acted upon. It's now a
moot point, wot?
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:43:25 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> No kidding.
>>
>> It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
>> believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
>> them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding
>> armies
>> at that age. This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
>> out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
>> gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
>> equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
>> _problem_?
>
>
>Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible. Suppose a
>hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a ball with
>her....literally, that is my problem..
How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:09:17 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:15:23 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not
>>>>>"spotty".
>>>>
>>>> Through thick clouds? <g>
>>>
>>>Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
>>
>> I bow to your considerably deeper experience with it.
>
>Turns out it wasn't so deep ... :(
Yeah, we all had entirely different versions of sats in mind. Hmm, was
any of us right? (one implied)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:17:30 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 12:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 12:00 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Leon wrote:
>> >> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
>> >> >> insisting in staying this loop.
>>
>> >> >> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>>
>> >> > Better yet look at upscales response.
>>
>> >> I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I don't
>> >> see anything from upscale either.
>>
>> >This from a guy who thinks he can 20 knots out of a 40-foot
>> >displacement hull.
>>
>> It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
>> which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
>> they have hit 25 knots.
>>
>> Of course, this involves surfing! They are still competitive in the
>> TransPac.
>
>You mean planing.... I was talking about a displacement hull, like
>Jessica's
The Cal 40 IS a displacement hull.
On 1/15/2010 6:33 PM, Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> Lets do it with out a motor so that we will be at the mercy of the sea.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the endeveaor.
>
> Did you think I was describing a sailboat with a motor? I simply said a
> boat without a motor, referring to using a sailboat vs. a boat that uses a
> motor for all travel between point A to point B
>
>> An engine (motor) on a sail boat is about as useful as a set if tits on a
>> boar hog.
>
> I'll take your word for it but that was not what I was refering to.
It's not the whole truth in any event. What he's not telling you is that
many sailboats have auxiliary power, particularly the larger ones, but
not limited to just size as many smaller ones do also. I worked on a two
masted schooner out of Port Moresby, PNG (back when PNG was under
Australian rule) that we used exclusively as a supply boat for the rest
of our four boat fleet, and it ran under sail and diesel engine.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 1/17/2010 6:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 17, 7:30 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1/17/2010 6:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement of
>>> the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
>>> Really!!
>>
>> Use 40 tons of feathers instead, and it would fly ... Really!! ;)
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> We ALL know that 40 tons of feathers is lighter than 40 tons of cork.
> And, in the case of a 30 ton boat, it will leave a 10 ton hole in the
> water. It will. Really!
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Now... horseshit is heavier, so Lew's argument doesn't hold water...
> certainly not 10 tons of it.
Hey, until this thread who'd thunk there was such a tight relationship
between sailors and horseshit ... apparently damn near inseparable. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
-------------------------------------------
>> You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement
>> of
>> the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
>> Really!!
===============================
> Use 40 tons of feathers instead, and it would fly ... Really!! ;)
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
What about horse shit?
Lew
On Jan 17, 4:50=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:34:17 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:48:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:01:25 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:33:58 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>"dadiOH" wrote:
> >>>>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
> >>>>> you a fur piece =A0:)
> >>>>---------------------------------------
> >>>>200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
> >>>>ballast?
>
> >>>Diesel has a density about 70% of water. =A0Negative ballast. =A0;-)
>
> >>Nope, not negative ballast. If it is inside the hull, it is applying
> >>downward force.
>
> >It's less weight than the displaced water. =A0It has a net buoyancy. =A0=
It
> >will change the COG, though.
>
> You are confused. The water displaced by the weight of the fuel is
> equal to the weight of the fuel. When the fuel is inside the hull, it
> has no "net buoyancy". Your body is buoyant when floating in the
> water. Now take that body of yours and place it in a 6 foot dinghy.
> The boat will be riding lower in the water. If your buddy gets in the
> boat with you, it rides even lower. Three guys, and the boat may
> swamp. Where is this "net buoyancy"?
You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement of
the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
Really!!
On 1/17/2010 6:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement of
> the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
> Really!!
Use 40 tons of feathers instead, and it would fly ... Really!! ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Jan 17, 7:30=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/17/2010 6:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement of
> > the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
> > Really!!
>
> Use 40 tons of feathers instead, and it would fly ... Really!! =A0;)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
We ALL know that 40 tons of feathers is lighter than 40 tons of cork.
And, in the case of a 30 ton boat, it will leave a 10 ton hole in the
water. It will. Really!
.
.
.
.
.
Now... horseshit is heavier, so Lew's argument doesn't hold water...
certainly not 10 tons of it.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:34:17 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:48:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:01:25 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:33:58 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"dadiOH" wrote:
>>>>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>>>>> you a fur piece :)
>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
>>>>ballast?
>>>
>>>Diesel has a density about 70% of water. Negative ballast. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>Nope, not negative ballast. If it is inside the hull, it is applying
>>downward force.
>
>It's less weight than the displaced water. It has a net buoyancy. It
>will change the COG, though.
You are confused. The water displaced by the weight of the fuel is
equal to the weight of the fuel. When the fuel is inside the hull, it
has no "net buoyancy". Your body is buoyant when floating in the
water. Now take that body of yours and place it in a 6 foot dinghy.
The boat will be riding lower in the water. If your buddy gets in the
boat with you, it rides even lower. Three guys, and the boat may
swamp. Where is this "net buoyancy"?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -------------------------------------------
>>> You load up a boat with 40 tons of cork, and the net displacement of
>>> the boat is 30 tons....the thing will float away into the air!!
>>> Really!!
> ===============================
>> Use 40 tons of feathers instead, and it would fly ... Really!! ;)
> ``````````````````````````````````````````````````
> What about horse shit?
Depends on how many flies it attracts ...
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:35:45 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 1/17/2010 9:58 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
>>> into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
>>> would it?
>>
>> Just outside the harbor at Gustavia in Saint Barts I saw a 15m catamaran
>> (demasted) and being decked over completely with solar panels. I've
>> wondered ever since how well that worked out...
>
>What would salt spray and evaporation do to the panels?
Salt spray will make them salt encrusted. You need to rinse them off
regularly. Even a rinse with salt water (if that's all you have
available) will help.
On Jan 15, 12:00=A0pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:56:14 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> >> I don't see what age has to do with having experience being chased
> >> by
> >> pirates. =A0As for being chased by rapers and murderers, one is far
> >> more
> >> likely to be chased by rapers and murderers on the way to high
> >> school than
> >> in the middle of the ocean, but if she was 21 or 31 or 41 or 101 she
> >> still
> >> wouldn't have any relevant experience in being chased by such unless
> >> she had
> >> phenomenally bad luck.
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >The whole pirate thing is a little overblown.
>
> >If you bother to read her proposed sail plan, this will be a nonstop,
> >fast as possible given prudent safety issues such as avoiding ice
> >bergs.
>
> >(The closer you sail to Antarctica, the shorter the trip, but the
> >higher the risk.)
>
> >That route will put her a long way from known piracy activities.
>
> Posting a proposed route also gives pirates her location, potentially
> negating that safety margin. :/
>
These modern day pirates are after big settlements from insurance
companies.
I suppose that if the opportunity presented itself, they might hold
her for ransom, but they want container ships and tankers.
Imagine...
A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
"because it was there" horse crap.)
I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
"For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
Apparently not.
Robert
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> The balloon boy's
> parents showed that they are. What's the final bill presented to
> that
> idiot? Or did they just jail him. I don't watch TV so I didn't see
>> how it ended. <sigh>
-------------------------------------
Jail + probation time for BOTH husband and wife as well as a $50K
civil assessment to cover SAR expenses.
BTW, no TV, there is always NPR.
Lew
Per her 02/06/10 blog, she is outbound from Cabo after some serious
electrical repairs along with some tankage issues.
Solved electrical short in mast problem.
Added battery capacity to 885 AH which more than doubles battery
capacity.
IMHO, should have been that much in the first place.
Added 70 gallons of diesel to 130 gallons to supply engine to drive
alternator.
I guess this is still classed as a sail boat.
To reduce drive belt wear, chose to derate alternator output rather
than replace single belt drive with dual belt drive required to truly
get full output on a sustained basis.
There is still no windvane steering, even as a backup, on this boat.
Bottom line....................................................
This is a boat full of electrical toys dependant on keeping an engine
system operative to regenerate DC power without any real backup
system.
If she loses the engine, will she be forced to hand steer?
The rather modest solar panels and dual wind mills MAY BE able to
supply enough power for the autopilot, but probably not much more.
I bid her well, but I have this feeling in my
gut.......................
Time will tell.
Lew
--------------------------------------
Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.
>
> Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than
> she can generate.
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:18:50 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Posted 04/24/2010
>
>Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
>----------------------------------------------
>So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>
>Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>
>Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO,
>not sea going blue water sailboats.
>
>Details available at:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
I'll bet the guys at Coursemaster are shitting themselves over the
global negative advertising their autopilots are getting.
--
...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should
not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Per her 02/16/10 blog
=============================
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Skype and Wind!
Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun. But
today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of the
best I've had in awhile!
-----------------------------------.
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:07:50 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Posted 04/24/2010
>>
>> Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>>
>> Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>>
>> Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO, not
>> sea going blue water sailboats.
>>
>> Details available at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>
>Not to take away from her accomplishments, but without autopilot she would
>not be able to do this sort of trip. Nor would most of us.
For this type of sailing, a windvane would be far more appropriate.
Autopilots are fine for coastal cruising, not long passages and
circumnavigations.
"tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:89fa04a9-0f9d-46e8-93bc-967868bc13b6@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 4:38 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>> =============================
>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>> Skype and Wind!
>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun. But
>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>> the
>> best I've had in awhile!
>>
>> -----------------------------------.
>
> Guess she'll have to return to Cabo San Lucas to acheive her record,
> then up to Cali to go home. Good luck to her. Tom
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if they can just get too her in time?
>>>
>>> But - Big YEA!
>>
>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
>> for the rescue efforts now?
>
> Good question. Not like climbing Mt. Rainier.
The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.
Looks like the "rescue" is getting "paid for" after all. :)
--
Richard Lamb
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>
>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>
> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
Define "forbidden area". Define "A *lot*"
> Almost all
> the high cost rescues are caused by such stunts.
Bull. Provide proof.
> Enough that some
> states *are* sending bills to the people (or their estates). How
> they got there is irrelevant.
>
Big deal - you haven't figured out that states are contriving all sorts of
new ways to simply get into your pocket? The fact that states are doing
anything at all to take your money is no proof of any argument short of the
greed of the states.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part of
>>> the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>> taxes to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of
>>> the helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered
>>> by ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>
>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>
>>>
>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>> jumping out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>
>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>
>> Define "forbidden area".
>
> Off designated slopes.
Not a skier - does being off designated slopes mean that skiing there is
forbidden, or something else. The word forbidden implies to me something
similar to illegal.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" wrote:
> There's a hell of a difference between a boatload of fishermen who
> are
> out there on a regular basis earning a living and a single teenager
> trying to get her five minutes of fame.
----------------------------------------
The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
"Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
most challenging sailing task does.
Having been a yacht delivery captain at the age of 13, she has already
achieved serious positive recognition within the sailing community.
Lew
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:13:35 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>
>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>
>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Mike-
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
>> country during the year.
>
>Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
>rescue last year?
Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass, but any
other stunters shouldn't. Got it.
On Jun 14, 9:25=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Andrew Barss wrote:
> >>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>
> >>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
> >>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>
> >>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
> >>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
> >>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>
> >>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>
> >> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
> >> that matter?
>
> > Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
> > Family comes to mind.
>
> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? =A0I thought he did it for Air Force
> flight pay.
Actually, Abby was developing weapon systems for the US Air Force,
just like Chuck.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:59:24 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6/14/2010 11:38 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
>> ----------------------------------------
>> SFWIW, the link below is to Latitude 38, a well respected sailing rag
>> here on the left coast.
>>
>> Looks like the story may have some legs.
>>
>> http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
>
>If true, this explains much. Wonder how much the manufacturers of all
>the electronic crap that went bust paid her to use it? Probably
>couldn't get a sponsorship from a windvane manufacturer.
>
>Hmm--running backstay, electronic steering, now a picture is beginning
>to form. A windvane doesn't keep you on a course, it keeps you at a
>given angle to the wind. I presume that the modern electronic thingies
>can do the same but can also be set to hold a course. If she did that
>and went to sleep and the wind shifted, bye bye mast. And even if she's
>as sharp as Chichester, it's the kind of mistake a tired person makes.
>
>Of course, relying on self-steering in heavy weather isn't all that wise
>anyway--a masthead vane is moving around a lot in ways that will make it
>give false readings, and a conventional windvane is low enough that it
>gets blanketed by waves.
>
>Running backstays have always made me nervous, just as a concept. One
>more thing to go wrong. Wasn't aware of that "feature".
>
Oh, dear, LORD! It might help enormously if you had some idea of what
"Wind Vane self-steering" involves!
Oh, and we already know she was wide awake when the mast came down.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>
>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>
>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>
>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>
>>
>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What
>> does that matter?
>
>
> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
> Family comes to mind.
Not so evident. They planned on taking advantage of currently available
resources and capabilities, should they need to - just as any sailor would.
What we have no knowledge of at this point, is whether they will be
presented with a bill, and whether they will pay that bill. Yeah - they
walked on a thinner line than most of us would, but that does not define a
lack of personal responsibility.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:18:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>
>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>> come on, half a cent?
>
>I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole penny
>for me.
I think everyone on the planet should send me a half cent. BTW, that's only
$30M, give or take, which is hardly enough to cover a rescue after every lame
stunt ever tried.
[email protected] wrote:
> Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
> but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.
I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>
>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>> most challenging sailing task does.
>
> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>
> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>
DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does that
matter?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:57:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
>footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
>Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
>circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
>Not even teenaged ones.
As usual, you conveniently forget to comment on some of the more
important factors, such as why is the person or people out there.
There's a hell of a difference between a boatload of fishermen who are
out there on a regular basis earning a living and a single teenager
trying to get her five minutes of fame.
Doing what you need to do to gain a living is one thing. Frivolously
doing a round the world sale for notoriety is something else entirely.
'That seems to be a common theme with you ~ the clumping of everybody
into a common group and treating them similarly when there really is a
different reason and a different mind set motivating them. And that's
the crux of this topic isn't it? The motivation behind the action. You
like to dispense with that little fact.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Upscale" wrote:
>
>> There's a hell of a difference between a boatload of fishermen who are
>> out there on a regular basis earning a living and a single teenager
>> trying to get her five minutes of fame.
> ----------------------------------------
> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
And the Parents? They of the 'two family technical spokespersons'?
>
> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the most
> challenging sailing task does.
>
> Having been a yacht delivery captain at the age of 13, she has already
> achieved serious positive recognition within the sailing community.
But the WORLD, what about the WORLD?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> And the Parents? They of the 'two family technical spokespersons'?
> ------------------------
> Since they are, what's the point?
S T U N T
>
> --------------------------------
>> But the WORLD, what about the WORLD?
>
> Screw the WORLD.
>
> This is personal.
>
> Lew
>
>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>
> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>
>>
>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>
>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>
> Define "forbidden area".
Off designated slopes.
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>
>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>
>>>
>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>
>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>
>> Define "forbidden area".
>
> Off designated slopes.
So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
"designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
: The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
: "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
: most challenging sailing task does.
Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
was young enough to set a record?
She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
-- Andy Barss
On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> Lew Hodgett<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>
> : "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
> : most challenging sailing task does.
>
> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
> Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
> was young enough to set a record?
>
> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
circumnavigator?
Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
>> but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.
>
> I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
> sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
> that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
> would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
> would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
> others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.
You know, like Amelia Earhart except in a boat. Chas Lindbergh is
another stunter... History is abounding with crazies trying to break
records, be the first, or just push themselves to the limit.
Personally, I'd much rather spend a few pennies rescuing those that fall
short than to pay 1% sales tax to build the BILLIONAIRE Rooney's a
football stadium so Big Ben can chase 20 year olds around with his dick
swinging in the breeze, or some loser $50 just to count me in the census.
Now in my town, the county swimming pool had a high dive and 4 regular
diving boards, plus a metal slide in the baby pool. The pool is still
there, but not one diving board and no slide, in fact, I don't think any
public pools having diving boards or slides anymore... way too
dangerous... Life is so much better now, eh?
--
Jack
Take risks: If you win, you will be happy; if you lose, you will be wise
http://jbstein.com
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part of
>>>> the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>> taxes to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of
>>>> the helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered
>>>> by ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>
>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>> jumping out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>
>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>
>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>
>> Off designated slopes.
>
> Not a skier - does being off designated slopes mean that skiing there is
> forbidden, or something else. The word forbidden implies to me something
> similar to illegal.
It may well be illegal if Forest Service regs prohibit skiing in that area.
Usually it means you have a higher probability of getting lost, injured, or
killed and it will be the Last place searched for your remains.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>
>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>
>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>
>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>
>> Off designated slopes.
>
> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>
>
>
Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> : The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>
>> : "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>> : most challenging sailing task does.
>>
>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
>> Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
>> was young enough to set a record?
>>
>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>
> Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
> missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
> circumnavigator?
>
Yeah, but what had they done lately?
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>
>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>
>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>
>>> Off designated slopes.
>>
>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off designated
slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there were
officials going around designating slopes.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>
>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>
>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>
> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off designated
> slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there were
> officials going around designating slopes.
>
When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the woods?
Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good reasons.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>
>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>
>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>
>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>
>
> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
> that matter?
Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
Family comes to mind.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>
>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>
>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>
>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What
>>> does that matter?
>>
>>
>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
>> Family comes to mind.
>
> Not so evident. They planned on taking advantage of currently available
> resources and capabilities, should they need to - just as any sailor
> would. What we have no knowledge of at this point, is whether they will be
> presented with a bill, and whether they will pay that bill. Yeah - they
> walked on a thinner line than most of us would, but that does not define a
> lack of personal responsibility.
You either have it, or you don't. Their actions suggest the don't.
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>
>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>
>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>
>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there
>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>
>
> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good reasons.
What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it
is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I
have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other than
the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
between New York and Boston.
Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all over
"the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world it is
uncommon.
On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>
>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>
>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>
>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>
>>
>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
>> that matter?
>
>
> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
> Family comes to mind.
So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
flight pay.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>
>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there
>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>
>>
>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>> reasons.
>
> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it is
> rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I have
> ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other than the
> ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" are
> at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a Nike missile
> battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway between New York and
> Boston.
>
> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all over
> "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world it is
> uncommon.
>
You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it. The
USFS, and BLM Own the West.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>
>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>
>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>
>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
>>> that matter?
>>
>>
>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
>> Family comes to mind.
>
> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
> flight pay.
>
Chuck Yeager?? LAME!!
On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>>
>>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
>>>> that matter?
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
>>> Family comes to mind.
>>
>> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
>> flight pay.
>>
>
> Chuck Yeager?? LAME!!
Huh? What's LAME about a guy setting a record in a program so
classified that he didn't expect anybody to ever hear who did it?
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there.
>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>> people to
>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there
>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>> reasons.
>>
>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it
>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I
>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>> between New York and Boston.
>>
>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world
>> it is uncommon.
>>
>
> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it. The
> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are signs
all over it saying "designated off limits".
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
:> Lew Hodgett<[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> : The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
:>
:> : "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
:> : most challenging sailing task does.
:>
:> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
:> Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
:> was young enough to set a record?
:>
:> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
: Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
: missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
: circumnavigator?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/14/sailor-abby-sunderlands-dad-signed-reality-doomed-voyage/
It's fame they wanted. And their lil' darlin' up there on the telly.
-- Andy Barss
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there.
>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there
>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it
>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I
>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>
>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world
>>> it is uncommon.
>>>
>>
>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it. The
>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>
> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are signs
> all over it saying "designated off limits".
>
Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and cannot
do while getting there and when you arrive. The Federal government, for
example, controls all navigable waterways. In Oregon the state controls the
beaches where you can drive sometimes or never; walk your dog on a leash or
allow it off leash. The State of Oregon also controls what game you may hunt
and when. Corvids (crows and relatives) may not be hunted at all. The state
also controls what you may fish, when you may fish and sometimes the
allowable tackle. Much of the BLM land is leased for grazing to ranchers and
then is essentially private property. The USFS may close trails and other
facilities at will for maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires
are Prohibited outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will
but no S'mores.
And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the west.
I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar restrictions
applied in every state I have lived in or visited for recreation.
Perhaps you don't live in the US.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
>>>>> that matter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
>>>> Family comes to mind.
>>>
>>> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
>>> flight pay.
>>>
>>
>> Chuck Yeager?? LAME!!
>
> Huh? What's LAME about a guy setting a record in a program so classified
> that he didn't expect anybody to ever hear who did it?
>
>
No. You dragging Yeager in is Lame.
On 6/15/2010 8:19 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>>>>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does
>>>>>> that matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
>>>>> Family comes to mind.
>>>>
>>>> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
>>>> flight pay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck Yeager?? LAME!!
>>
>> Huh? What's LAME about a guy setting a record in a program so
>> classified that he didn't expect anybody to ever hear who did it?
>>
>>
>
> No. You dragging Yeager in is Lame.
So do you assert that he is a "fame seeker" or do you withdraw the
assertion that all people who seek to break records are fame seekers?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 8:19 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> most challenging sailing task does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
>>>>>>>> the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
>>>>>>>> sure she was young enough to set a record?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> that matter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The
>>>>>> Sunderland
>>>>>> Family comes to mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Chuck Yeager is a "fame seeker"? I thought he did it for Air Force
>>>>> flight pay.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Yeager?? LAME!!
>>>
>>> Huh? What's LAME about a guy setting a record in a program so
>>> classified that he didn't expect anybody to ever hear who did it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No. You dragging Yeager in is Lame.
>
> So do you assert that he is a "fame seeker" or do you withdraw the
> assertion that all people who seek to break records are fame seekers?
>
I don't think I said That. If I did, I was wrong.
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there.
>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>
>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it
>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I
>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world
>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it. The
>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>
>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>
>
> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs since
they are so commonplace.
> The Federal
> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
off limits".
> In Oregon the
> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
areas.
> walk
> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
> The State of Oregon also
> controls what game you may hunt and when.
Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of WALKING.
> Corvids (crows and relatives)
> may not be hunted at all.
Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
> The state also controls what you may fish,
> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
Which is again irrelevant to walking.
> Much of the BLM
> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
> property.
Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
> The USFS may close trails
Oh, I see. You need "trails".
> and other facilities
The discussion was not of "facilities".
> at will for
> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
> S'mores.
Which has nothing to do with walking.
> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
> recreation.
None of which have anything to do with walking.
> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not understand
that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make s'mores",
"enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the other crap
you've brought up.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the woods, it
>>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only signs I
>>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
>>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world
>>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it. The
>>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>>
>>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
>> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
>> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
>
> So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs since
> they are so commonplace.
>
>> The Federal
>> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
>
> Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated off
> limits".
>
>> In Oregon the
>> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
>
> Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
> that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
> areas.
>
>> walk
>> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
>
> And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
>
>> The State of Oregon also
>> controls what game you may hunt and when.
>
> Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
> WALKING.
>
>> Corvids (crows and relatives)
>> may not be hunted at all.
>
> Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
>
>> The state also controls what you may fish,
>> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
>
> Which is again irrelevant to walking.
>
>> Much of the BLM
>> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
>> property.
>
> Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
>
>> The USFS may close trails
>
> Oh, I see. You need "trails".
>
>> and other facilities
>
> The discussion was not of "facilities".
>
>> at will for
>> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
>> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
>> S'mores.
>
> Which has nothing to do with walking.
>
>> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
>> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
>> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
>> recreation.
>
> None of which have anything to do with walking.
>
>> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
>
> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not understand
> that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make s'mores", "enter
> facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the other crap you've
> brought up.
>
Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up. And
"designated off limits" is Your creation.
On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the
>>>>>> woods, it
>>>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only
>>>>>> signs I
>>>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be a
>>>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free world
>>>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it.
>>>>> The
>>>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>>>
>>>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>>>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
>>> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
>>> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
>>
>> So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs
>> since they are so commonplace.
>>
>>> The Federal
>>> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
>>
>> Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
>> off limits".
>>
>>> In Oregon the
>>> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
>>
>> Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
>> that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
>> areas.
>>
>>> walk
>>> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
>>
>> And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
>>
>>> The State of Oregon also
>>> controls what game you may hunt and when.
>>
>> Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
>> WALKING.
>>
>>> Corvids (crows and relatives)
>>> may not be hunted at all.
>>
>> Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
>>
>>> The state also controls what you may fish,
>>> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
>>
>> Which is again irrelevant to walking.
>>
>>> Much of the BLM
>>> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
>>> property.
>>
>> Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
>>
>>> The USFS may close trails
>>
>> Oh, I see. You need "trails".
>>
>>> and other facilities
>>
>> The discussion was not of "facilities".
>>
>>> at will for
>>> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
>>> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
>>> S'mores.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with walking.
>>
>>> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
>>> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
>>> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
>>> recreation.
>>
>> None of which have anything to do with walking.
>>
>>> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
>>
>> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not
>> understand that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make
>> s'mores", "enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the
>> other crap you've brought up.
>>
>
> Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up.
By you.
> And "designated off limits" is Your creation.
So you deny that you wrote:
"When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
reasons."
If you can't even keep track of your own argument then perhaps you
should pack it in.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the
>>>>>>> woods, it
>>>>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only
>>>>>>> signs I
>>>>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>>>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>>>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to be
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>>>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>>>>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
>>>> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
>>>> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
>>>
>>> So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs
>>> since they are so commonplace.
>>>
>>>> The Federal
>>>> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
>>>
>>> Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
>>> off limits".
>>>
>>>> In Oregon the
>>>> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
>>>
>>> Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
>>> that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
>>> areas.
>>>
>>>> walk
>>>> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
>>>
>>> And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
>>>
>>>> The State of Oregon also
>>>> controls what game you may hunt and when.
>>>
>>> Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
>>> WALKING.
>>>
>>>> Corvids (crows and relatives)
>>>> may not be hunted at all.
>>>
>>> Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
>>>
>>>> The state also controls what you may fish,
>>>> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
>>>
>>> Which is again irrelevant to walking.
>>>
>>>> Much of the BLM
>>>> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
>>>
>>>> The USFS may close trails
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. You need "trails".
>>>
>>>> and other facilities
>>>
>>> The discussion was not of "facilities".
>>>
>>>> at will for
>>>> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
>>>> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
>>>> S'mores.
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with walking.
>>>
>>>> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
>>>> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
>>>> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
>>>> recreation.
>>>
>>> None of which have anything to do with walking.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not
>>> understand that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make
>>> s'mores", "enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the
>>> other crap you've brought up.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up.
>
> By you.
Nope. By you. Fishing, taking pictures of trout, boating ....
>
>> And "designated off limits" is Your creation.
>
> So you deny that you wrote:
>
> "When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
> reasons."
Nope. But I didn't suggest there were "designated off limits" signs. "Trail
Closed" or "No Fishing" are a couple of specific examples. I wonder if
you've ever been in a National Forest.
>
> If you can't even keep track of your own argument then perhaps you should
> pack it in.
Perhaps you should. Unless, of course, you haven't exhausted your straw yet.
>
On 6/16/2010 2:29 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted is
>>>>>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ski are
>>>>>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>>>>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the
>>>>>>>> woods, it
>>>>>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only
>>>>>>>> signs I
>>>>>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
>>>>>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
>>>>>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>>>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
>>>>>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free
>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>>>>>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
>>>>> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
>>>>> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
>>>>
>>>> So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs
>>>> since they are so commonplace.
>>>>
>>>>> The Federal
>>>>> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
>>>>
>>>> Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
>>>> off limits".
>>>>
>>>>> In Oregon the
>>>>> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
>>>>
>>>> Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
>>>> that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
>>>> areas.
>>>>
>>>>> walk
>>>>> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
>>>>
>>>> And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
>>>>
>>>>> The State of Oregon also
>>>>> controls what game you may hunt and when.
>>>>
>>>> Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
>>>> WALKING.
>>>>
>>>>> Corvids (crows and relatives)
>>>>> may not be hunted at all.
>>>>
>>>> Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
>>>>
>>>>> The state also controls what you may fish,
>>>>> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
>>>>
>>>> Which is again irrelevant to walking.
>>>>
>>>>> Much of the BLM
>>>>> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
>>>>
>>>>> The USFS may close trails
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I see. You need "trails".
>>>>
>>>>> and other facilities
>>>>
>>>> The discussion was not of "facilities".
>>>>
>>>>> at will for
>>>>> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
>>>>> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
>>>>> S'mores.
>>>>
>>>> Which has nothing to do with walking.
>>>>
>>>>> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
>>>>> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
>>>>> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
>>>>> recreation.
>>>>
>>>> None of which have anything to do with walking.
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not
>>>> understand that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make
>>>> s'mores", "enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the
>>>> other crap you've brought up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up.
>>
>> By you.
>
> Nope. By you. Fishing, taking pictures of trout, boating ....
>>
>>> And "designated off limits" is Your creation.
>>
>> So you deny that you wrote:
>>
>> "When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>> reasons."
>
> Nope. But I didn't suggest there were "designated off limits" signs.
So how does one become aware that the area is "designated off limits"?
> "Trail Closed"
Which is fine if there's a trail. But I thought we were talking about
the woods, not some park.
> or "No Fishing"
And again you're bringing up FISHING.
> are a couple of specific examples. I
> wonder if you've ever been in a National Forest.
On numerous occasions. And I have never seen any sign that suggest that
one is not to enter a particular area other than the domiciles of the staff.
>> If you can't even keep track of your own argument then perhaps you
>> should pack it in.
>
> Perhaps you should. Unless, of course, you haven't exhausted your straw
> yet.
Nope, I'm not the one who is making statements and then accusing others
of making them up.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/16/2010 2:29 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ski are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
>>>>>>>>>>> designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> were officials going around designating slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn
>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the
>>>>>>>>> woods, it
>>>>>>>>> is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only
>>>>>>>>> signs I
>>>>>>>>> have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits"
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to
>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>> Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
>>>>>>>>> between New York and Boston.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>> it is uncommon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> USFS, and BLM Own the West.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
>>>>>>> signs all over it saying "designated off limits".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
>>>>>> Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
>>>>>> cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs
>>>>> since they are so commonplace.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal
>>>>>> government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
>>>>> off limits".
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Oregon the
>>>>>> state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
>>>>> that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
>>>>> areas.
>>>>>
>>>>>> walk
>>>>>> your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The State of Oregon also
>>>>>> controls what game you may hunt and when.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
>>>>> WALKING.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Corvids (crows and relatives)
>>>>>> may not be hunted at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The state also controls what you may fish,
>>>>>> when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is again irrelevant to walking.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of the BLM
>>>>>> land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially
>>>>>> private
>>>>>> property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The USFS may close trails
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I see. You need "trails".
>>>>>
>>>>>> and other facilities
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion was not of "facilities".
>>>>>
>>>>>> at will for
>>>>>> maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
>>>>>> outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
>>>>>> S'mores.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing to do with walking.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
>>>>>> restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
>>>>>> recreation.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of which have anything to do with walking.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you don't live in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not
>>>>> understand that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make
>>>>> s'mores", "enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the
>>>>> other crap you've brought up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up.
>>>
>>> By you.
>>
>> Nope. By you. Fishing, taking pictures of trout, boating ....
>>>
>>>> And "designated off limits" is Your creation.
>>>
>>> So you deny that you wrote:
>>>
>>> "When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
>>> woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
>>> reasons."
>>
>> Nope. But I didn't suggest there were "designated off limits" signs.
>
> So how does one become aware that the area is "designated off limits"?
>
>> "Trail Closed"
>
> Which is fine if there's a trail. But I thought we were talking about the
> woods, not some park.
>
>> or "No Fishing"
>
> And again you're bringing up FISHING.
>
>> are a couple of specific examples. I
>> wonder if you've ever been in a National Forest.
>
> On numerous occasions. And I have never seen any sign that suggest that
> one is not to enter a particular area other than the domiciles of the
> staff.
Lucky you.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>
> Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
> missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
> circumnavigator?
>
So what? They wanted a double dose of fame maybe? They'd be not only the
youngest male, the youngest female, the most in a family, the most advance
for movie rights, etc.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:57:51 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/12/2010 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
>>>> needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
>>>> rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
>>>> jump off a cliff is another story.
>>>
>>> You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a
>>> blizzard or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good
>>> weather with all the training and skill and good judgment in the
>>> world, shit still happens.
>>>
>> But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible
>> ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
>> mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme
>> risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue
>> bills.
>
>Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
>off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
>general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?
Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one mountain. The
person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part of the price of
admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes to pay for higher level
services. The idiot jumping out of the helicopter is intentionally avoiding
the areas that are covered by ski patrols AND the price of admission to those
places.
>And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>out of a helicopter anyway?
A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas. Almost all the high
cost rescues are caused by such stunts. Enough that some states *are* sending
bills to the people (or their estates). How they got there is irrelevant.
>>>> Make them pay into a mountain rescue
>>>> fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>> set a record.
>>>
>>> So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
>>> commercial airliner?
>>
>> When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
>> compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.
>
>So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
>hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
>emergency room?
Silly stupid logic.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
>
> "RicodJour" wrote:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
> ----------------------------------
> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>
> She is SAFE.
>
> Boat is dismasted.
>
Dismasted?? Is that a word?
Yep, I looked it up, it is a word.
Sound painful. It must have been trumatic. What kind of forces must be
brought to bear to break a mast? Those things are pretty sturdy. It must of
been really rough seas. She is lucky to be alive.
"Han" wrote:
> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
> paying
> for the rescue efforts now?
-----------------------------------------
They have already been paid for, comes under the heading of SAR
(Search And Rescue).
SAR units practice every day.
Putting that practice to actual usage is just another "day at the
office".
Here in L/A, we have urban SAR teams which include among other things
cadaver dogs.
These teams respond world wide.
NYC 911, Katrina and Haiti are just a few plasces that they have
served.
Go back to Ben Franklin's day and this same discussion was being had
about fire department services.
Lew
"basilisk" wrote:
> I know nothing about sailing or sail boats, but I thought the mast
> could
> be laid down in bad weather and with everything sealed up a good
> sail
> boat could withstand hurricane force weather.
>
> Could you enlighten the unknowing?
---------------------------------------------
Boat up to about 25 ft can have what is known as a tabernacle mast
which can be dropped on the deck without a crane.
Common in some parts of Europe for navigating the canals.
If the boat rolled, the chances of losing a mast increase
significantly.
In addition, if a shroud (cable that holds up the mast) or shroud
fitting failed, chances are good that would take the mast.
Faced with the weather she had, the usual practice is to "Heave To"
where the jib sail is backwinded and the rudder is turned to oppose
the jib.
The boat just bobs along.
You lose ground, but both you and the boat survive.
IMHO, this whole trip was a disaster waiting to happen as a result of
bad planning.
She left L/A far too late. (January)
Prudent seamanship would have been to depart Dec 1 from San Diego or
Thanksgiving from L/A which is after hurricane season, pass the "Horn"
on
New years Day and head East.
Machinery and sailboats are mutually exclusive IMHO.
Choosing not to use a windvane self steering as opposed to a power
hungry
electro/hydraulic autopilot was just plain fool hardy IMHO.
When they started crapping out and she was forced to make port in
Capetown,
all weather window was lost.
Choosing to sail in the Southern ocean in the winter comes under the
heading of
PPP, (Piss Poor Planning).
Lew
"cavelamb" wrote
>
> The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
> But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.
>
Hope she can cook or clean fish.
And it is a french boat too. There could be a language problem. And she
would be a 16 year old girl on a boat of horny men. It could end up to an
interesting adventure all on its own.
"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
--------------------------------------------
Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
OZ took the lead.
They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
There is a bond among mariners.
You provide assistance when you can.
Lew
On Jun 7, 10:30=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> From her 06/07/2010 blog:
>
> "Update from the Middle of the Indian Ocean"
>
> She is gaining on it.
>
> Details available at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=3D108=
77108
R
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:46:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>come on, half a cent?
You really like playing the red herring card don't you? With the
thousands (and perhaps millions) of other emergency services that
operate around the clock, each individual rescue action costs
thousands and thousands of dollars.
Your comment that it works out to a .5 cent per person charge is a
truly feeble to hide the real cost factor. These costs all add up and
don't for one second make anyone think there's only a 1/2 cent risk.
On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:53:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>From her 05/21/2010 blog:
>
>Good Bye Cape Town.
>
>Details available at:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
She appears to have lost weight (10+ lbs) since she set sail. Looking
good. Go, Abby!
--
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal
On Jun 12, 12:38=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "cavelamb" wrote:
> > The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
> > But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.
>
> ---------------------------
> The fishing boat also has salvage rights if they want to be bothered
> exercising them.
>
> Lew
They won't be taking the auto pilot.
Han wrote:
>
> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
> paying for the rescue efforts now?
Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
them, if they can't be used.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>
>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>> forbidden at the resort.
>
> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond
> is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit skiing in
areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for skiing in areas
besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts here.
>
>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
>> open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
>> about either.
>
> Absolutely clueless.
That makes a great sig line for you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that
>>>>>> prohibit skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be
>>>>>> prosecuted for skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to
>>>>>> follow the thoughts here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To
>>>>>>>> rephrase - nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think
>>>>>>>> about it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>>>
>>>>> Have Fun!!
>>>>
>>>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>>>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it.
>>>> In fact - it happens every day.
>>>
>>> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Nope. No license, go to jail.
More of you irrelevant red herrings.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jun 19, 6:31=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:22=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6/19/2010 3:49 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
> > > Upscale<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> > > : On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]=
>
> > > : wrote:
>
> > > :>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> > > :>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT b=
e
> > > :>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. =
=A0If
> > > :>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has=
....
>
> > > : I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair =
for
> > > : my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> > > : ignorance.
>
> > > : As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> > > : that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certai=
nly
> > > : a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> > > : Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands =
of
> > > : dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> > > : previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy agains=
t
> > > : injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and n=
ot
> > > : being able to work and earn a living.
>
> > > : Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> > > : repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisabl=
e.
> > > : Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> > > : simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done=
.
>
> > > Yup. =A0the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
> > > tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- m=
aybe
> > > the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest =
=A0--
> > > during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blin=
dfold
> > > yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secreta=
ry.
>
> > So how many people have actually done what you describe? =A0And how man=
y
> > successful solo circumnavigations have there been?
>
> ...and how many angels can dance on the head of a fucking pin?
>
> WHEN the fuck, John, are you going to address the topics rather than
> floating all these fucking questions with the hope to trap somebody in
> an error?
> MY guess is, that you spend all your time trying to prove somebody
> wrong at something, anything really, so you can be right for once in
> your miserable fucking life.
> Surely there must be SOMETHING constructive you can do with your time
> rather than hounding and cruising the many newsgroups begging for a
> bite?
I think I have it figured out...... you're a frikkin troll, John
Clarke..no more, no less.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>>>>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>
>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>
>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>> here.
>>>
>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
>>>> open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
>>>> about either.
>>>
>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>
>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>
> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>
> Have Fun!!
I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored areas I've
never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In fact - it
happens every day.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and
> then enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for
> help. They come bring you back for free.
-------------------------------------
The folks in OZ want you to "Come on down" and enjoy yourself;
however, part of clearing customs to enter is to prove you have a
prepaid ticket to leave.
Lew
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
ignorance.
As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
being able to work and earn a living.
And other than your uninformed thinking, I have not been advised by
*any* professionals that operating a table saw is extremely dangerous.
As a matter of fact, I've been commented by professionals. A number of
senior executives at General Tools including their president,
commended me on my search for SAFER lowered woodworking tools and in
fact created the General Tools 'Access' line of lowered woodworking
machines they currently sell as a result of my requests. This is fact.
I've not done anything table saw wise that is considered stupid and I
certainly have not been advised by ANYONE that operating a tablesaw is
unwise. I've most certainly protected myself.
Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>
>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about
>>>>>> it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>
>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>
>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>
>>> Have Fun!!
>>
>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In
>> fact - it happens every day.
>
> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
Irrelevant. Abby had all of the necessary legal affairs in order as well.
You're heading down a rabbit trail here...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jun 19, 4:22=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/19/2010 3:49 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Upscale<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> > : On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
> > : wrote:
>
> > :>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> > :>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
> > :>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. =
=A0If
> > :>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has..=
..
>
> > : I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair fo=
r
> > : my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> > : ignorance.
>
> > : As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> > : that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainl=
y
> > : a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> > : Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
> > : dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> > : previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> > : injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> > : being able to work and earn a living.
>
> > : Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> > : repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
> > : Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> > : simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
>
> > Yup. =A0the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
> > tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- may=
be
> > the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest =
=A0--
> > during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blindf=
old
> > yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secretary=
.
>
> So how many people have actually done what you describe? =A0And how many
> successful solo circumnavigations have there been?
>
...and how many angels can dance on the head of a fucking pin?
WHEN the fuck, John, are you going to address the topics rather than
floating all these fucking questions with the hope to trap somebody in
an error?
MY guess is, that you spend all your time trying to prove somebody
wrong at something, anything really, so you can be right for once in
your miserable fucking life.
Surely there must be SOMETHING constructive you can do with your time
rather than hounding and cruising the many newsgroups begging for a
bite?
On Jun 19, 4:22=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/19/2010 3:49 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Upscale<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> > : On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
> > : wrote:
>
> > :>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> > :>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
> > :>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. =
=A0If
> > :>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has..=
..
>
> > : I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair fo=
r
> > : my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> > : ignorance.
>
> > : As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> > : that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainl=
y
> > : a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> > : Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
> > : dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> > : previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> > : injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> > : being able to work and earn a living.
>
> > : Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> > : repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
> > : Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> > : simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
>
> > Yup. =A0the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
> > tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- may=
be
> > the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest =
=A0--
> > during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blindf=
old
> > yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secretary=
.
>
> So how many people have actually done what you describe? =A0And how many
> successful solo circumnavigations have there been?
>
I forgot...How many stitches in Abby's mainsail?
On 6/19/2010 1:43 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> As a matter of fact, I've been commented by professionals. A number of
>> senior executives at General Tools including their president,
>> commended me on my search for SAFER lowered woodworking tools and in
>> fact created the General Tools 'Access' line of lowered woodworking
>> machines they currently sell as a result of my requests.
>
> KUDOS for that!
Ditto ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 6/13/2010 11:40 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>> That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and
>> then enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for
>> help. They come bring you back for free.
> -------------------------------------
> The folks in OZ want you to "Come on down" and enjoy yourself;
> however, part of clearing customs to enter is to prove you have a
> prepaid ticket to leave.
The French do the same. Got a call from the sergeant of the guard at
the US embassy once--seems that my loony cousin had gotten to Paris then
sold his return ticket and now he was out of cash and the French wanted
something done about him, so my Dad (note--this was in the '60s) got him
a ticket--he also put on his senior naval officer's hat and told the
sergeant that he didn't really care what condition my cousin was in when
he got back and he returned somewhat the worse for wear--seems that he
tripped over a Marine on the way to the airport.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:03:09 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.
>>
>>My point is the half cent cost figure was made up to make a point, and
>>suddenly thats the cost. Hell, it could be $5 for all anyone knows.
>>At 1/2 cent each, the cost would be about $1.5 MILLION. Possible, but
>>then someone is making a bundle...
>
> 1/2 cent times 6B is $30M. China and Bangladesh have to pay too.
>
> The point is that it's not the amount of money per person. It's about
> taking
> responsibility.
Precisely! And that attitude carries over to the rest of life. The
Sunderland children are getting a great education on saying 'screw everyone
else, If I want to drive drunk, I will'.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>>>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>
>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>
>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond
>> is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>
> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit skiing
> in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for skiing in
> areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts here.
>
>>
>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
>>> open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
>>> about either.
>>
>> Absolutely clueless.
>
> That makes a great sig line for you.
Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness area, No
Problem! Wide open spaces!
Have Fun!!
[email protected] wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Personally, I'd much rather spend a few pennies rescuing those that fall
>> short than to pay 1% sales tax to build the BILLIONAIRE Rooney's a
>> football stadium so Big Ben can chase 20 year olds around with his dick
>> swinging in the breeze, or some loser $50 just to count me in the census.
>
> So, you too agree that two wrongs make a right.
Not particularly. I don't think its wrong to provide SAR services to
anyone that needs it, nor do I think its wrong for my insurance provider
(now the government I guess) to provide some clown that wants to risk
cutting his hand off with a table saw when he is not earning a living
with the saw, or is in a wheelchair making the risk even higher. I
certainly understand those that think everyone should pay their own way
based on risk, like, why should I pay for those stupid enough to live 12
feet below sea level, or in a fire/earth quake/mud slide zone. At any
rate, I don't mind the very small amount it costs me to rescue the likes
of Abby or Ameila as opposed to spending 1% of everything I buy on the
freaking Pittsburgh Steelers.
>> Now in my town, the county swimming pool had a high dive and 4 regular
>> diving boards, plus a metal slide in the baby pool. The pool is still
>> there, but not one diving board and no slide, in fact, I don't think any
>> public pools having diving boards or slides anymore... way too
>> dangerous... Life is so much better now, eh?
> Different subject, but no, I don't much like ambulance chasers or those
> get-rich-quick assholes either.
It's not the exact same subject, but removing all danger from society is
really, really a boring idea. I saw guys in wheelchairs flying around
on skateboard ramps, doing somersaults, landing on their heads and doing
the dumbest, craziest shit I've seen. I could barely watch it was so
nasty, but, if they want to do it and break an arm, or neck, I don't
want some flipping government hack saying they won't pay for their
medical care because their activity was "too risky" and not something
normal people would participate in. Same with Upscale using a table saw
in a wheelchair. If he gets hurt, I want his government to pay, and same
with Abby floating around the ocean like a fool, or a pack of fat ass
senior citizens floating around on a cruise ship stuffing their face
with shrimp cocktail for no damned reason other than they want to.
--
Jack
What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving.
http://jbstein.com
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>>>>>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>
>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>> here.
>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
>>>>> open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
>>>>> about either.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>
>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>
>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>
>> Have Fun!!
>
> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored areas
> I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In fact - it
> happens every day.
You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about
>>>>>>> it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>>
>>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>>
>>>> Have Fun!!
>>>
>>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In
>>> fact - it happens every day.
>>
>> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
>
> Irrelevant.
Nope. No license, go to jail.
On 6/14/2010 4:38 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>>>>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>
>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond
>>> is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>
>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts here.
>>
>>>
>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
>>>> open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
>>>> about either.
>>>
>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>
>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>
> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness area,
> No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>
> Have Fun!!
Who said anything about driving?
On 6/14/2010 4:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about
>>>>>>>> it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>>>
>>>>> Have Fun!!
>>>>
>>>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>>>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In
>>>> fact - it happens every day.
>>>
>>> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Nope. No license, go to jail.
Which has zip to do with the cost of rescue. Or it is your contention
that one needs a license to wade in a trout stream taking pictures?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 4:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about
>>>>>>>>> it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>>>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have Fun!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>>>>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In
>>>>> fact - it happens every day.
>>>>
>>>> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> Nope. No license, go to jail.
>
> Which has zip to do with the cost of rescue.
How did this pop up on this side issue?
> Or it is your contention that one needs a license to wade in a trout
> stream taking pictures?
>
That's what you call Fishing? LOL!!
On 6/15/2010 3:42 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 4:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails.
>>>>>>>>>>> Skiing off the trail is *forbidden*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
>>>>>>>>>> forbidden at the resort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing
>>>>>>>>> beyond is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>>>>>>>>> nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about
>>>>>>>>>> it - open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing
>>>>>>>>>> forbidden about either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely clueless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That makes a great sig line for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
>>>>>>> area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have Fun!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored
>>>>>> areas I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In
>>>>>> fact - it happens every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Nope. No license, go to jail.
>>
>> Which has zip to do with the cost of rescue.
>
> How did this pop up on this side issue?
>
>> Or it is your contention that one needs a license to wade in a trout
>> stream taking pictures?
>>
>
> That's what you call Fishing? LOL!!
You're arguing that there are places all over the west that are
prohibited and bringing up the issue of hunting and fishing licenses to
support that contention. The point being addressed is that the license
is not one to exist in that particular location but to harvest game
wherever one happens to be. You needs a hunting license to shoot the
deer that is eating your begonias too, even though that deer is on your
own property. Hunting and fishing licenses are a completely different
issue from access.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
>>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
>>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
>>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
>
> I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
> my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> ignorance.
>
> As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
> a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
> dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> being able to work and earn a living.
>
> And other than your uninformed thinking, I have not been advised by
> *any* professionals that operating a table saw is extremely dangerous.
> As a matter of fact, I've been commented by professionals. A number of
> senior executives at General Tools including their president,
> commended me on my search for SAFER lowered woodworking tools and in
> fact created the General Tools 'Access' line of lowered woodworking
> machines they currently sell as a result of my requests.
KUDOS for that!
Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
>> running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
>> denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
>> you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
>
> I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
> my benefit.
Not just your benefit, more to demonstrate that putting oneself in harms
way when it can be easily avoided should not void the collective from
spending money on your sorry ass when something goes awry, even if doing
it solely for pleasure, such as using a table saw, flitting around the
ocean on a cruise ship stuffing your face with shrimp and so on.
And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your ignorance.
So you say, but never do much else than say it...
> As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
> a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> Canada, medical bills are already covered.
Now who is showing their ignorance? SAR units the world over are
already in place and paid for as well. That was the gist of the story
to begin with.
Thousands and thousands of dollars would not be spent rescuing me from
potential death.
Reattaching your fingers would not be cheap even though someone else
already set aside their own cash to pay your bills.
> I've previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> being able to work and earn a living.
Do you own a Saw Stop or are you living life on the edge, at everyone
else's expense?
> And other than your uninformed thinking, I have not been advised by
> *any* professionals that operating a table saw is extremely dangerous.
If you need a "professional" to tell you operating a table saw without a
saw stop dangerous you are not bright enough to be using one.
> As a matter of fact, I've been commented by professionals. A number of
> senior executives at General Tools including their president,
> commended me on my search for SAFER lowered woodworking tools and in
> fact created the General Tools 'Access' line of lowered woodworking
> machines they currently sell as a result of my requests. This is fact.
Do you own a Saw Stop?
> I've not done anything table saw wise that is considered stupid and I
> certainly have not been advised by ANYONE that operating a tablesaw is
> unwise. I've most certainly protected myself.
Do you own a Saw Stop?
> Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
Abby, like her brother before her, and Amelia before her, and Chas and a
slew of others throughout time have all done crazy ass stuff to satisfy
their desire to excel in some task. SAR units have been established to
help out when things go awry. Charging one group because you don't
approve and not another because you disapprove is iffy at best.
> Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
Is your government going to deny you "free" medical because you cut off
your fingers on a table saw not equipped with a Saw Stop, or because
some government hack decided people in wheelchairs should not operate a
table saw as it's too dangerous?
Personally, I don't think you should be denied the free help, just
because you choose to live on the edge. Those, like your sicko buddy
Robocop, that think this gives me bad Karma should not be allowed to
live in the collective...
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
: wrote:
:>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
:>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
:>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
:>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
: I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
: my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
: ignorance.
: As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
: that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
: a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
: Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
: dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
: previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
: injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
: being able to work and earn a living.
: Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
: repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
: Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
: simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
Yup. the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- maybe
the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest --
during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blindfold
yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secretary.
Then have a rescue team flown in when things go awry, and ask the
government(s) to pay for the rescue, as you're "not a rich guy"
(paraphrasing Mom Sunderland).
-- Andy Barss
On 6/19/2010 3:49 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> Upscale<[email protected]> wrote:
> : On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
> : wrote:
>
> :>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> :>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
> :>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
> :>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
>
> : I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
> : my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> : ignorance.
>
> : As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> : that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
> : a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> : Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
> : dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> : previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> : injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> : being able to work and earn a living.
>
>
> : Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> : repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
> : Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> : simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
>
> Yup. the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
> tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- maybe
> the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest --
> during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blindfold
> yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secretary.
So how many people have actually done what you describe? And how many
successful solo circumnavigations have there been?
> Then have a rescue team flown in when things go awry, and ask the
> government(s) to pay for the rescue, as you're "not a rich guy"
> (paraphrasing Mom Sunderland).
>
> -- Andy Barss
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> : On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:22 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> : wrote:
>
> :>So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> :>running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
> :>denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
> :>you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
>
> : I'm guessing you've mentioned running a tablesaw from a wheelchair for
> : my benefit. And as usual, in doing so, you aptly demonstrate your
> : ignorance.
>
> : As far a I'm concerned, stupidity has it's own rewards. The worst
> : that's likely to happen to me is that I'd lose some fingers. Certainly
> : a painful experience, but hardly life threatening. Since I live in
> : Canada, medical bills are already covered. Thousands and thousands of
> : dollars would not be spent rescuing me from potential death. I've
> : previously purchased and have an up to date insurance policy against
> : injury. I've covered myself against my doing something stupid and not
> : being able to work and earn a living.
>
>
> : Contrast my actions to that of Abby Sunderland who was advised
> : repeatedly beforehand that her actions were dangerous or unadvisable.
> : Where is the insurance she paid in case of needed rescue? Such a
> : simple, easy to do responsible action which apparently was not done.
>
> Yup. the comparable situation would be if you decided to take your
> tablesaw and wheelchair into the deep woods in a foreign country -- maybe
> the middle of Finland, Northern Russia, or the Amazonian rain forest --
> during a severe rainstorm, power it up with a gas generator, and blindfold
> yourself for the challenge of building a reproduction Newport secretary.
>
> Then have a rescue team flown in when things go awry, and ask the
> government(s) to pay for the rescue, as you're "not a rich guy"
> (paraphrasing Mom Sunderland).
>
> -- Andy Barss
You owe me a keyboard! Send a rescue mission with a new one Immediately!
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:00:34 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>
>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>
>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>
>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>
>> Off designated slopes.
>
>So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>"designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>
Ever hear of hiking trails? In many places, getting caught hiking off them
gets you fined, so yes.
<[email protected]> wrote
> Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...
That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and then
enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for help. They
come bring you back for free.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:43:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part of
>>>> the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to
>>>> taxes to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of
>>>> the helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered
>>>> by ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>
>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone
>>>>> jumping out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>
>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>
>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>
>> Off designated slopes.
>
>Not a skier - does being off designated slopes mean that skiing there is
>forbidden, or something else. The word forbidden implies to me something
>similar to illegal.
It is forbidden. It will get you tossed from the ski area and if a rescue is
required will usually get the bill (often five figures) sent to you.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
>> off the trail is *forbidden*.
>
>As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only forbidden at the
>resort.
WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond is
FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.
>There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it - open
>skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden about either.
Absolutely clueless.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:03:09 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>>> penny for me.
>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>
>> I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.
>
>My point is the half cent cost figure was made up to make a point, and
>suddenly thats the cost. Hell, it could be $5 for all anyone knows.
>At 1/2 cent each, the cost would be about $1.5 MILLION. Possible, but
>then someone is making a bundle...
1/2 cent times 6B is $30M. China and Bangladesh have to pay too.
The point is that it's not the amount of money per person. It's about taking
responsibility.
>Also, SAR units costs are not much more if used than if they sit around
>playing checkers... Few bucks for gas and your good to go, right?
Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...
That must be why we got the $500 tab for my wife to ride a mile in an
ambulance fifteen years ago; all the firemen were all sitting around doing
nothing anyway.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:21:14 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
>>> but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.
>>
>> I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
>> sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
>> that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
>> would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
>> would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
>> others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.
>
>You know, like Amelia Earhart except in a boat. Chas Lindbergh is
>another stunter... History is abounding with crazies trying to break
>records, be the first, or just push themselves to the limit.
>
>Personally, I'd much rather spend a few pennies rescuing those that fall
>short than to pay 1% sales tax to build the BILLIONAIRE Rooney's a
>football stadium so Big Ben can chase 20 year olds around with his dick
>swinging in the breeze, or some loser $50 just to count me in the census.
So, you too agree that two wrongs make a right.
>Now in my town, the county swimming pool had a high dive and 4 regular
>diving boards, plus a metal slide in the baby pool. The pool is still
>there, but not one diving board and no slide, in fact, I don't think any
>public pools having diving boards or slides anymore... way too
>dangerous... Life is so much better now, eh?
Different subject, but no, I don't much like ambulance chasers or those
get-rich-quick assholes either.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:14:51 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> : The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".
>>
>> : "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>> : most challenging sailing task does.
>>
>> Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
>> Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
>> was young enough to set a record?
>>
>> She and/or her parents are fame seekers.
>
>Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
>missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
>circumnavigator?
Exactly. He is no longer eligible for that title. She *was*.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "RicodJour" wrote:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
> ----------------------------------
> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>
> She is SAFE.
>
> Boat is dismasted.
>
> Details later.
>
> Lew
>
>
Now if they can just get too her in time?
But - Big YEA!
--
Richard Lamb
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>
>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>> penny for me.
>
>> Oh, booh hooh.
>
>This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>"much more" is of course, relative.
I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing
> off the trail is *forbidden*.
As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only forbidden at the
resort. There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it - open
skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden about either.
>>
>> Bull. Provide proof.
>
> Do you ever watch the news?
Sure. You see the publicized stuff and you assume that constitues a
majority of some sort? I don't and I asked you to substantiate your claim.
>>
>> Big deal - you haven't figured out that states are contriving all
>> sorts of new ways to simply get into your pocket? The fact that
>> states are doing anything at all to take your money is no proof of
>> any argument short of the greed of the states.
>
> Nonsense. This started over a decade ago. It's intended to tell
> people "DON'T DO THAT".
What does it matter when it started? That's completely irrelvant. It's not
intended to tell people not to do something, it's intended to make money.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" wrote:
> Garbage! It was an attention grabbing stunt combined with the fact
> that she likes sailing.
-------------------------------------------
Got your head where the moon doesn't shine again I see.
-----------------------------------
> It was a stunt designed exactly to grab the attention of people like
> you. Seeing as how you glommed onto her exploits immediately and
> regularly posted messages in rec.woodworking about her progress
> shows
> that she succeeded in her quest.
-------------------------------------------
Hardly.
As a commited crusing sailor, the progression of both Jessica and Abby
towards the accomplishment of their respective goals was more than of
passing interest to me.
SFWIW, there are some wood workers on the wrec who are also cruising
sailors.
O/T posts with a link were posted for those who might enjoy them.
You don't seem to be a part of that group.
------------------------------------
> Throw enough money and enough technology at anything and combine it
> with the knowledge that rescue is usually only a radio message away
> doesn't impress me as much of an accomplishment. That makes it a
> stunt
> in my books and not much else.
--------------------------------
You are truly clueless.
Lew
cavelamb wrote:
>
> The thing that has turned this into a circus is the (dramatic drum
> roll) media.
Huh??? the media coverage I've seen has been far less than a circus. The
thing I see turning this into a circus is people who feel some
self-righteous privledge to determine in their own mind, what is worthwhile
and what is folly. All based on their own preferences. I get it that such
things are natural thinking, but I sure don't agree with it.
So enlighten me - how has the media turned this into a circus?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:13:15 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 1:19 PM, Nova wrote:
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that.
>>>> But come on, half a cent?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Half a cent here, half a cent there, pretty soon I can buy dinner and
>>> a movie ...
>>
>> I'd rather see my tax dollars spent rescuing a teenager attempting to
>> set a would record than to pay the cost of a presidential snack:
>>
>> http://americanbullmoose.com/content/economics/the-most-expensive-chicken-wings-ever-sold-or-next-time-mr-president-just-send-us-a-card
>
>So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
>taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
>that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.
By implication; two wrongs make a right. Got it.
"cavelamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Upscale" wrote:
>>
>>> Garbage! It was an attention grabbing stunt combined with the fact
>>> that she likes sailing.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Got your head where the moon doesn't shine again I see.
>> -----------------------------------
>>> It was a stunt designed exactly to grab the attention of people like
>>> you. Seeing as how you glommed onto her exploits immediately and
>>> regularly posted messages in rec.woodworking about her progress shows
>>> that she succeeded in her quest.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Hardly.
>>
>> As a commited crusing sailor, the progression of both Jessica and Abby
>> towards the accomplishment of their respective goals was more than of
>> passing interest to me.
>>
>> SFWIW, there are some wood workers on the wrec who are also cruising
>> sailors.
>>
>> O/T posts with a link were posted for those who might enjoy them.
>>
>> You don't seem to be a part of that group.
>
>
> There seems to be a lot of people in that catagory.
>
> She tried. That counts in life. (damned few here have ever tried
> anything
> that ballsy)
>
> She didn't succeed. That happens some times in life.
>
> The thing that has turned this into a circus is the (dramatic drum roll)
> media.
How did the media get involved to begin with? Do you know?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>> penny for me.
>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>
> I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.
My point is the half cent cost figure was made up to make a point, and
suddenly thats the cost. Hell, it could be $5 for all anyone knows.
At 1/2 cent each, the cost would be about $1.5 MILLION. Possible, but
then someone is making a bundle...
Also, SAR units costs are not much more if used than if they sit around
playing checkers... Few bucks for gas and your good to go, right?
--
Jack
Living is like licking honey off a thorn!
http://jbstein.com
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> How did the media get involved to begin with? Do you know?
>
> The were reading Lew an Rec.wood....
> --
> Jack
> From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
> http://jbstein.com
And people say Usenet groups are dead!
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> How did the media get involved to begin with? Do you know?
>>
>> The were reading Lew an Rec.wood....
>> Jack
>> From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
>> http://jbstein.com
>
>
> And people say Usenet groups are dead!
Well, since not many used them anyway, and now the major carriers
(comcast and verison) have stopped providing them for no [valid] reason,
they are not dead, but, certainly an endangered species.
--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_051410_B.html
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:36:53 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
>most challenging sailing task does.
Garbage! It was an attention grabbing stunt combined with the fact
that she likes sailing.
It was a stunt designed exactly to grab the attention of people like
you. Seeing as how you glommed onto her exploits immediately and
regularly posted messages in rec.woodworking about her progress shows
that she succeeded in her quest.
Throw enough money and enough technology at anything and combine it
with the knowledge that rescue is usually only a radio message away
doesn't impress me as much of an accomplishment. That makes it a stunt
in my books and not much else.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:40:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>
>So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
To the ski patrol? Cartainly not, as that is a private enterprise run by the
ski area. There is no guarantee that the helicopter service is even from the
same area, so yes, I do know.
>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>
>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>
>Define "forbidden area". Define "A *lot*"
Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing off the
trail is *forbidden*.
>> Almost all
>> the high cost rescues are caused by such stunts.
>
>Bull. Provide proof.
Do you ever watch the news?
>> Enough that some
>> states *are* sending bills to the people (or their estates). How
>> they got there is irrelevant.
>>
>
>Big deal - you haven't figured out that states are contriving all sorts of
>new ways to simply get into your pocket? The fact that states are doing
>anything at all to take your money is no proof of any argument short of the
>greed of the states.
Nonsense. This started over a decade ago. It's intended to tell people
"DON'T DO THAT".
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Upscale" wrote:
>
>> Garbage! It was an attention grabbing stunt combined with the fact
>> that she likes sailing.
> -------------------------------------------
> Got your head where the moon doesn't shine again I see.
> -----------------------------------
>> It was a stunt designed exactly to grab the attention of people like
>> you. Seeing as how you glommed onto her exploits immediately and
>> regularly posted messages in rec.woodworking about her progress
>> shows
>> that she succeeded in her quest.
> -------------------------------------------
> Hardly.
>
> As a commited crusing sailor, the progression of both Jessica and Abby
> towards the accomplishment of their respective goals was more than of
> passing interest to me.
>
> SFWIW, there are some wood workers on the wrec who are also cruising
> sailors.
>
> O/T posts with a link were posted for those who might enjoy them.
>
> You don't seem to be a part of that group.
There seems to be a lot of people in that catagory.
She tried. That counts in life. (damned few here have ever tried anything
that ballsy)
She didn't succeed. That happens some times in life.
The thing that has turned this into a circus is the (dramatic drum roll)
media.
--
Richard Lamb
A fishing boat is picking her up - and they stay out until full.
She might be on a boat a long time waiting for port. Then - which port.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 6/11/2010 5:22 AM, Han wrote:
> cavelamb<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=
>>> 10877108 ----------------------------------
>>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>>
>>> She is SAFE.
>>>
>>> Boat is dismasted.
>>>
>>> Details later.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now if they can just get too her in time?
>>
>> But - Big YEA!
>
> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
> for the rescue efforts now?
>
>
On 6/11/2010 7:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
>> paying for the rescue efforts now?
>
> Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
> exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
> them, if they can't be used.
Reimbursed, hopefully, from future book, TV and movie rights ....
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
cavelamb <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=
>> 10877108 ----------------------------------
>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>
>> She is SAFE.
>>
>> Boat is dismasted.
>>
>> Details later.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
> Now if they can just get too her in time?
>
> But - Big YEA!
I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
for the rescue efforts now?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] wrote:
>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>
>> Off designated slopes.
>
> s/slopes/trails/
>
> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
I don't think so. On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
That's different. Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing on land
that is just open land - not related to a resort. That would be a closer
analogy to open water boating.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:19:12 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> What is wrong with controlling costs?
>
>> If you want to "control costs" then the one time in 50 years event is
>> not the one you need to work on.
>
>Hey, Ali-Boma spent $14,500,000,000 (that's $14.5 BILLION) just to COUNT
>how many people we got. That's a kool $50 a person. The dumb fuck
>could have paid ACORN $5 a pop to count everyone and the number would
>have been distributed more to his liking...
>
>Or, simply paid everyone to show up with some ID and pay them $50 a head
>to count themselves.... Thats $200 for a family of four. I'd have
>taken the government bus downtown with my families birth certificates
>and SS cards for 200 bucks and I don't even live near a border....
Hell, for $100 maybe they could have even counted us.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the
> *youngest* to do something dangerous. It was a particularly
> dangerous time of the year to be doing this. She couldn't wait
> because by the time it was safER, she would no longer qualify for
> being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.
I guess it's all in how you define stunt. Sure she was after a record -
what's wrong with that? She's more adventurous than you, or me, or most of
us here - big deal. You just described why she went when she did - that
does not really make it a stunt to me. It was a record attempt.
>
> Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
> Climbers, also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for
> emergency services on the mountain.
What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you get a
speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to pay for his
services in stopping you and administering the law since you were doing a
stunt by speeding?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:02:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>
>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>
>>>
>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>
>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>
>> Define "forbidden area".
>
>Off designated slopes.
s/slopes/trails/
Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
<[email protected]> wrote
> Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
> Climbers,
> also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for emergency services on
> the
> mountain.
>
Best way to climb Everest is with one of the companies that organize such a
thing. Cost is $65,000
http://www.alpineascents.com/everest.asp
While still a very tough climb, they have made it easier these days.
Note this:
Emergency: In case of emergency and at any time during the expedition,
Alpine Ascents and its staff will use all resources available to rescue and
evacuate injured climbers. From base camp, helicopter rescue is possible.
Above base camp, an emergency situation can only be handled with the
resources of the expedition and other expeditions in the area. Any
additional cost involved in an emergency will be the responsibility of the
climbing member(s) requiring immediate medical attention and/or evacuation.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:03:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
>> but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.
>
>I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
>sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
>that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
>would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
>would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
>others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.
Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the *youngest* to do
something dangerous. It was a particularly dangerous time of the year to be
doing this. She couldn't wait because by the time it was safER, she would no
longer qualify for being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.
Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers. Climbers,
also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for emergency services on the
mountain.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:11:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
>>> ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
>>> the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
>>>
>>
>> There are a lot of factors. Sporting is skiing down the patrolled
>> slopes. Stunting would be going off a cliff not patrolled and seen as
>> risky.
>
>I see. So it's "stunting" if it is not done in an area that is "patrolled"?
No, it's "stunting" if it's an unusual and dangerous endeavor. Add three
points for one that is sure to get widespread press coverage.
>> Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building,
>> stunting is base jumping from it.
>
>I see. So the risk of injury to others doesn't enter into it either.
A Winter sea rescue is risking injury to others. Though I haven't seen that
as a criteria here.
>> Maturity and skill level are more
>> important than age.
>>
>> I once took a small (14') boat out in the ocean on a day that I should
>> not have. We realized this but could not safely turn around right away.
>> Once past the breakwater we turned around and came back into the bay.
>> Staying out there would have been foolhardy, going back was prudent.
>
>Pity there was nobody around to charge you a million dollar rescue
>insurance premium before you engaged in such a stunt.
Who said the premium should be $1M for a day sail? This is a pretty normal
event. A teen sailing in the South Seas in the winter is not, pretty much the
reason she was there, i.e. a pretty good definition of a "stunt".
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RicodJour" wrote:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
> ----------------------------------
> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>
> She is SAFE.
>
> Boat is dismasted.
>
> Details later.
>
> Lew
>
Lew,
I'm glad she is ok, already there were rumblings of removing
parents heads. She is a sailor from a sailing family, I don't believe
what she was doing was inherenly more dangerous than the way
I lived my teenage years, without me accomplishing a damn thing.
I know nothing about sailing or sail boats, but I thought the mast could
be laid down in bad weather and with everything sealed up a good sail
boat could withstand hurricane force weather.
Could you enlighten the unknowing?
basilisk
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>> Looks like kids are going after all sorts of records. There is a 13 yo
>> attempting Mt Everest amidst clams it borders on child abuse.
> ---------------------------------------
> He has done it along with his father.
>
> Lew
I saw that about an hour after I posted
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-everestboy052210
On 6/11/2010 7:55 AM, basilisk wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
>> ----------------------------------
>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>
>> She is SAFE.
>>
>> Boat is dismasted.
>>
>> Details later.
>>
>> Lew
>>
> Lew,
>
> I'm glad she is ok, already there were rumblings of removing
> parents heads. She is a sailor from a sailing family, I don't believe
> what she was doing was inherenly more dangerous than the way
> I lived my teenage years, without me accomplishing a damn thing.
>
> I know nothing about sailing or sail boats, but I thought the mast could
> be laid down in bad weather and with everything sealed up a good sail
> boat could withstand hurricane force weather.
>
> Could you enlighten the unknowing?
Boats on which the mast can be laid down have that feature for going
under bridges or the like, not because it is beneficial to do so in bad
weather--the sails are one's power source--if you take down the mast you
have no propulsion and no control.
A good sail boat well handled and with sea room can usually survive any
kind of bad weather, however it will often suffer damage in the process.
Too much damage and it becomes unmanageable. And Poseidon can kill
_any_ ship if he gets angry enough.
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 7:55 AM, basilisk wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>>
>>> She is SAFE.
>>>
>>> Boat is dismasted.
>>>
>>> Details later.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>> Lew,
>>
>> I'm glad she is ok, already there were rumblings of removing
>> parents heads. She is a sailor from a sailing family, I don't believe
>> what she was doing was inherenly more dangerous than the way
>> I lived my teenage years, without me accomplishing a damn thing.
>>
>> I know nothing about sailing or sail boats, but I thought the mast
>> could be laid down in bad weather and with everything sealed up a
>> good sail boat could withstand hurricane force weather.
>>
>> Could you enlighten the unknowing?
>
> Boats on which the mast can be laid down have that feature for going
> under bridges or the like, not because it is beneficial to do so in
> bad weather--the sails are one's power source--if you take down the
> mast you have no propulsion and no control.
it usually takes a crane to pull a mast on any reasonably large sailboat.
> A good sail boat well handled and with sea room can usually survive
> any kind of bad weather, however it will often suffer damage in the
> process. Too much damage and it becomes unmanageable. And Poseidon
> can kill _any_ ship if he gets angry enough.
in almost all cases, a catamaran will be found floating abandoned after a
dismasting, sometimes years later. they almost never sink as they don't hang
a heavy chunk of lead on the bottom like monohulls.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote
>>
>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
>> ----------------------------------
>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>
>> She is SAFE.
>>
>> Boat is dismasted.
>>
>
> Dismasted?? Is that a word?
>
> Yep, I looked it up, it is a word.
>
> Sound painful. It must have been trumatic. What kind of forces must
> be brought to bear to break a mast? Those things are pretty sturdy.
> It must of been really rough seas. She is lucky to be alive.
most usually a roll unless there was either damage to the mast, a fitting
pulled out, or she lost a shroud.
just a knockdown usually doesn't do it.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cavelamb <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=
>>> 10877108 ----------------------------------
>>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>>
>>> She is SAFE.
>>>
>>> Boat is dismasted.
>>>
>>> Details later.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now if they can just get too her in time?
>>
>> But - Big YEA!
>
> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
> for the rescue efforts now?
Good question. Not like climbing Mt. Rainier.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Han" wrote:
>
>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
>> for the rescue efforts now?
> -----------------------------------------
> They have already been paid for, comes under the heading of SAR (Search
> And Rescue).
>
> SAR units practice every day.
>
> Putting that practice to actual usage is just another "day at the office".
>
> Here in L/A, we have urban SAR teams which include among other things
> cadaver dogs.
>
> These teams respond world wide.
>
> NYC 911, Katrina and Haiti are just a few plasces that they have served.
>
> Go back to Ben Franklin's day and this same discussion was being had about
> fire department services.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Is SAR going to picked her up??
On 6/12/2010 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> Is SAR going to picked her up??
> ---------------------------------
> That's part of the package.
On the Great Lakes a police department SAR unit can go pick you up with
a helicopter wherever you are. But Abby was as far from the nearest
police department as Los Angeles is from New York. Australian Search
and Rescue had to borrow an airliner from QANTAS just to have something
with enough range to reach her, and any ship dispatched from Australia
would have taken a week to get there. They sent the closest vessel they
could contact, which was a French fishing ship. She'll probably stay
aboard that ship until it reaches port.
So, no, SAR was not going to and did not pick her up.
How it's all going to get paid for really depends on the attitudes of
those involved--the Australians have stated that they're footing the
bill for their part of it, what the French will do Lord knows, but I
suspect that they'll let it slide too since it didn't cost them much and
they got a good story out of it.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> Is SAR going to picked her up??
> ---------------------------------
> That's part of the package.
No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel. That's
not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>
>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
> --------------------------------------------
> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>
> OZ took the lead.
>
> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with the
> range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>
> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be helped.
>
> There is a bond among mariners.
>
> You provide assistance when you can.
And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>
>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>
>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>
>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>
>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>> helped.
>
> So who in real need is not being helped?
Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
>
>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>
>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>
>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>
> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40 years?
> And how many doing things that you believe are socially acceptable have
> had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo circumnavigators who are
> taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's the cruise ships and fishing
> trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>
> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire history
> of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past 20 years.
> If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>
>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>
>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>
>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>
>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>> helped.
>
> So who in real need is not being helped?
>
>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>
>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>
>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>
> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40 years?
> And how many doing things that you believe are socially acceptable have
> had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo circumnavigators who are
> taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's the cruise ships and fishing
> trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>
> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire history
> of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past 20 years.
> If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
They Should be paying.
On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>
>> OZ took the lead.
>>
>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>
>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>
> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be helped.
So who in real need is not being helped?
>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>
>> You provide assistance when you can.
>
> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40 years?
And how many doing things that you believe are socially acceptable
have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo circumnavigators
who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's the cruise ships and
fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past 20
years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
On 6/12/2010 11:08 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>
>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>
>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>
>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>
>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>> helped.
>>
>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>
> Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
Please identify such a person.
>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>
>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>
>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>
>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>
>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>
>
On 6/12/2010 11:09 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>
>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>
>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>
>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>
>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>> helped.
>>
>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>
>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>
>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>
>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>
>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>
>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>
>
> They Should be paying.
So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay
the entire cost of the rescue? And I bet every time a house catches
fire the owner should pay the entire cost of the fire department coming
to put it out, and when some guy is getting mugged the cops shouldn't
help him until he whips out his wallet and pays them for the service.
Real nice world you want to create.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 11:08 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>
>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>> helped.
>>>
>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>
>> Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
>
> Please identify such a person.
>
Why? You Know they haven't covered Everybody. Ask an Aborigine.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 11:09 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with
>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>
>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>> helped.
>>>
>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>
>>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>>
>>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>>
>>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>>
>>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>>
>>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>>
>>
>> They Should be paying.
>
> So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay the
> entire cost of the rescue?
That is Not what I said. I assume cruise ships are insured. If so, their
insurance would cover the rescue - or should.
Just like my taxes and Insurance covers the cost of my house fire.
> And I bet every time a house catches fire the owner should pay the entire
> cost of the fire department coming to put it out, and when some guy is
> getting mugged the cops shouldn't help him until he whips out his wallet
> and pays them for the service.
>
> Real nice world you want to create.
Real nice Strawman. Go burn it.
>
On 6/13/2010 1:06 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 11:08 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>
>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>> helped.
>>>>
>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>
>>> Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
>>
>> Please identify such a person.
>>
>
> Why? You Know they haven't covered Everybody. Ask an Aborigine.
Do you know of an aborigine who needed rescue at sea and was denied it?
On 6/13/2010 1:09 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 11:09 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel.
>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine
>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>
>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>> helped.
>>>>
>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>>
>>>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>>>
>>>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>>>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>>>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>>>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>>>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>>>
>>>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>>>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>>>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>>>
>>>
>>> They Should be paying.
>>
>> So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay
>> the entire cost of the rescue?
>
> That is Not what I said. I assume cruise ships are insured. If so, their
> insurance would cover the rescue - or should.
It has not been the habit of governments to bill ship owners for the
cost of rescue.
> Just like my taxes and Insurance covers the cost of my house fire.
So the fire department where you live bills you for the cost of putting
out the fire?
>> And I bet every time a house catches fire the owner should pay the
>> entire cost of the fire department coming to put it out, and when some
>> guy is getting mugged the cops shouldn't help him until he whips out
>> his wallet and pays them for the service.
>>
>> Real nice world you want to create.
>
> Real nice Strawman. Go burn it.
I'm just going by what you've said. Search and rescue is a tax funded
government function in most places that have it, like a fire department
or a police department. If you want the rescuees to be billed by search
and rescue why do you want them to be singled out? Why do you not want
fire victims to be billed by the fire department or crime victims to be
billed by the police? Why is it only search and rescue for which the
victims must pay?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 1:06 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/12/2010 11:08 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing
>>>>>>>> vessel.
>>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>
>>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>>
>>>> Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
>>>
>>> Please identify such a person.
>>>
>>
>> Why? You Know they haven't covered Everybody. Ask an Aborigine.
>
> Do you know of an aborigine who needed rescue at sea and was denied it?
>
>
No, do you? Plenty of them have been denied a hell of a lot that could have
been paid for by the charter of a long range civilian aircraft.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 1:09 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/12/2010 11:09 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing
>>>>>>>> vessel.
>>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>
>>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>>>>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>>>>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>>>>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>>>>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>>>>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>>>>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They Should be paying.
>>>
>>> So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay
>>> the entire cost of the rescue?
>>
>> That is Not what I said. I assume cruise ships are insured. If so, their
>> insurance would cover the rescue - or should.
>
> It has not been the habit of governments to bill ship owners for the cost
> of rescue.
>
>> Just like my taxes and Insurance covers the cost of my house fire.
>
> So the fire department where you live bills you for the cost of putting
> out the fire?
What part of my response didn't you understand? The part where I said my
taxes cover it?
>
>>> And I bet every time a house catches fire the owner should pay the
>>> entire cost of the fire department coming to put it out, and when some
>>> guy is getting mugged the cops shouldn't help him until he whips out
>>> his wallet and pays them for the service.
>>>
>>> Real nice world you want to create.
>>
>> Real nice Strawman. Go burn it.
>
> I'm just going by what you've said.
No, you're building a Strawman.
> Search and rescue is a tax funded government function in most places that
> have it, like a fire department or a police department.
No, not completely. Particularly for specialized SAR such as mountain or
widerness rescue.
> If you want the rescuees to be billed by search and rescue why do you want
> them to be singled out? Why do you not want fire victims to be billed by
> the fire department or crime victims to be billed by the police? Why is
> it only search and rescue for which the victims must pay?
There's that Strawman again. You want a light for that?
>
>
On 6/14/2010 4:07 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 1:09 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/12/2010 11:09 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing
>>>>>>>>> vessel.
>>>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to
>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them
>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a bond among mariners.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You provide assistance when you can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40
>>>>>> years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially
>>>>>> acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo
>>>>>> circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's
>>>>>> the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire
>>>>>> history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past
>>>>>> 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They Should be paying.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay
>>>> the entire cost of the rescue?
>>>
>>> That is Not what I said. I assume cruise ships are insured. If so, their
>>> insurance would cover the rescue - or should.
>>
>> It has not been the habit of governments to bill ship owners for the
>> cost of rescue.
>>
>>> Just like my taxes and Insurance covers the cost of my house fire.
>>
>> So the fire department where you live bills you for the cost of
>> putting out the fire?
>
> What part of my response didn't you understand? The part where I said my
> taxes cover it?
And Abby's taxes and insurance cover the cost of her rescue so how is
she different from you?
>>>> And I bet every time a house catches fire the owner should pay the
>>>> entire cost of the fire department coming to put it out, and when some
>>>> guy is getting mugged the cops shouldn't help him until he whips out
>>>> his wallet and pays them for the service.
>>>>
>>>> Real nice world you want to create.
>>>
>>> Real nice Strawman. Go burn it.
>>
>> I'm just going by what you've said.
>
> No, you're building a Strawman.
Nope, you're advocating that services be provided from something other
than taxation.
>
>> Search and rescue is a tax funded government function in most places
>> that have it, like a fire department or a police department.
>
> No, not completely. Particularly for specialized SAR such as mountain or
> widerness rescue.
So who pays for "specialized SAR such as mountain or wilderness rescue"?
>
>> If you want the rescuees to be billed by search and rescue why do you
>> want them to be singled out? Why do you not want fire victims to be
>> billed by the fire department or crime victims to be billed by the
>> police? Why is it only search and rescue for which the victims must pay?
>
> There's that Strawman again. You want a light for that?
So now you deny that you want rescuees to be billed by search and rescue?
On 6/14/2010 4:04 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 1:06 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/12/2010 11:08 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/12/2010 9:35 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing
>>>>>>>>> vessel.
>>>>>>>>> That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OZ took the lead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to
>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>> additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them
>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the conditions, what more could you ask?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be
>>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who in real need is not being helped?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.
>>>>
>>>> Please identify such a person.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? You Know they haven't covered Everybody. Ask an Aborigine.
>>
>> Do you know of an aborigine who needed rescue at sea and was denied it?
>>
>>
>
> No, do you? Plenty of them have been denied a hell of a lot that could
> have been paid for by the charter of a long range civilian aircraft.
And does whatever they were denied come out of the same part of the
budget? The notion that "if we cut this program then this other group
will be able to have more money" is a virgin's hope. Government
agencies don't work that way.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:53:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote the following:
>
>>
>>"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>>From her 05/21/2010 blog:
>>
>>Good Bye Cape Town.
>>
>>Details available at:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> She appears to have lost weight (10+ lbs) since she set sail. Looking
> good. Go, Abby!
Must be the lack of cheeseburgers out at sea.
Looks like kids are going after all sorts of records. There is a 13 yo
attempting Mt Everest amidst clams it borders on child abuse. Climbing
Everest is a feat under any circumstance, but it is a lot easier that it
ever was. There are a couple of guide outfits that can get you there for
about $60,000 or so. The Sherpas do much of the preliminary work putting
ropes in place. There was a four part series on TV a few months back
showing how it is done. I said "easier", but still a brutal challenge to
get there.
Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
-------------------------------------
Over the Line
I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip, even
if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself isn't the
most exciting thing in the world. There is no line through the middle
of the world or anything, in fact, the southern side of the world is
very much like the northern side!
I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator twice
in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a mile over
the equator the wind died completely and all I had was a current
pushing me backwards!
The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or anything
but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more soon. I think
crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm glad I didn't have
to do it again!
It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
Abby
-----------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
> Per her 02/16/10 blog
> =============================
> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
> Skype and Wind!
> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun. But
> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of the
> best I've had in awhile!
Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog headed for the horn.
--------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Getting Wind
I've finally got some good wind. I'm close hauled with about 15kts out
of the SE. I've had to go a little farther west then I would have
liked but the wind should be shifting around soon, coming more from
the east so I'll be able to head directly south. Its a bit bumpy out
today. Wild Eyes is plowing along and doing great!
Its too hot to stay down below for too long, so I'm sitting up in the
cockpit typing this, but every now and then a big wave crashes over
the boat which is not making this very easy for me!
Yesterday I found that something bit the lure off the line I've had
out. The more I thought about what it was that did it, the less I felt
the need to jump in and go for a swim...
It's really very nice out today. If it was maybe 20 degrees cooler it
would be just about perfect! But the cold is coming and in a few weeks
I'll most likely be wishing I was back here in the heat!
------------------------------------------ "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
> -------------------------------------
> Over the Line
> I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
>
> It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip, even
> if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself isn't
> the most exciting thing in the world. There is no line through the
> middle of the world or anything, in fact, the southern side of the
> world is very much like the northern side!
>
> I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator
> twice in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a mile
> over the equator the wind died completely and all I had was a
> current pushing me backwards!
>
> The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or
> anything but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more soon.
> I think crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm glad I
> didn't have to do it again!
>
> It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
> morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
> Abby
> -----------------------------------
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>> =============================
>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>> Skype and Wind!
>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun. But
>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>> the
>> best I've had in awhile!
>
>
>
Posted 03/27/2010
She is headed for the "Horn"
If interested, link will get you to her blog.
http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
-----------------------------------------
> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog headed for the horn.
> --------------------------------------
> Tuesday, February 23, 2010
> Getting Wind
> I've finally got some good wind. I'm close hauled with about 15kts
> out of the SE. I've had to go a little farther west then I would
> have liked but the wind should be shifting around soon, coming more
> from the east so I'll be able to head directly south. Its a bit
> bumpy out today. Wild Eyes is plowing along and doing great!
>
> Its too hot to stay down below for too long, so I'm sitting up in
> the cockpit typing this, but every now and then a big wave crashes
> over the boat which is not making this very easy for me!
>
> Yesterday I found that something bit the lure off the line I've had
> out. The more I thought about what it was that did it, the less I
> felt the need to jump in and go for a swim...
>
> It's really very nice out today. If it was maybe 20 degrees cooler
> it would be just about perfect! But the cold is coming and in a few
> weeks I'll most likely be wishing I was back here in the heat!
>
> ------------------------------------------ "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
>> -------------------------------------
>> Over the Line
>> I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
>>
>> It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip,
>> even if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself
>> isn't the most exciting thing in the world. There is no line
>> through the middle of the world or anything, in fact, the southern
>> side of the world is very much like the northern side!
>>
>> I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator
>> twice in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a
>> mile over the equator the wind died completely and all I had was a
>> current pushing me backwards!
>>
>> The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or
>> anything but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more
>> soon. I think crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm
>> glad I didn't have to do it again!
>>
>> It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
>> morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
>> Abby
>> -----------------------------------
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>
>>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>>> =============================
>>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>>> Skype and Wind!
>>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
>>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
>>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun.
>>> But
>>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>>> the
>>> best I've had in awhile!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Posted 03/31/2010
She is around the "Horn"
Headed for Africa.
http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
Lew
----------------------------------------------
> Posted 03/27/2010
>
> She is headed for the "Horn"
>
> If interested, link will get you to her blog.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog headed for the horn.
>> --------------------------------------
>> Tuesday, February 23, 2010
>> Getting Wind
>> I've finally got some good wind. I'm close hauled with about 15kts
>> out of the SE. I've had to go a little farther west then I would
>> have liked but the wind should be shifting around soon, coming more
>> from the east so I'll be able to head directly south. Its a bit
>> bumpy out today. Wild Eyes is plowing along and doing great!
>>
>> Its too hot to stay down below for too long, so I'm sitting up in
>> the cockpit typing this, but every now and then a big wave crashes
>> over the boat which is not making this very easy for me!
>>
>> Yesterday I found that something bit the lure off the line I've had
>> out. The more I thought about what it was that did it, the less I
>> felt the need to jump in and go for a swim...
>>
>> It's really very nice out today. If it was maybe 20 degrees cooler
>> it would be just about perfect! But the cold is coming and in a few
>> weeks I'll most likely be wishing I was back here in the heat!
>>
>> ------------------------------------------ "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> Over the Line
>>> I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
>>>
>>> It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip,
>>> even if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself
>>> isn't the most exciting thing in the world. There is no line
>>> through the middle of the world or anything, in fact, the southern
>>> side of the world is very much like the northern side!
>>>
>>> I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator
>>> twice in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a
>>> mile over the equator the wind died completely and all I had was a
>>> current pushing me backwards!
>>>
>>> The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or
>>> anything but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more
>>> soon. I think crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm
>>> glad I didn't have to do it again!
>>>
>>> It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
>>> morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
>>> Abby
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>>>> =============================
>>>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>>>> Skype and Wind!
>>>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all
>>>> the
>>>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not
>>>> going
>>>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun.
>>>> But
>>>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>>>> the
>>>> best I've had in awhile!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Posted 03/31/2010
>
> She is around the "Horn"
>
> Headed for Africa.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> Lew
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>> Posted 03/27/2010
>>
>> She is headed for the "Horn"
>>
>> If interested, link will get you to her blog.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog headed for the horn.
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Tuesday, February 23, 2010
>>> Getting Wind
>>> I've finally got some good wind. I'm close hauled with about 15kts
>>> out of the SE. I've had to go a little farther west then I would
>>> have liked but the wind should be shifting around soon, coming
>>> more from the east so I'll be able to head directly south. Its a
>>> bit bumpy out today. Wild Eyes is plowing along and doing great!
>>>
>>> Its too hot to stay down below for too long, so I'm sitting up in
>>> the cockpit typing this, but every now and then a big wave crashes
>>> over the boat which is not making this very easy for me!
>>>
>>> Yesterday I found that something bit the lure off the line I've
>>> had out. The more I thought about what it was that did it, the
>>> less I felt the need to jump in and go for a swim...
>>>
>>> It's really very nice out today. If it was maybe 20 degrees cooler
>>> it would be just about perfect! But the cold is coming and in a
>>> few weeks I'll most likely be wishing I was back here in the heat!
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------ "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>> Over the Line
>>>> I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
>>>>
>>>> It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip,
>>>> even if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself
>>>> isn't the most exciting thing in the world. There is no line
>>>> through the middle of the world or anything, in fact, the
>>>> southern side of the world is very much like the northern side!
>>>>
>>>> I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator
>>>> twice in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a
>>>> mile over the equator the wind died completely and all I had was
>>>> a current pushing me backwards!
>>>>
>>>> The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or
>>>> anything but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more
>>>> soon. I think crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm
>>>> glad I didn't have to do it again!
>>>>
>>>> It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
>>>> morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
>>>> Abby
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>>>>> Skype and Wind!
>>>>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all
>>>>> the
>>>>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not
>>>>> going
>>>>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun.
>>>>> But
>>>>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>>>>> the
>>>>> best I've had in awhile!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Posted 03/31/2010
>
> She is around the "Horn"
>
> Headed for Africa.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> Lew
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>> Posted 03/27/2010
>>
>> She is headed for the "Horn"
>>
>> If interested, link will get you to her blog.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog headed for the horn.
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Tuesday, February 23, 2010
>>> Getting Wind
>>> I've finally got some good wind. I'm close hauled with about 15kts
>>> out of the SE. I've had to go a little farther west then I would
>>> have liked but the wind should be shifting around soon, coming
>>> more from the east so I'll be able to head directly south. Its a
>>> bit bumpy out today. Wild Eyes is plowing along and doing great!
>>>
>>> Its too hot to stay down below for too long, so I'm sitting up in
>>> the cockpit typing this, but every now and then a big wave crashes
>>> over the boat which is not making this very easy for me!
>>>
>>> Yesterday I found that something bit the lure off the line I've
>>> had out. The more I thought about what it was that did it, the
>>> less I felt the need to jump in and go for a swim...
>>>
>>> It's really very nice out today. If it was maybe 20 degrees cooler
>>> it would be just about perfect! But the cold is coming and in a
>>> few weeks I'll most likely be wishing I was back here in the heat!
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------ "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Posted 02/20/2010 on her blog
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>> Over the Line
>>>> I crossed the equator at about 3 yesterday!!
>>>>
>>>> It's really exciting to have finished the first leg of my trip,
>>>> even if it is a small one... on to the Horn!! The equator itself
>>>> isn't the most exciting thing in the world. There is no line
>>>> through the middle of the world or anything, in fact, the
>>>> southern side of the world is very much like the northern side!
>>>>
>>>> I was a little worried that I would end up crossing the equator
>>>> twice in one day! I had hardly any wind getting across. About a
>>>> mile over the equator the wind died completely and all I had was
>>>> a current pushing me backwards!
>>>>
>>>> The wind has picked up a little now. I'm not racing along or
>>>> anything but I'm moving and the wind should be picking up more
>>>> soon. I think crossing the equator once a day is plenty and I'm
>>>> glad I didn't have to do it again!
>>>>
>>>> It looks like its going to be another warm day today. At 7 this
>>>> morning and it was already 90 degrees out!!
>>>> Abby
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Per her 02/16/10 blog
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
>>>>> Skype and Wind!
>>>>> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all
>>>>> the
>>>>> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not
>>>>> going
>>>>> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun.
>>>>> But
>>>>> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of
>>>>> the
>>>>> best I've had in awhile!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:55:21 -0500, "basilisk" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "RicodJour" wrote:
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sunderland-possibly-lost-sea/story?id=10877108
>> ----------------------------------
>> As of 11:00 PM, PDST:
>>
>> She is SAFE.
>>
>> Boat is dismasted.
>>
>> Details later.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>Lew,
>
>I'm glad she is ok, already there were rumblings of removing
>parents heads. She is a sailor from a sailing family, I don't believe
>what she was doing was inherenly more dangerous than the way
>I lived my teenage years, without me accomplishing a damn thing.
>
>I know nothing about sailing or sail boats, but I thought the mast could
>be laid down in bad weather and with everything sealed up a good sail
>boat could withstand hurricane force weather.
>
>Could you enlighten the unknowing?
>
>basilisk
>
Those who know a little about sailing thought this voyage was in
trouble before it even started. The boat was not properly equipped
(huge understatement) for a circumnavigation, and she departed at
about the worst possible time. Leaving California in January, put her
in the notorious Indian Ocean just as the worst season there (winter)
began. That was about as bad a plan as possible. Her reason for
leaving at such a bad time was so she could set a particular record.
If she waited to sail at the right time, when conditions would be as
favorable as possible, she would be too old to claim that idiotic
record.
The way she did many things made it far more dangerous than it needed
to be.
Posted 04/24/2010
Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
----------------------------------------------
So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO,
not sea going blue water sailboats.
Details available at:
http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Posted 04/24/2010
>
> Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
> ----------------------------------------------
> So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>
> Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>
> Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO,
> not sea going blue water sailboats.
>
> Details available at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> Lew
>
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> So how much accessiblity is there on a snow covered mountain of any kind?
Quite a bit on the slopes normally used for skiing. They have lifts, they
have trails for snowmobiles. The guys looking for excitement go to places
not so easily accessed and that type of terrain is what makes the trip
exciting to start with.
>
> And do you have any numbers on skiers having to be rescued in places "more
> prone to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc",
> or is it just that you want to charge people huge fees for doing anything
> of which you do not approve?
Never said I did not approve. I don't care what they do, but like the rest
of us, they should take responsibility for their actions and pay the
consequences. If you want to slide down the side of a mountain, go for
it, but I don't see that others should risk their lives and spend my money
to haul your body out.
>>
>> There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean
>> up the mistake than the top of Everest.
>
> What clean up is needed over the top of Everest?
Much if a plane doing aerobatics would crash. Spilled fuel, bit of metal
and fabric, body parts, blood stains, etc. Over a corn filed you can sweep
it up much easier.
>
> By the way, John Denver wasn't doing aerobatics and they still had to hunt
> for him in some pretty difficult terrain. Would you have charged him a
> huge fee just to fly from Denver to wherever he was going?
Don't know the details of his flight, but if he was following normal
protocols, no problem. At least he was not out over the Indian Ocean.
>
>> They are often done over rivers,
>> lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.
>
> So? Fishing somebody out of a river isn't expensive?
Cheaper than the middle of the Indian Ocean
>
> So you're fine with paying millions to clean up an airliner crash but not
> with a few hundred thousand for some guy who lost it on a ski slope?
Much of that cost is borne by the aircraft owner. They are also using
normal flight procedures, not doing experimental work.
>
>> If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
>> security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.
>
> So one should only be allowed to ski at resorts? One should be forbidden
> to do so in national parks and the like? Or in one's back yard?
Never said you could not. If, however, you are pushing the sensible limits
in an unfamiliar place, don't ask me for help. To clarify, I should add,
"just for your personal fun and excitement" as opposed to real research or
exploration such as Columbus or NASA.
>
> Why should I pay the price for a crashed commercial airliner? You're
> singling out one segment that represents a small percentage of the cost of
> ocean rescue and demanding that they pay exhorbitant fees that you do not
> want to charge others who are collectively far more likely to use the
> service.
See the line above about personal fun and excitement.
>
> If you want to put a tax on all ocean capable vessels in proportion to the
> estimated cost of rescue that's fine, but singling out solo sailors as
> being the only ones who are going to be required to pay this exhorbitant
> fee is just an attempt to ban something through the back door.
Nope, not at all.
>> No tax needed, just insurance coverage.
>
> Why such insurance for ocean racers but not for containerships?
See my comment about personal fun and excitement.
>
> > Everyone participating shares in
>> the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should"
>> pay for it.
>
> Who pays for a highway cleanup after the crash? Who "should" pay for it?
> Which costs society more, highway cleanups or racetrack cleanups?
Racetrack cleanups don't cost the taxpayer anything. The rest is covered by
our tax dollars, but , it is sometimes billed to the individual's insurance.
Race car drivers and track owners take responsibility, as they should.
>
> So you would require any commercial fishing vessel, like, say, a Japanese
> whaling ship, to buy this insurance of yours? Or just individuals?
IIRC, there are some international treaties on things like that. Fishing
boats, no matter the country, are commercial ventures that add to society.
They provide food. Individual thrill seekers don't add anything for the
rest of the population.
>> They help with economic growth of the
>> world economy also.
>
> Oh, so you'll pay out of pocket for that but not for an individual. Nice
> guy Ed.
I give to charities. The guy jumping from the top of a mountain is not a
charity, just a fun seeker. Good for him, but let him pay.
>
>> The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat
>> though.
>
> <*cough*> Exxon Valdez . . .
I never said never.
>
> She was rescued by the Australians and the French so it didn't cost YOU a
> damned cent.
Good!
> That's 1.6 million dollars. Divide that by 300 million and you get half
> a cent. So you really begrudge somebody HALF A GODDAMN PENNY?
There are about 250,000 half pennies taken from my paycheck every month. I
don't want any more taken out. Ben Franklin would be proud. Half penny
saved is a half penny earned.
>
> If we can't afford half a cent every now and then to bail out somebody who
> took a risk then we really should just pack it up and change the name of
> the country from "The United States of America" to "The Nanny States of
> America".
I want some say in the matter, not to pay for every bozo that says, "Hey
Bubba, watch this"
>
>> Going to an amusement park entails some
>> risk too, but the park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket
>> price) the crews needed to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?
>
> You might want to see who comes when somebody needs rescuing at an
> amusement park. I don't think you'll like it. And I don't think you'll
> like they way they get paid either.
Often it is the local FD. They often too, get nice donations from the park.
On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
Boy, subject is just more of same.
Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
And all equally disgusting ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Jun 13, 11:57=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
> stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. =A0At least the chick is
> keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
> stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...
Like Dick Cheney's?
>
> > Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. =A0Wh=
y is it
> > so irritating to people here? =A0In a woodworking group?
>
> What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
> jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
> and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for any
> accidents. =A0
>Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.
You have no class. Best you be careful, karma is a bitch.
>
> What also irritates me is ...........
You're so irritable!!
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:34:13 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"What we do care about is that all those stupid ass things cost public
>money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort of costly rescue or
>medical service is required to bail them out."
Why don't you launch a campaign against driving cars? There's
certainly more accidents, lives and money lost than fingers on a table
saw. Everybody should be forced to give up cars unless they're armored
and speed governor controlled.
If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be lauding the good things
about Sunderlands trip, such as teenagers striving for more in life
and not spending their weekends drinking and doing the occasional
drugs. But no, you want to concentrate on and compare a silly table
saw scenario to a life risking sailing trip.
As I said, you have all the reasoning power of a slug. I'm not
surprised.
On Jun 22, 8:22=A0am, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:34:13 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"What we do care about is that all those stupid ass things cost public
> >money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort of costly rescue or
> >medical service is required to bail them out."
>
> Why don't you launch a campaign against driving cars? There's
> certainly more accidents, lives and money lost than fingers on a table
> saw. Everybody should be forced to give up cars unless they're armored
> and speed governor controlled.
>
> If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be lauding the good things
> about Sunderlands trip, such as teenagers striving for more in life
> and not spending their weekends drinking and doing the occasional
> drugs. But no, you want to concentrate on and compare a silly table
> saw scenario to a life risking sailing trip.
>
> As I said, you have all the reasoning power of a slug. I'm not
> surprised.
Jack is like Clarke in that sense. Twisting and worming the discussion
in whatever way they see fit just to try to be right about something.
Example:
Clarke: "I was grinding something without wearing my goggles."
Wrecker1: "That is really dumb and dangerous to do that."
Clarke (now realizing he said something stupid): "Getting peanut
butter in your eye doesn't always leave permanent damage."
Upscale wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:34:13 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "What we do care about is that all those stupid ass things cost public
>> money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort of costly rescue or
>> medical service is required to bail them out."
Hey dumb ass, the above quote was a quote of YOUR post not mine...What a
fukking maroon!
> Why don't you launch a campaign against driving cars?
Why don't you launch a campaign to deny medical to head injuries to
drivers not wearing a NASCAR approved crash helmet?
There's
> certainly more accidents, lives and money lost than fingers on a table
> saw. Everybody should be forced to give up cars unless they're armored
> and speed governor controlled.
Talking to yourself, right? YOU are the one denying medical to those
taking needless risks. See your quote I cut and pasted up there...
> If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be lauding the good things
> about Sunderlands trip, such as teenagers striving for more in life
> and not spending their weekends drinking and doing the occasional
> drugs.
My replies are responses to the stupid shit you have been saying
regarding limiting rescue and medical services to those putting
themselves at risk. Abby put herself at risk for money, crabbers put
themselves at risk for money, you put yourself at risk for the hell of
it. You get "free" medical when you whack off a finger, Abby and the
crabbers gets free rescue when they screw up.
If you want to start a new thread about how wonderful Abby is, go for it.
> But no, you want to concentrate on and compare a silly table
> saw scenario to a life risking sailing trip.
Yeah, I'm concentrating on the stupid shit you and a few others have
been saying.
> As I said, you have all the reasoning power of a slug. I'm not
> surprised.
I'm not surprised you're surprised.
--
Jack
Somewhere In Kenya, a Village is Missing it's IDIOT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:22 am, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:34:13 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "What we do care about is that all those stupid ass things cost public
>>> money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort of costly rescue or
>>> medical service is required to bail them out."
>> Why don't you launch a campaign against driving cars? There's
>> certainly more accidents, lives and money lost than fingers on a table
>> saw. Everybody should be forced to give up cars unless they're armored
>> and speed governor controlled.
>>
>> If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be lauding the good things
>> about Sunderlands trip, such as teenagers striving for more in life
>> and not spending their weekends drinking and doing the occasional
>> drugs. But no, you want to concentrate on and compare a silly table
>> saw scenario to a life risking sailing trip.
>>
>> As I said, you have all the reasoning power of a slug. I'm not
>> surprised.
>
> Jack is like Clarke in that sense. Twisting and worming the discussion
> in whatever way they see fit just to try to be right about something.
> Example:
>
> Clarke: "I was grinding something without wearing my goggles."
> Wrecker1: "That is really dumb and dangerous to do that."
> Clarke (now realizing he said something stupid): "Getting peanut
> butter in your eye doesn't always leave permanent damage."
We established you're a homophobic sexist, now we've established you're
an idiot... No big deal, very little astuteness required. I might say
however your homophobic crap could be a smoke screen... Perhaps you are
both homo and homophobic, multiple personalities an all. Perhaps thats
where the "we" you frequently refer to comes from... Perhaps we, I mean
I, should stop mocking this bazaar trait of yours...
--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com
On Jun 18, 10:41=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 11:57 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
> >> stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. =A0At least the chick is
> >> keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
> >> stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...
>
> > Like Dick Cheney's?
>
> >>> Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. =A0=
Why is it
> >>> so irritating to people here? =A0In a woodworking group?
> >> What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
> >> jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
> >> and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for a=
ny
> >> accidents. =A0
>
> >> Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.
>
> > You have no class. Best you be careful, karma is a bitch.
>
> I think the ones advocating denying free services to those taking higher
> risks than they personally deem OK are the ones that should be worried
> about "karma". =A0I think when the collective is pitching in, everyone
> should reap the bounty.
Spoken like a true commie.
>
> So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
> running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
> denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. =A0
Jack has finally swung over to the socialist side.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What do you do - imagine this stuff? You surely lack any level of
>> reading comprehension. Please show where I ever even remotely
>> suggested such missions were good for training. You need a reality
>> check.
>
> See Lew's latest
Lew's latest? Just please show me where I ever said this.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>> set a record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>
>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>
>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans
>> to do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>> myself, but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>> their operational plan all along. But back to the comments that
>> have appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>> doing the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>
> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
And you point is???? I don't know if they do or not. Does not matter to
the point I expressed above.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>
>>
>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that.
>> But come on, half a cent?
>
>
>
> Half a cent here, half a cent there, pretty soon I can buy dinner and a
> movie ...
I'd rather see my tax dollars spent rescuing a teenager attempting to
set a would record than to pay the cost of a presidential snack:
http://americanbullmoose.com/content/economics/the-most-expensive-chicken-wings-ever-sold-or-next-time-mr-president-just-send-us-a-card
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
----------------------------------------
SFWIW, the link below is to Latitude 38, a well respected sailing rag
here on the left coast.
Looks like the story may have some legs.
http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
Lew
On Jun 14, 11:00=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
> >> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
> >> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
> >> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
> >> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
> >> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>
> > World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
> > proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
> > Boy, subject is just more of same.
>
> > Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>
> >http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-we...
>
> > And all equally disgusting ...
>
> Like I said:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_t...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Sortakinda has a BalloonBoyDad-ish feel to it, eh?
Follow the money, or the pursuit thereof.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Something for you folks erecting Strawmen (Marlowe and Clarke in
> particular), particularly this gem from a Responsible circumnavigator:
Hey Lobby - screw you. The strawmen in this thread have been erected at
your hand.
>
> [Interestingly enough, in the July issue of Latitude, you'll read
> about a woman who was attempting to do the same circumnavigation as
> Abby - but on her own dime and without any publicity. She was also
> forced to stop in Cape Town because of boat problems. Seeing as
> winter was fast approaching in the Southern Ocean, this woman, who
> had already completed a normal solo circumnavigation, decided it was
> too unsafe and unfair to those who might have to rescue her if she
> restarted. She'll try again during the next Southern Ocean summer. ]
>
> Fries with that Crow?
Eating crow how? Again with the inability to comprehend the written word.
As you have attempted repeated efforts to misconstrue contributions this
thread, and throw out a continuous stream of misdirection, you have
completely missed direct statements from at least me, that indicate I do not
consider her to be without responsibility. Of course one would have to
invest more than a desire to throw out irrelevant quips to have seen that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
> But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on
> sensible ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down
> the side of a mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to
> take extreme risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and
> pay your rescue bills.
How many of those extreme folks does your tax money pay to rescue? Probably
not as many as you may think. Probably, much more goes to taking care of
the more conservative folks you describe. And Ed - you're not being asked
to chip in - you already have. Your tax money is going toward offering
these services. Now you're asking to qualify what constitutes a valid
service. That sounds logical on the surface, but in reality, you're
spending more on those acceptable services than you are on the one off
extreme services.
>
>
>
>>> Make them pay into a mountain rescue
>>> fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk
>>> we all encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil
>>> that wants to set a record.
>>
>> So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
>> commercial airliner?
>
> When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
> compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.
Not sure the numbers would bear that out Ed.
> Sure there is
> always a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all
> pay for some protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want
> to jump your bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just
> don't expect me to pay if you go splat.
>
You live in CT - you wouldn't pay. That said - you might do something I
would not do, and end up getting hurt. Why should I pay? Or reverse the
roles. The thing is - rescue operations exist to provide rescue services.
I've never seen one that created a list of approved activities that they
would provide those services for.
>
> I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships
> take a lot of precautions to avoid the "shit happens" moment but it
> still does. When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the
> risk and should be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
Why??? If shit happens on cruise ships, then why should shit not happen in
stunts?
>
> Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore. Sport
> fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore. Coast Guard and
> state marine police and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a
> trouble boat in short time in most cases. That is different than
> the adventurer that is crossing the ocean and gets into trouble 1500
> miles from shore. Takes more resources to go get him.
Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. Why is it
so irritating to people here? In a woodworking group?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:48:36 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Now, like Abby, you have been officially told of the dangers and
>solution. There is no longer an excuse for you.
Funny how you compare the rescue of Abby which cost $100,000's of
dollars to upwards of a million, to some fingers on a tablesaw which
might cost some $1000's.
Just as ridiculous is your comparison of rescuing some who literally
put their life on the line to go on some jaunt to a table saw finger
loss which is certainly non lethal.
You have all the reasoning powers of a slug.
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:48:36 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Now, like Abby, you have been officially told of the dangers and
>> solution. There is no longer an excuse for you.
> Funny how you compare the rescue of Abby which cost $100,000's of
> dollars to upwards of a million, to some fingers on a tablesaw which
> might cost some $1000's.
So, like Abby, you are going to ignore the warnings, and worse, you
don't even do it for money, just banal entertainment.
> Just as ridiculous is your comparison of rescuing some who literally
> put their life on the line to go on some jaunt to a table saw finger
> loss which is certainly non lethal.
Ignoring risks at the expense of others is the issue. You can bet more
of other peoples money is spent on avoidable table saw injuries than on
rescuing 16 year old, female adventurer trying to earn a buck.
> You have all the reasoning powers of a slug.
Ouch! I'm just trying to make sense out of your statement:
"What we do care about is that all those stupid ass things cost public
money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort of costly rescue or
medical service is required to bail them out."
So, tell me, now that you have been warned that table saws are dangerous
and that Saw Stops are available that you can use, rather than risk
costly medical service provided to you free by your welfare state, what
are you going to do now? Ignore the advice or spend a few bucks so you
don't risk the collectives money, minimal as it might be in Canada...
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Never said I did not approve. I don't care what they do, but like the
> rest of us, they should take responsibility for their actions and pay
> the consequences. If you want to slide down the side of a
> mountain, go for it, but I don't see that others should risk their
> lives and spend my money to haul your body out.
They are not spending your money. That money has already been allocated to
support their mission. It's not up to you and I to attempt to define what
that mission should be. They are chartered with search and rescue and they
don't have the limits within their charter that you are proposing. You've
already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service should not be
rendered.
>
>
> Cheaper than the middle of the Indian Ocean
What is the cost to you and I for her rescue?
>
>
> Much of that cost is borne by the aircraft owner. They are also using
> normal flight procedures, not doing experimental work.
Depends. Experimental work is not denied search and rescue simply because
it is out of the norm.
>
> Never said you could not. If, however, you are pushing the sensible
> limits in an unfamiliar place, don't ask me for help. To clarify, I
> should add, "just for your personal fun and excitement" as opposed to
> real research or exploration such as Columbus or NASA.
>
You were not asked for help. The help came from organizations that were
already chartered for that sort of thing, and from others who were willing
to help. Why is that a problem?
>
> I want some say in the matter, not to pay for every bozo that says,
> "Hey Bubba, watch this"
I do agree with this, but I think the discussion has progressed well beyond
this point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected].
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>
>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>
>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>
>>
>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>
> Including the charter of an aircraft?
May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to do
just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself, but I
would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their operational
plan all along. But back to the comments that have appeared here - that
charter airplane did not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny - or
even a half a penny.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>> record.
>
>
> Vey well put.
>
> -- Andy Barss
Except that neither of you are paying for it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
>> needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
>> rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
>> jump off a cliff is another story.
>
> You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
> jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good weather with all the
> training and skill and good judgment in the world, shit still happens.
>
But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible ski
trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme risk,
go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue bills.
>> Make them pay into a mountain rescue
>> fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>> set a record.
>
> So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
> commercial airliner?
When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as compared
to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest. Sure there is always a risk
walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay if
you go splat.
>>
>> Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
>> out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
>> payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
>> the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
>> thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
>> records?
>
> Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have had
> to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and freighter
> crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out of the ocean?
>
> It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
> it's the people who are out there every day making a living.
>
> Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out of
> the ocean every half century or so?
I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships take a
lot of precautions to avoid the "shit happens" moment but it still does.
When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should be
willing to pay if they get into trouble.
> And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
> change things?
Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore. Sport fishing
is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore. Coast Guard and state marine police
and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a trouble boat in short time in
most cases. That is different than the adventurer that is crossing the
ocean and gets into trouble 1500 miles from shore. Takes more resources to
go get him.
On Jun 25, 1:08=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Belittling and stereotyping gays is homophobic. =A0
>
I am so proud of your defence of the gay community. Not typical for a
redneck fundy right-wing headbanger.
If you're so adamant that it is perfectly okay to stick your dick
where it doesn't belong, so be it.
Whatever blows up your skirt, Jack.
But my being homophobic? Nope. I fear neither you, nor your ilk.
To wit: ho=B7mo=B7pho=B7bi=B7a (h m -f b - ). n. 1. Fear of or contempt for
lesbians and gay men .
I have gay friends and acquaintances, male and female. In fact, Angela
and I are flying out west to spend a week with two lesbian gals we
both admire very much. No problem with what they want/need/feel. Who
am I to judge? But for me? Poopers are for one-way traffic, bro'. I
said: "For me." What you do in your spare time, is entirely your
business.
> Still, you insist on attempting to insult me by implying I'm gay. =A0All
> you have managed is to display your homophobia. =A0What a hoot! =A0Your P=
C
> friends ought to be popping a hemorrhoid by now...
Well, my, my, my... there is that anal fixation of yours again.
Something you want to tell us, Jack?
On Jun 24, 12:09=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 12:12 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> More homophobic tripe... =A0WE have already established you're a
> >> homophobic sexist, no need to carry on and on about it.
> > You figure, like the rest of your red-neck cohorts, that if you repeat
> > a lie often enough, it will become true, eh?
>
> Are you saying your homophobic statements I quoted and you omitted are
> lies? =A0Here, let me give you an example:
I gave YOU that example, you dumb fuck.
And if that example of mine does not sound gay to you, then I am not
even going to camp on the same campground as you.
>
> =A0> "Oh, and btw, when I see a 250 burly guy flip his wrist whilst
> =A0> exclaiming "Ooooo how abtholutely Fabuuuulouth!!" whilst fondling a
> =A0> pink feather boa....I think that he sounds gay. A simple observation=
."
Now go and play with your feather boa collection.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:09:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>How does the cost of surgical reattachment of a limb compare to the cost
>of renting an airliner for a day? And how many surgical reattachments
>of table-sawn limbs have been needed in the past 20 years vs searches
>for singlehanded circumnavigators?
The cost to rescue Abby was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
range/
http://moralpremise.blogspot.com/2010/06/abby-sunderlands-story-leads-to.html
The average cost to reattach a finger including a five day hospital
stay if needed runs in the $20,000 range. Surgical healthcare costs in
Canada are approximately half that of the US.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11119660
And, just because there most certainly have been more finger
replantations than sea rescues doesn't for one second back up your
dismissal of "lost" sailors. Finger amputations or crush injuries can
happen for dozens of reasons. Getting lost at sea is mostly
attributable to ONE reason ~ someone doing something at sea that was
stupid or unadvisable. Which in this case was Sunderland on both
counts.
For the most part, I'd wager that most who have cut off a finger have
gotten themselves to a hospital or at the worst used an ambulance
which at most might be a thousand or two. BIG, BIG difference in cost.
You're a troll Clark and you like to demonstrate it. Go fuck yourself.
On Jun 22, 7:54=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 10:13 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Jun 20, 11:14 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
> >>>> buddy robocop! =A0That usually works well.
> >>> Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
> >>> What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
> >>> douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
> >> Well chuckles, it gives me great pleasure pointing out your banal,
> >> childish, homophobic, sexist retorts.
>
> >>> Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
> >> Do you think you added in enough extra letters there bozo? =A0How old =
are
> >> you, 12?
> > It is probably true that even a 12-year old can see that you're a
> > hatin' fundy. But I have seen sanctimonious closet cases like you
> > before, Jack. You're text-book.
>
> I think your only use for a text-book would be to sit on it so you can
> reach your keyboard...
>
> > You see, Jack... I am not homophobic at all,
>
> Well you sure talk like one. =A0You see, attempting to denigrate someone
> by saying something they said "sounds gay" =A0or thinking you can impugn
> one's reputation by saying they are "infatuated with male coonts" are
> guideposts to a homophobic sexist. =A0"Douche-nozzle" is probably just
> juvenile tripe, but combined with the rest of your garbage might warrant
> a deeper look by your PC friends.
>
> but I have a problem with those who don't have the courage to come out
> of the closet.
>
> Homophobes don't often need to come out of the closet, their language
> betrays their phobia.
>
> > Besides, you already have demonstrated your infatuation with 12-year
> > old male coont. That is a bit sick.
>
> Your imagination is a bit sick, even for a twisted, 12 year old
> homophobic sexist... Maybe not.
>
> --
> Jack
> If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!http://jbstein.com
Give it up, Jack. I suggest that when you find yourself in a hole to
stop digging.
We have established your latency now all you have to do is 'man' up to
it.
Oh, and btw, when I see a 250 burly guy flip his wrist whilst
exclaiming "Ooooo how abtholutely Fabuuuulouth!!" whilst fondling a
pink feather boa....I think that he sounds gay. A simple observation.
That does not make me homophobic. Also, my astute observation of your
latency doesn't make me homophobic either. So get a life, Douche-
nozzle, you're boring me.
On Jun 27, 1:02=A0pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >You ought to know, Jack. That happened to you eons ago.
>
> Another lazy afternoon of poking the mindless with a stick eh? One
> message from jack is all it takes to realize that he's incapable of
> anything approaching some type of salient response. =A0<g>
LOL.. welllll... you got me. Guilty. I had some time between soccer
games.
BTW, do you know how to lose a soccer match?
A: By assuming that those 3rd world countries like Ghana can't
possibly be better at ANYthing.
On Jun 27, 2:03=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:02=A0pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> > >You ought to know, Jack. That happened to you eons ago.
>
> > Another lazy afternoon of poking the mindless with a stick eh? One
> > message from jack is all it takes to realize that he's incapable of
> > anything approaching some type of salient response. =A0<g>
>
> LOL.. welllll... you got me. Guilty. I had some time between soccer
> games.
>
> BTW, do you know how to lose a soccer match?
> A: By assuming that those 3rd world countries like Ghana can't
> possibly be better at ANYthing.
Which incidentally was a jab at that arrogant coach, not the rather
capable US team itself.
CUE: Pundits who will point out that Canada didn't even make to the
play-offs....
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3b01e7cb-ab2d-498c-95a5-554df7ab605b@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 1:02 pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >You ought to know, Jack. That happened to you eons ago.
>
> Another lazy afternoon of poking the mindless with a stick eh? One
> message from jack is all it takes to realize that he's incapable of
> anything approaching some type of salient response. <g>
LOL.. welllll... you got me. Guilty. I had some time between soccer
games.
BTW, do you know how to lose a soccer match?
A: By assuming that those 3rd world countries like Ghana can't
possibly be better at ANYthing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running. Lot of running going on there.
Friend in HS once said he could run faster than any cop when he had a
cigarette in his mouth and two hub caps in each hand.
On Jun 21, 10:13=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 11:14 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
> >> buddy robocop! =A0That usually works well.
> > Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
> > What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
> > douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
>
> Well chuckles, it gives me great pleasure pointing out your banal,
> childish, homophobic, sexist retorts.
>
> > Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
>
> Do you think you added in enough extra letters there bozo? =A0How old are
> you, 12?
>
It is probably true that even a 12-year old can see that you're a
hatin' fundy. But I have seen sanctimonious closet cases like you
before, Jack. You're text-book.
You see, Jack... I am not homophobic at all, but I have a problem with
those who don't have the courage to come out of the closet.
Besides, you already have demonstrated your infatuation with 12-year
old male coont. That is a bit sick.
On Jun 20, 11:14=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
> buddy robocop! =A0That usually works well.
>
Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:09:41 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You consistently reach, and often exceed my expectations. Your
>dimwitted buddy, Upsale not so much.
Better than the continual asinine examples you try to use to make some
equally ridiculous point.
Upscale wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:09:41 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> You consistently reach, and often exceed my expectations. Your
>> dimwitted buddy, Upsale not so much.
>
> Better than the continual asinine examples you try to use to make some
> equally ridiculous point.
I quote (cut and paste no less) something you said, you incorrectly
attribute the quote to me, then you belittle and argue with YOURSELF,
then have the audacity to call my points ridiculous..
Talk about straw men, you take the cake...
--
Jack
A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.
http://jbstein.com
On Jun 23, 12:12=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well said, for a 12 year old.
Is that really the best you got?
On Jun 23, 12:12=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> More homophobic tripe... =A0WE have already established you're a
> homophobic sexist, no need to carry on and on about it.
>
You figure, like the rest of your red-neck cohorts, that if you repeat
a lie often enough, it will become true, eh?
Then again, what does one expect from a douche-nozzle?
Upscale wrote:
> You're a troll Clark and you like to demonstrate it. Go fuck yourself.
I love how you left wing socialist bastards get your undies in a bunch
and ALWAYS resort to empty name calling when someone disagrees with you.
Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
buddy robocop! That usually works well.
Troll doesn't really fit someone making lucid arguements.
--
Jack
Take risks: If you win, you will be happy; if you lose, you will be wise.
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:14 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
>> buddy robocop! That usually works well.
> Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
> What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
> douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
Well chuckles, it gives me great pleasure pointing out your banal,
childish, homophobic, sexist retorts.
> Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
Do you think you added in enough extra letters there bozo? How old are
you, 12?
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com
On Jun 27, 7:49=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:09 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> I quote (cut and paste no less) something you said, you incorrectly
> >> attribute the quote to me, then you belittle and argue with YOURSELF,
> >> then have the audacity to call my points ridiculous..
>
> > Looks like a valid statement on the face of it, but the truth is that
> > frequently you'll creatively manipulate, lie or say whatever comes to
> > mind to try to bolster your feeble arguments ~ aka a commonplace stein
> > witticism.
>
> Nice try, but I back up my statements with quotes direct quotes, so it
> not only looks valid, but is valid. You just make shit up. =A0It's
> particularly funny when you attack yourself. =A0Not too stupid are you?
>
> > I'm done with this. You don't have anything to contribute and never
> > did.
>
> Yeah, I know, it's a bitch when you run out of worthless innuendoes.
>
You ought to know, Jack. That happened to you eons ago.
Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:09 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I quote (cut and paste no less) something you said, you incorrectly
>> attribute the quote to me, then you belittle and argue with YOURSELF,
>> then have the audacity to call my points ridiculous..
>
> Looks like a valid statement on the face of it, but the truth is that
> frequently you'll creatively manipulate, lie or say whatever comes to
> mind to try to bolster your feeble arguments ~ aka a commonplace stein
> witticism.
Nice try, but I back up my statements with quotes direct quotes, so it
not only looks valid, but is valid. You just make shit up. It's
particularly funny when you attack yourself. Not too stupid are you?
> I'm done with this. You don't have anything to contribute and never
> did.
Yeah, I know, it's a bitch when you run out of worthless innuendoes.
--
Jack
Got Change: big government =====> BIG GOVERNMENT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxb_vZe7Ao
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:09 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I quote (cut and paste no less) something you said, you incorrectly
>attribute the quote to me, then you belittle and argue with YOURSELF,
>then have the audacity to call my points ridiculous..
Looks like a valid statement on the face of it, but the truth is that
frequently you'll creatively manipulate, lie or say whatever comes to
mind to try to bolster your feeble arguments ~ aka a commonplace stein
witticism.
I'm done with this. You don't have anything to contribute and never
did.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:13 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 11:14 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
>>>> buddy robocop! That usually works well.
>>> Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
>>> What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
>>> douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
>> Well chuckles, it gives me great pleasure pointing out your banal,
>> childish, homophobic, sexist retorts.
>>
>>> Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
>> Do you think you added in enough extra letters there bozo? How old are
>> you, 12?
> It is probably true that even a 12-year old can see that you're a
> hatin' fundy. But I have seen sanctimonious closet cases like you
> before, Jack. You're text-book.
I think your only use for a text-book would be to sit on it so you can
reach your keyboard...
> You see, Jack... I am not homophobic at all,
Well you sure talk like one. You see, attempting to denigrate someone
by saying something they said "sounds gay" or thinking you can impugn
one's reputation by saying they are "infatuated with male coonts" are
guideposts to a homophobic sexist. "Douche-nozzle" is probably just
juvenile tripe, but combined with the rest of your garbage might warrant
a deeper look by your PC friends.
but I have a problem with those who don't have the courage to come out
of the closet.
Homophobes don't often need to come out of the closet, their language
betrays their phobia.
> Besides, you already have demonstrated your infatuation with 12-year
> old male coont. That is a bit sick.
Your imagination is a bit sick, even for a twisted, 12 year old
homophobic sexist... Maybe not.
--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:54 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 21, 10:13 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 20, 11:14 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
>>>>>> buddy robocop! That usually works well.
>>>>> Sounding more like a Liberal every day. LOLOL
>>>>> What gives me great pleasure is the knowledge that calling Stein a
>>>>> douche-nozzle has really got under his skin.
>>>> Well chuckles, it gives me great pleasure pointing out your banal,
>>>> childish, homophobic, sexist retorts.
>>>>> Makes him a LOOOOOZERRR
>>>> Do you think you added in enough extra letters there bozo? How old are
>>>> you, 12?
>>> It is probably true that even a 12-year old can see that you're a
>>> hatin' fundy. But I have seen sanctimonious closet cases like you
>>> before, Jack. You're text-book.
>> I think your only use for a text-book would be to sit on it so you can
>> reach your keyboard...
>>
>>> You see, Jack... I am not homophobic at all,
>> Well you sure talk like one. You see, attempting to denigrate someone
>> by saying something they said "sounds gay" or thinking you can impugn
>> one's reputation by saying they are "infatuated with male coonts" are
>> guideposts to a homophobic sexist. "Douche-nozzle" is probably just
>> juvenile tripe, but combined with the rest of your garbage might warrant
>> a deeper look by your PC friends.
>>
>> but I have a problem with those who don't have the courage to come out
>> of the closet.
>>
>> Homophobes don't often need to come out of the closet, their language
>> betrays their phobia.
>>
>>> Besides, you already have demonstrated your infatuation with 12-year
>>> old male coont. That is a bit sick.
>> Your imagination is a bit sick, even for a twisted, 12 year old
>> homophobic sexist... Maybe not.
>>
>> --
>> Jack
>> If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!http://jbstein.com
>
> Give it up, Jack. I suggest that when you find yourself in a hole to
> stop digging.
> We have established your latency now all you have to do is 'man' up to
> it.
Simply because we recognizes a homophobic, sexist attitude in you does
not establish much of anything about us, particularly when the attitude
is so fukking obvious.
> Oh, and btw, when I see a 250 burly guy flip his wrist whilst
> exclaiming "Ooooo how abtholutely Fabuuuulouth!!" whilst fondling a
> pink feather boa....I think that he sounds gay. A simple observation.
More homophobic tripe... WE have already established you're a
homophobic sexist, no need to carry on and on about it.
> That does not make me homophobic.
We don't know what makes you a homophobic sexist, just what identifies
you as such!
> So get a life, Douche- nozzle, you're boring me.
Well said, for a 12 year old.
--
Jack
Redistribute My Work Ethic!!!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:12 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> More homophobic tripe... WE have already established you're a
>> homophobic sexist, no need to carry on and on about it.
> You figure, like the rest of your red-neck cohorts, that if you repeat
> a lie often enough, it will become true, eh?
Are you saying your homophobic statements I quoted and you omitted are
lies? Here, let me give you an example:
> "Oh, and btw, when I see a 250 burly guy flip his wrist whilst
> exclaiming "Ooooo how abtholutely Fabuuuulouth!!" whilst fondling a
> pink feather boa....I think that he sounds gay. A simple observation."
You are simple, thats quite obvious.
> Then again, what does one expect from a douche-nozzle?
You consistently reach, and often exceed my expectations. Your
dimwitted buddy, Upsale not so much.
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 24, 12:09 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 12:12 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> More homophobic tripe... WE have already established you're a
>>>> homophobic sexist, no need to carry on and on about it.
>>> You figure, like the rest of your red-neck cohorts, that if you repeat
>>> a lie often enough, it will become true, eh?
>> Are you saying your homophobic statements I quoted and you omitted are
>> lies? Here, let me give you an example:
> I gave YOU that example, you dumb fuck.
Well yes, you made the original homophobic comments, and I quoted you,
then you omitted it from your lame retort, an obvious cover up attempt.
> And if that example of mine does not sound gay to you, then I am not
> even going to camp on the same campground as you.
Belittling and stereotyping gays is homophobic. Thats why I quoted your
statement, and why you omitted it from your previous reply.
>> > "Oh, and btw, when I see a 250 burly guy flip his wrist whilst
>> > exclaiming "Ooooo how abtholutely Fabuuuulouth!!" whilst fondling a
>> > pink feather boa....I think that he sounds gay. A simple observation."
>
> Now go and play with your feather boa collection.
Still, you insist on attempting to insult me by implying I'm gay. All
you have managed is to display your homophobia. What a hoot! Your PC
friends ought to be popping a hemorrhoid by now...
--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>
> Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
> who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
their way.
>
>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
>> same as you?
>
> Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?
>
Some ambulances now bill for services.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 9:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>>
>>> Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally
>>> disapprove who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
>>
>> Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
>> actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
>> their way.
>
> You have said it in just about every post on this thread.
Show me where I said I disapprove. Never said that. They can do as they
please, but should take responsibility.
> You want the Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond that
> would effectively preclude their activities,
Why would it preclude their activities? What is the cost of the boat and
outfitting of it? Quite a tidy sum and insurance would just be another part
of the cost of doing business, just as we all pay now.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>> record.
>>
>>
>> Vey well put.
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>
> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the country
during the year.
On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
>> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
>> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
>> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
>> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
>> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>
> World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
> proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
> Boy, subject is just more of same.
>
> Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>
> http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
>
>
> And all equally disgusting ...
Like I said:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
> So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for singling
> out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your rescue
> insurance and not another?
My rational was explained in my first post. If you want to take risk, go
right ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your cleanup. Pretty simple eh?
So far you have not given any rational
> basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another is
> not.
Stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport. Many names can be
applied. They differ from normal voyages. Crossing the sea in a small boat,
skiing in risky places normally inaccessible would qualify.
(b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
> actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?
I'm not inclined to look, but feel free to report back if you do.
>> I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
>> person/boat/voyage.
>
> Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so mightily
> distressed, it seems germaine.
Never said I was distressed, that is your reading and misinterpretation. I
just stated an opinion on the cost of rescue and who should pay. If she
breaks a record or not, my life is not going to change. I'm still getting up
at 5:30 tomorrow and going to work. I'll probably have an egg and toast for
breakfast.
> Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that comes
> out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's.
Correct. I just don't want it to come out of my pocket. I'm happy to pay
for police and fire protection, a strong military, paved roads. I don't
want to pay for sports stadiums used commercially, or cleanup for someone's
frivolity.
>
>> If you were talking about a fee to be
>>> paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
>>> be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
>>> a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
>>> services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
>>> the cost of rescue.
In many cases others do pay. Just because they may historically use little
service, thee is still a danger and cost that is not needed. So you think
it is OK if someone picks your pocket as long as they only take a little of
your money?
>
> So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
> appeals to emotion.
I've been trying logic, but you seem to put emotion into it. It was you
that called me dispassionate.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> And Ed - you're not being asked to chip in - you already have. Your tax
> money is going toward offering these services. Now you're asking to
> qualify what constitutes a valid service. That sounds logical on the
> surface, but in reality, you're spending more on those acceptable services
> than you are on the one off extreme services.
What is wrong with controlling costs? What is wrong with excitement
seekers paying for their failures? IIRC, Balloon Boy parents are being
billed for some of the costs of their foolishness. They should pay. If
someone is taking risk to develop a newmilitary aircraft I have no problem
as it has a potential reward for society.
>>
>> I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships
>> take a lot of precautions to avoid the "shit happens" moment but it
>> still does. When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the
>> risk and should be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
>
> Why??? If shit happens on cruise ships, then why should shit not happen
> in stunts?
When stunts are done by Evil Kenevil he pays for all sort of safety
equipment and people to be on hand in the event of failure. Same with
Hollywood stuntmen. Why should individual thrill seekers not have some
responsibility?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> They are not spending your money. That money has already been allocated
> to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to attempt to define
> what that mission should be. They are chartered with search and rescue
> and they don't have the limits within their charter that you are
> proposing.
True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service should
> not be rendered.
No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?
What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered
>> with search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their
>> charter that you are proposing.
>
> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
>
>
>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>> should not be rendered.
>
> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
> difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I
> bet they have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why
> not rescue?
> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>
> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay
> the same as you?
I don't have a hardcore stance that there should be no cost recovery, but
neither do I have a stance that says all costs should be borne by the
individual (or their insurance). I think I'm exploring this idea real time
via these discussions, myself.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
>>> paying for the rescue efforts now?
>>
>> Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will
>> simply exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having
>> them, paying for them, if they can't be used.
>
> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just that purpose. We
already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why should someone pay
for utilizing a service that is already funded and exists just for that
purpose?
>
> At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
> to cover rescue costs.
I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to delve
into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in defining some
basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in existence, but any
additional services such as securing the boat, or whatever, being outside of
that basic rescue provision.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jun 19, 7:52=A0pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:47:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Now who is showing their ignorance? =A0SAR units the world over are
> >already in place and paid for as well. =A0That was the gist of the story
> >to begin with.
>
> One other thing you seem to be ignoring. There are thousands and
> thousands of table saws (maybe millions) around the world. If they
> were as unsafe in usage as it was unsafe and unadvisable for
> Sunderland to sail, then all the SAR units around the world would have
> been inundated a long time ago, would have run out of this never
> ending supply of support money you seem to think exists and certainly
> wouldn't be able to "rescue" everybody".
>
> You're using a really big oranges and apples example. It's not even
> close to being comparable.
It is called a Straw Man.
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:47:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Do you own a Saw Stop or are you living life on the edge, at everyone
>else's expense?
You insist on asking this question and the answer is "no, I do not own
a SawStop". It's more awkward for me to own and use one. Sawstop were
one of the first I approached when looking for a lowered table saw.
There are too many mechanisms in the base of a SawStop, to have it
lowered for me to use properly. And since it would be awkward and more
dangerous for me to use one, I made the responsible decision not to
purchase one.
Compare that to Sunderland who you seem hell bent on supporting
unconditionally. The time of year she sailed and the advise of others
was completely ignored. She chose to do ignore the experts and in
fact, ignore common sense, all on her own. Accordingly, the powers
that be should have insisted that she have "rescue insurance" for lack
of a better term. That might have shown so responsibility.
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:47:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Now who is showing their ignorance? SAR units the world over are
>already in place and paid for as well. That was the gist of the story
>to begin with.
One other thing you seem to be ignoring. There are thousands and
thousands of table saws (maybe millions) around the world. If they
were as unsafe in usage as it was unsafe and unadvisable for
Sunderland to sail, then all the SAR units around the world would have
been inundated a long time ago, would have run out of this never
ending supply of support money you seem to think exists and certainly
wouldn't be able to "rescue" everybody".
You're using a really big oranges and apples example. It's not even
close to being comparable.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:08:45 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
>>>>>> mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part
>>>>>> of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes
>>>>>> to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out of the
>>>>>> helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are covered by
>>>>>> ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
>>>>> (Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
>>>>>>> out of a helicopter anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>
>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>
>>> So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
>>> forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
>>> "designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
>>> walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a Strawman construction permit?
>
>You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off designated
>slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there were
>officials going around designating slopes.
You wonder? There wasn't an intrusive government or a few million ambulance
chasers.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:05:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote
>> Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...
>
>
>That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and then
>enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for help. They
>come bring you back for free.
Ah! Got it. Maybe I could sport an Aussie accent and claim that my yacht
crashed here, then have American Airlines to take me over there. When I've
seen enough...
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>> here.
>
> Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
> areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
> use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
> outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
>
There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a red
herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been about
trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not realize the amount
of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc. that takes place.
To suggest that the only lawful and proper manner of participating is within
the confines of an established business is... well, foolish.
Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski slopes, etc.
There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land under the control of
parks, that allow free range type activities. Not at all restricted to a
ski slope.
As it relates to the conversation at hand - Abby was well within the
"designated" areas on her little jaunt. Not trespassing at all. So - what
is your point?
Man - this thing is getting dragged in all sorts of rediculous directions...
> Just because someone may not be fined for going into those outside
> areas does not mean there's no control or law affecting that area.
Oye...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
>>> areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas
>>> for use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
>>> outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
>>>
>>
>> There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
>> trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a
>> red herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been
>> about trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not
>> realize the amount of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking,
>> snowmobiling, etc. that takes place. To suggest that the only lawful
>> and proper manner of participating is within the confines of an
>> established business is... well, foolish.
>
> And a Strawman erected by You.
That's choice. You are the one continuing to introduce these ideas.
Strawman - that would be your contribution. I only supplied a rebuttal to
your comments.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>> here.
>>
>> Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
>> areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
>> use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
>> outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
>>
>
> There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
> trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a red
> herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been about
> trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not realize the
> amount of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc. that
> takes place. To suggest that the only lawful and proper manner of
> participating is within the confines of an established business is...
> well, foolish.
And a Strawman erected by You.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
>>>> areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas
>>>> for use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
>>>> outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
>>> trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a
>>> red herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been
>>> about trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not
>>> realize the amount of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking,
>>> snowmobiling, etc. that takes place. To suggest that the only lawful
>>> and proper manner of participating is within the confines of an
>>> established business is... well, foolish.
>>
>> And a Strawman erected by You.
>
>
> That's choice.
If what you want to do is continue to erect them, be my guest.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for
>>>> skiing in areas besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
>>> areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
>>> use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
>>> outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
>>>
>>
>> There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
>> trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a red
>> herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been about
>> trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not realize the
>> amount of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc. that
>> takes place. To suggest that the only lawful and proper manner of
>> participating is within the confines of an established business is...
>> well, foolish.
>
> And a Strawman erected by You.
Here is a video of dumb ass ski bums skiing in non wilderness
conditions. This is IN the heart of the big city of Pittsburgh, home of
the Steelers, Pens and Pirates. These ski bums are participating in a
useless activity which is obviously risky and has no purpose other than
having fun and getting something to stick on YouTube. I figure now that
we have government health care, when one of them gets hurt, or needs
rescued off Mt Washington, they should foot the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQk76u0DU8&feature=geosearch
--
Jack
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the
sword, the other is by debt." - John Adams
http://jbstein.com
On 6/20/2010 12:24 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> One other thing you seem to be ignoring. There are thousands and
>> thousands of table saws (maybe millions) around the world. If they
>> were as unsafe in usage as it was unsafe and unadvisable for
>> Sunderland to sail, then all the SAR units around the world would have
>> been inundated a long time ago, would have run out of this never
>> ending supply of support money you seem to think exists and certainly
>> wouldn't be able to "rescue" everybody".
>
> If you installed one of those table saws in a sailboat, would it make
> sawing less safe or would it make sailing safer?
How does the cost of surgical reattachment of a limb compare to the cost
of renting an airliner for a day? And how many surgical reattachments
of table-sawn limbs have been needed in the past 20 years vs searches
for singlehanded circumnavigators?
Upscale wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:47:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Do you own a Saw Stop or are you living life on the edge, at everyone
>> else's expense?
>
> You insist on asking this question and the answer is "no, I do not own
> a SawStop". It's more awkward for me to own and use one. Sawstop were
> one of the first I approached when looking for a lowered table saw.
> There are too many mechanisms in the base of a SawStop, to have it
> lowered for me to use properly. And since it would be awkward and more
> dangerous for me to use one, I made the responsible decision not to
> purchase one.
Well dumb ass, your ignorance is showing yet again. They sell a
contractors saw that you could mount on a bench of any height, so by not
using one, your are putting yourself at risk at your fellow countrymens
expense.
> Compare that to Sunderland who you seem hell bent on supporting
> unconditionally.
More ignorance, I don't support her in any more than Alaskan crab
fisherman sailing out in hurricanes for the sole purpose of making some
fast cash. 64 of them die every year and the US Coast guard rescues
many of the crabbers every year at great taxpayer expense.
The time of year she sailed and the advise of others
> was completely ignored. She chose to do ignore the experts and in
> fact, ignore common sense, all on her own. Accordingly, the powers
> that be should have insisted that she have "rescue insurance" for lack
> of a better term. That might have shown so responsibility.
Yes, and you should be required to buy a saw stop if you insist on using
a table saw for pleasure, or at least show that you have the ability to
pay cash for having your fingers reattached at the local welfare
hospital if you are too cheap, or too poor to buy a saw stop.
BTW, now that it seems Abby was doing this not just for fun, but in
hopes of making money from it, I reckon the sea rescue was no different
than commercial fisherman risking it all for some fast cash, and needing
rescued when things go awry. This is unlike you doing woodwork for fun,
or her brother that sailed around the earth for the hell of it, right?
I'm just trying to get my arms around who gets free help, and who has to
pay...
For example, now that the US has opted for Welfare medical care for
everyone, I wonder if it's fair that people get "free" help with murder
cycle injuries, or if helmets should be worn by all in passenger cars,
or if dumb asses like me cut their fingers off on a table saw not
equipped with a saw stop mechanism available to all?
Since we are drawing lines in the sand, I just want to get an idea where
you are headed with this stuff.
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
Upscale wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:47:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Now who is showing their ignorance? SAR units the world over are
>> already in place and paid for as well. That was the gist of the story
>> to begin with.
> One other thing you seem to be ignoring. There are thousands and
> thousands of table saws (maybe millions) around the world.
And if all of them were equipped with saw stop mechanisms, thousands and
thousands of horrible accidents would simple not happen.
If they
> were as unsafe in usage as it was unsafe and unadvisable for
> Sunderland to sail, then all the SAR units around the world would have
> been inundated a long time ago, would have run out of this never
> ending supply of support money you seem to think exists and certainly
> wouldn't be able to "rescue" everybody".
You mean government money supply is limited?
> You're using a really big oranges and apples example. It's not even
> close to being comparable.
It's exactly the same thing. Who gets to participate in free government
services, and who doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to
think Abby should be denied SAR services freely available to anyone lost
at sea. You and others base this on unnecessary risk she was willing to
take at the collectives expense if something goes wrong. Some think
because she was not earning a living doing it, she should have to pay
for risking her life for fun (at the collectives expense) Now it turns
out she was not doing it for fun, but to make money, ala Alaskan Crab
fishermen.
--
Jack
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
out of prosperity.
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit skiing in
>areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for skiing in areas
>besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts here.
Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.
Just because someone may not be fined for going into those outside
areas does not mean there's no control or law affecting that area.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:03:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
>>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
>>>>> in 1898.
>>>>>
>>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>>> "stunt".
>>>>
>>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>>
>>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>>
>> No. It's entertainment.
>
>So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
When someone gets caught using performance enhancing drugs in the
Olympics, they get banned from the sport.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> One other thing you seem to be ignoring. There are thousands and
> thousands of table saws (maybe millions) around the world. If they
> were as unsafe in usage as it was unsafe and unadvisable for
> Sunderland to sail, then all the SAR units around the world would have
> been inundated a long time ago, would have run out of this never
> ending supply of support money you seem to think exists and certainly
> wouldn't be able to "rescue" everybody".
If you installed one of those table saws in a sailboat, would it make sawing
less safe or would it make sailing safer?
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:58:58 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/13/2010 1:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered with
>>> search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their charter
>>> that you are proposing.
>>
>> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
>
>How much less?
Less public money, surely.
>>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>>> should not be rendered.
>>
>> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
>> difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
>> have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?
>
>So start issuing rescue policies and convincing government agencies to
>start billing rescuees.
They have. It will get more widespread. Probably too widespread because of
such stunts.
>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>
>Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
>who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
Other already to. They pay for insurance and pay taxes for emergency
services.
>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
>> same as you?
>
>Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?
Yes, it does, for perils covered under the policy. I don't think towing from
the Indian Ocean is covered under most, though.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>>
>>> -- Andy Barss
>
>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>
> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
> and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>
and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's already in
the funding for the SAR service.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
> off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
> general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?
Accessibility for one. The second is the chances of something happening in
the first place. Some places are easier and less risky to ski, just not as
challenging for the daredevil. They often go to places more prone to
avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc.
>>
>> When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
>> compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.
>
> So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
> hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
> emergency room?
There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean up
the mistake than the top of Everest. They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.
>
>> Sure there is always
>> a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
>> protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
>> bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
>> if you go splat.
>
> So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
> rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?
Don't know, don't care, I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.
>> When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
>> be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
>
> What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of precautions
> to avoid the shit happens moment?
Sure they do, but if things do go wrong, pay the price. Why should I have
to pay?
>
> So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
> transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more than
> 75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue what
> people do with boats.
No tax needed, just insurance coverage. Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should" pay
for it.
>
>> Sport
>> fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.
>
> So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged for
> engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like for
> example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?
NO fee, just insurance. Don't want to buy insurance? No problem, just put
of a $500,000 bond that will be returned when you get back to port. If you
don't think we should pay for our own risk, why not eliminate all car
insurance. All cost will be borne by the state.
>
> I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25 footer
> or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when Poseidon
> hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
> circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard. Not
> even teenaged ones.
That is true, there is risk. Ships do pay for taxes, insurance, and travel
in the shipping lanes. They help with economic growth of the world economy
also. The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat though. I
don't care what kind of chances you want to take, just don't expect me to
open my wallet. Going to an amusement park entails some risk too, but the
park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket price) the crews needed
to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and
> are injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary
> risk. If you drink and drive, you subject your passengers and
> everyone else along your route to an unnecessary risk.
I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't do
anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided? That would indeed represent personal responsibility,
wouldn't it? But many would still have their undies in a wad over the risk.
>
> The captain of the fishing vessel that picked up Sunderland II went
> into the water. He was OK, but he was subjected to an unnecessary
> risk. I imagine he has dreams and if he has children, they also have
> dreams. Should he have been subjected to that risk because a 16 year
> old from the US had a "dream"?
Ok - he went into the water. People that lead that kind of life lead a life
full of risk that would seem foreign to most in a group like this. Why is
this group so wadded up over this when I have not heard these same concerns
from those who were actually involved in the SAR effort.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>>>>>>>> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil
>>>>>>>>>> that wants to set a record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>
>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>> plans to do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I
>>>> don't know myself, but I would not be at all surprised if a
>>>> charter was part of their operational plan all along. But back to
>>>> the comments that have appeared here - that charter airplane did
>>>> not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny - or even a half
>>>> a penny.
>>>
>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>
>> And you point is???? I don't know if they do or not. Does not
>> matter to the point I expressed above.
>
> You did suggest that such missions were good for training.
It is no wonder you have such trouble carrying on a conversation. What do
you do - imagine this stuff? You surely lack any level of reading
comprehension. Please show where I ever even remotely suggested such
missions were good for training. You need a reality check.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 6/11/2010 11:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would
>> be overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put
>> forward as a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a
>> moot point. Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just
>> that purpose. We already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why
>> should someone pay for utilizing a service that is already funded and
>> exists just for that purpose?
>
> If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
> needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
> rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
> jump off a cliff is another story.
You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard
or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good weather with all
the training and skill and good judgment in the world, shit still happens.
> Make them pay into a mountain rescue
> fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
> set a record.
So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?
>>> At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
>>> to cover rescue costs.
>>
>> I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to
>> delve into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in
>> defining some basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in
>> existence, but any additional services such as securing the boat, or
>> whatever, being outside of that basic rescue provision.
>
> Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
> out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
> payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
> the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
> thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
> records?
Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have
had to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and
freighter crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out of
the ocean?
It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
it's the people who are out there every day making a living.
Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out of
the ocean every half century or so?
As for "setting out for atypical sea", what the HELL is "atypical sea"?
And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
change things?
On Jun 14, 10:25=A0am, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>
> >I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
> >personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don'=
t do
> >anything with any risk. =A0Once this plays out, what if we discover that=
the
> >Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
> >services provided?
>
> So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
> scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
> going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
> expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
> them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
> real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.
That'd be 300 grand they won't be paying.
http://tinyurl.com/25pvnfv
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:59:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski slopes, etc.
>There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land under the control of
>parks, that allow free range type activities. Not at all restricted to a
>ski slope.
Let me ask you Mike. You've heard warnings about avalanches. But you
decide to go into those off areas anyway. Something happens and you
need rescue to get out. Do you bear any responsibility at all for
venturing into an area that you were warned could be dangerous?
You did something stupid. No law against that. Does anybody ever bear
any responsibility for being stupid?
Sunderland went sailing in the worst part of the season. Enough
experienced sailors advised against it to make her choice a rash
decision, but she went anyway. Does she bear any responsibility for
it?
What she was doing was not a necessary part of living life. It was a
choice she make to get a thrill at the very least, and make herself
famous at best. And yet, here you are trying to convince me she
doesn't bear a shred of responsibility??? You'd have a better chance
of convincing me that Gates is my long lost brother and he wants to
give me several billion dollars.
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>
>> I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has
>> positioned personal responsibility as don't do anything that I
>> wouldn't do, or don't do anything with any risk. Once this plays
>> out, what if we discover that the Sunderland family reimburses the
>> French vessel and the Aussies for all services provided?
>
> So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
> scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
> going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
> expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
> them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
> real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.
No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting back at
your computer terminals whining about someone doing something outside of
your own personal scope of interest, and coming up with all sorts of off the
wall requirements for the world to live by.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:59:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski
>> slopes, etc. There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land
>> under the control of parks, that allow free range type activities.
>> Not at all restricted to a ski slope.
>
> Let me ask you Mike. You've heard warnings about avalanches. But you
> decide to go into those off areas anyway. Something happens and you
> need rescue to get out. Do you bear any responsibility at all for
> venturing into an area that you were warned could be dangerous?
>
> You did something stupid. No law against that. Does anybody ever bear
> any responsibility for being stupid?
>
Ahhh - you ask a completely different question here. I've said that I'm big
on personal responsibility, so my answer to your question is yes, I do
believe she bears responsibility. That said, what I've been saying is that
there are services in place that are already funded to aid in situations,
and because they exist for this reason, I don't fall into lock step with the
clamor that she should bear all of the costs - regardless of whether there
has even been a request issued for reimbursement. I would not argue that
she should have no responsibility to the cost, and in fact, I never have
argued that. What I've said is that there are organizations that are
already funded to provide SAR, and simply using those services does not
automatically constitute a requirement for compensation. There have been
voices here that have clamored for cost coverage, even in advance of any
such request from the providers. Most of those have been based on the
writer's belief in what is acceptable by their definition, and what is not.
I have been involved in SAR with organizations that never expected
compensation. For those who are uniformed to insist that this should be
paid for at all costs, clearly do not understand the world of SAR. There is
not always a cost associated with an effort.
> Sunderland went sailing in the worst part of the season. Enough
> experienced sailors advised against it to make her choice a rash
> decision, but she went anyway. Does she bear any responsibility for
> it?
We are not in disagreement on this point.
>
> What she was doing was not a necessary part of living life. It was a
> choice she make to get a thrill at the very least, and make herself
> famous at best. And yet, here you are trying to convince me she
> doesn't bear a shred of responsibility??? You'd have a better chance
> of convincing me that Gates is my long lost brother and he wants to
> give me several billion dollars.
Most SAR efforts are associated with non life essential endeavors. It's the
nature of things. I don't want you to misinterpret my arguments in such a
way as to believe I see no responsibility on her part. But then again -
almost all SAR has personal responsibility associated with it. If we draw
the line at life essential activities, then the vast majority of SARs will
bill individuals. That may not be a bad thing in the end, but it is a very
different thing than what exists now. It may not be the best thing either,
since these organizations are funded by tax money already paid by those who
receive the service. I just do not believe this kind of thing is a clear
cut issue.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>
>>I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
>>personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't
>>do
>>anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
>>Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
>>services provided?
>
> So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
> scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
> going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
> expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
> them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
> real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.
Just read recently that Elvis and Tom Jones were quite good friends for many
years. Wonder if Tom knows he's in Toronto. ;-)
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>
There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>
>
>
> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:52:44 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Well dumb ass, your ignorance is showing yet again. They sell a
>> contractors saw that you could mount on a bench of any height, so by not
>> using one, your are putting yourself at risk at your fellow countrymens
>> expense.
> So you think I should sell my current table saw and purchase a cheaper
> one? Since you're so hell bent on Saw stop, prove that you've
> purchased one yourself. Otherwise shove it up your ass.
I'm not the one running around wanting to deny anyone "free" service
because the put themselves at risk. I think your welfare medical should
pay when/if you get whacked on your table saw because you are too
dumb/cheap to take precautions readily available at reasonable cost.
As for injury, I've long ago purchased insurance against injury. Where's
your darling
> Abby's insurance?
You mean you don't have "free" welfare insurance against injury? I
thought you socialist bastards up north got everything free?
>> More ignorance, I don't support her in any more than Alaskan crab
>> fisherman sailing out in hurricanes for the sole purpose of making some
>> fast cash. 64 of them die every year and the US Coast guard rescues
>> many of the crabbers every year at great taxpayer expense.
>
> They're earning a living you dumb shit! You want to compare that to
> Sunderland traipsing around the ocean?
Turns out they were also doing it for the cash, dumb ass. So now I
guess you changed your mind, and since the big risk was for cash, just
like the Crabbers all is well?
> The Sunderland family seems to
> have come up with >$100,000 to outfit a boat for her and yet they
> couldn't afford some type of insurance and they're now broke? The
> whole family are scammers. They're another version of the Balloon Boy.
Well dumb ass, the balloon boy was a fake, Abby, like her brother,
actually was sailing around the ocean.
>> Yes, and you should be required to buy a saw stop if you insist on using
>> a table saw for pleasure, or at least show that you have the ability to
>
> You can't read can you? I'VE PURCHASED INSURANCE AGAINST INJURY. I PAY
> FOR IT MYSELF AND I MAINTAIN IT MYSELF. AND SHOULD IT INTEREST YOU,
> OVER THE YEARS, I'VE PAID MORE IN INSURANCE COSTS THAN THE COST TO
> REPLANT SEVERAL FINGERS.
Sorry, I thought you Canucks all had "free" welfare medical. What is
your insurance for, paying for slinking into the USA for privately
funded, non-government medical that actually works.
> I could pay for the procedure myself several times over if necessary,
> but I've protected myself. Show me where your darling Abby or her
> family has done the same thing.
Well damn, if you can pay for reattaching your fingers, then you can
certainly pay a small amount for a saw stop.
> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
Yeah, she put herself at great risk to earn some cash, just like an
Alaskan crabber, or make herself famous, like Amelia Earhart or Chas
Lindberg and a ton of other money grubbing, fame seeking crazy ass
people. You on the other hand, and I reckon her brother as well, put
yourselves at risk just for the hell of it, building what, a bird house
or table you could buy at K-mart or Wall mart for a few bucks?
Here's some advice since you said you didn't to know, Table saws are
very dangerous and thousands have been seriously injured at great cost
to the collective. The saw stop is a cheap solution that greatly, or
completely eliminates any risk to fingers and hands from saw blades.
Now, like Abby, you have been officially told of the dangers and
solution. There is no longer an excuse for you.
--
Jack
Got Change: big government =====> BIG GOVERNMENT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=x2G3wGVAnlQ
http://jbstein.com
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:04:37 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> for risking her life for fun (at the collectives expense) Now it turns
>> out she was not doing it for fun, but to make money, ala Alaskan Crab
>> fishermen.
> Bull Shit! She was doing it to make a name for herself. And while I
> agree she was also doing it for money, she was not doing it out of
> necessity to make a living, unlike your unfortunate crab fisherman.
You mean she does not need to make a living? Anyway, I made a living my
entire life and never once put myself at risk hunting crab in hurricanes
at sea. I think the crabbers are putting themselves at great risk to
earn some fast money, just like Abby. Her brother was the one that did
it for fun, at least I never heard of him before this.
Since the crabbers can make a great deal of money in a hurry, don't you
think they should pay every penny spent by the collective to rescue
them. I know I, nor anyone I every worked with had to be rescued
earning a living doing whatever work I did to make a living. Most of
the crabbers could do what I've done with low risk, low expense to the
collective.
--
Jack
. . . this thing we call 'failure' is not falling down, but the staying
down.
http://jbstein.com
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
>>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
>>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
>
> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>
Who's she and who'd she play for last year?
On 6/21/2010 8:46 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
>>>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
>>>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>>>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
>>
>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>
>
> Who's she and who'd she play for last year?
Google her.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/21/2010 8:46 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
>>>>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
>>>>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>>>>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
>>>
>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>>
>>
>> Who's she and who'd she play for last year?
>
> Google her.
>
Done. So what?
On 6/21/2010 10:05 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/21/2010 8:46 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
>>>>>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation
>>>>>> per
>>>>>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>>>>>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who's she and who'd she play for last year?
>>
>> Google her.
>>
>
> Done. So what?
So why aren't you whining about her?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/21/2010 10:05 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/21/2010 8:46 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/21/2010 12:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation
>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>> nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
>>>>>>> Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go! Old Sailors Home or some such ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who's she and who'd she play for last year?
>>>
>>> Google her.
>>>
>>
>> Done. So what?
>
> So why aren't you whining about her?
>
I have not 'whined' about anyone.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:24:26 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>If you installed one of those table saws in a sailboat, would it make sawing
>less safe or would it make sailing safer?
Depends, if I can jury rig it to use as a centre board. But, if I was
stranded in the middle of the ocean with a broken mast, I could use it
to fashion a bunch of mini masts and sail my way home. No need to call
anyone to come rescue me.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:04:37 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>for risking her life for fun (at the collectives expense) Now it turns
>out she was not doing it for fun, but to make money, ala Alaskan Crab
>fishermen.
Bull Shit! She was doing it to make a name for herself. And while I
agree she was also doing it for money, she was not doing it out of
necessity to make a living, unlike your unfortunate crab fisherman.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:52:44 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Well dumb ass, your ignorance is showing yet again. They sell a
>contractors saw that you could mount on a bench of any height, so by not
>using one, your are putting yourself at risk at your fellow countrymens
>expense.
So you think I should sell my current table saw and purchase a cheaper
one? Since you're so hell bent on Saw stop, prove that you've
purchased one yourself. Otherwise shove it up your ass. As for injury,
I've long ago purchased insurance against injury. Where's your darling
Abby's insurance?
>More ignorance, I don't support her in any more than Alaskan crab
>fisherman sailing out in hurricanes for the sole purpose of making some
>fast cash. 64 of them die every year and the US Coast guard rescues
>many of the crabbers every year at great taxpayer expense.
They're earning a living you dumb shit! You want to compare that to
Sunderland traipsing around the ocean? The Sunderland family seems to
have come up with >$100,000 to outfit a boat for her and yet they
couldn't afford some type of insurance and they're now broke? The
whole family are scammers. They're another version of the Balloon Boy.
>Yes, and you should be required to buy a saw stop if you insist on using
>a table saw for pleasure, or at least show that you have the ability to
You can't read can you? I'VE PURCHASED INSURANCE AGAINST INJURY. I PAY
FOR IT MYSELF AND I MAINTAIN IT MYSELF. AND SHOULD IT INTEREST YOU,
OVER THE YEARS, I'VE PAID MORE IN INSURANCE COSTS THAN THE COST TO
REPLANT SEVERAL FINGERS.
I could pay for the procedure myself several times over if necessary,
but I've protected myself. Show me where your darling Abby or her
family has done the same thing.
If Sunderland had ANY altruistic tendencies at all, at the very least
she'd have organized some type of charity contribution or donation per
nautical mile for some worthy cause. It would have cost her nothing.
Instead, all she has done is blog to the world.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
>personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't do
>anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
>Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
>services provided?
So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.
On 6/12/2010 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
>>> needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
>>> rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
>>> jump off a cliff is another story.
>>
>> You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a
>> blizzard or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good
>> weather with all the training and skill and good judgment in the
>> world, shit still happens.
>>
> But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible
> ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
> mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme
> risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue
> bills.
Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?
And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
out of a helicopter anyway?
>>> Make them pay into a mountain rescue
>>> fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>> set a record.
>>
>> So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
>> commercial airliner?
>
> When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
> compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.
So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?
> Sure there is always
> a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
> protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
> bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
> if you go splat.
So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?
>>> Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
>>> out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
>>> payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
>>> the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
>>> thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
>>> records?
>>
>> Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have
>> had to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and
>> freighter crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out
>> of the ocean?
>>
>> It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
>> it's the people who are out there every day making a living.
>>
>> Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out
>> of the ocean every half century or so?
>
> I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships take a
> lot of precautions to avoid the "shit happens" moment but it still does.
You mean you don't have any numbers? That suggests that it's not the
cost that is bothering you, but that you just plain can't stand to see
anybody having fun unless they pay a huge tax to do it.
> When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
> be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of
precautions to avoid the shit happens moment?
>> And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
>> change things?
>
> Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore.
So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more
than 75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue
what people do with boats.
> Sport
> fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.
So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged for
engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like for
example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?
> Coast Guard and state
> marine police and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a trouble boat
> in short time in most cases. That is different than the adventurer that
> is crossing the ocean and gets into trouble 1500 miles from shore. Takes
> more resources to go get him.
It also takes more resources to get to any other kind of vessel. So why
do you not want to charge your huge fees to ALL vessels going more than
75 miles from shore?
I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
Not even teenaged ones.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:01:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting back at
>your computer terminals whining about someone doing something outside of
>your own personal scope of interest, and coming up with all sorts of off the
>wall requirements for the world to live by.
You don't comprehend too well do you? I and the rest of my behind the
monitor computer cadres don't give a rat's ass what stupid ass things
people like to do. What we do care about is that all those stupid ass
things cost public money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort
of costly rescue or medical service is required to bail them out.
Is that so hard to understand?
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:01:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting
>> back at your computer terminals whining about someone doing
>> something outside of your own personal scope of interest, and coming
>> up with all sorts of off the wall requirements for the world to live
>> by.
>
> You don't comprehend too well do you? I and the rest of my behind the
> monitor computer cadres don't give a rat's ass what stupid ass things
> people like to do. What we do care about is that all those stupid ass
> things cost public money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort
> of costly rescue or medical service is required to bail them out.
>
> Is that so hard to understand?
Not at all, but what is hard to understand is insistance on individuals
attempting to define what constitutes unacceptable activities others may or
may not participate in. Most of this is based on a lack of understanding of
the real nature of the events under discussion, which in itself is based on
their own personal preferences. Most people who comment on the things
others do that "costs them money", are quite comfortable overlooking things
they do that cost the rest of us money, or other activities which cost us
money that happen to fall within their definition of acceptable.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:01:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting back at
>> your computer terminals whining about someone doing something outside of
>> your own personal scope of interest, and coming up with all sorts of off the
>> wall requirements for the world to live by.
>
> You don't comprehend too well do you? I and the rest of my behind the
> monitor computer cadres don't give a rat's ass what stupid ass things
> people like to do. What we do care about is that all those stupid ass
> things cost public money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort
> of costly rescue or medical service is required to bail them out.
>
> Is that so hard to understand?
No, easy to understand.
BTW, you do have a saw stop right?
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
:>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
:>> paying for the rescue efforts now?
:>
:>Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
:>exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
:>them, if they can't be used.
: Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
: trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
: then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
: her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
: obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
I agree.
Here in flash flood country, we have very prominnt road signs saying
"Warning: Do Not Enter When Flooding". These are often dips in the road
under a bridge, or through natural washes that route the rainfall. Every
year some idiots think they can ignore the signs, get stuck, and then have
to be rescue (which is both expensive and dangerous for the rescue
personnel). A few years ago the city started billing the rescuees, which I
think is only fair. It's one thing to gt protcted from danger by tax-funde
services, which I heartily support; it's another to willingly put yourself
(or, in the girl's case, your child) in danger. That's stupid, and those
doing it should pay the price of rescue.
-- Andy Barss
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
: I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
: but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a record.
Vey well put.
-- Andy Barss
On 6/12/2010 2:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain
>> than off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing
>> in general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?
>
> Accessibility for one. The second is the chances of something happening
> in the first place. Some places are easier and less risky to ski, just
> not as challenging for the daredevil. They often go to places more prone
> to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc.
So how much accessiblity is there on a snow covered mountain of any kind?
And do you have any numbers on skiers having to be rescued in places
"more prone to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper
terrain, etc", or is it just that you want to charge people huge fees
for doing anything of which you do not approve?
>>> When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
>>> compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.
>>
>> So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
>> hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
>> emergency room?
>
> There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean
> up the mistake than the top of Everest.
What clean up is needed over the top of Everest?
By the way, John Denver wasn't doing aerobatics and they still had to
hunt for him in some pretty difficult terrain. Would you have charged
him a huge fee just to fly from Denver to wherever he was going?
> They are often done over rivers,
> lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.
So? Fishing somebody out of a river isn't expensive?
>>> Sure there is always
>>> a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
>>> protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
>>> bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
>>> if you go splat.
>>
>> So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
>> rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?
>
> Don't know, don't care, I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
So you're fine with paying millions to clean up an airliner crash but
not with a few hundred thousand for some guy who lost it on a ski slope?
> If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
> security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.
So one should only be allowed to ski at resorts? One should be
forbidden to do so in national parks and the like? Or in one's back yard?
>>> When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
>>> be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
>>
>> What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of
>> precautions to avoid the shit happens moment?
>
> Sure they do, but if things do go wrong, pay the price. Why should I
> have to pay?
Why should I pay the price for a crashed commercial airliner? You're
singling out one segment that represents a small percentage of the cost
of ocean rescue and demanding that they pay exhorbitant fees that you do
not want to charge others who are collectively far more likely to use
the service.
If you want to put a tax on all ocean capable vessels in proportion to
the estimated cost of rescue that's fine, but singling out solo sailors
as being the only ones who are going to be required to pay this
exhorbitant fee is just an attempt to ban something through the back door.
>> So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
>> transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more
>> than 75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue
>> what people do with boats.
>
> No tax needed, just insurance coverage.
Why such insurance for ocean racers but not for containerships?
> Everyone participating shares in
> the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should"
> pay for it.
Who pays for a highway cleanup after the crash? Who "should" pay for
it? Which costs society more, highway cleanups or racetrack cleanups?
>>> Sport
>>> fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.
>>
>> So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged
>> for engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like
>> for example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?
>
> NO fee, just insurance. Don't want to buy insurance? No problem, just
> put of a $500,000 bond that will be returned when you get back to port.
> If you don't think we should pay for our own risk, why not eliminate all
> car insurance. All cost will be borne by the state.
So you would require any commercial fishing vessel, like, say, a
Japanese whaling ship, to buy this insurance of yours? Or just individuals?
>> I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
>> footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
>> Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
>> circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
>> Not even teenaged ones.
>
> That is true, there is risk. Ships do pay for taxes, insurance, and
> travel in the shipping lanes.
Abby Sunderland pays taxes and insurance and I'm sure that she paid
exactly the same fee to "travel in the shipping lanes" as any supertanker.
> They help with economic growth of the
> world economy also.
Oh, so you'll pay out of pocket for that but not for an individual.
Nice guy Ed.
> The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat
> though.
<*cough*> Exxon Valdez . . .
> I don't care what kind of chances you want to take, just don't
> expect me to open my wallet.
She was rescued by the Australians and the French so it didn't cost YOU
a damned cent. But suppose she was rescued by the US. If you run the
numbers and assume the US funded the whole operation, it took less than
a penny out of your wallet. If the 'Strine were paying full boat list
ticket price for every seat on that plane, it was about 400,000 bucks.
They did it twice. That's 800,000 (and I'm being generous--the second
time they used a bizjet that was a lot less expensive to run). Then
there's the ship--I don't know how big it is or how much fuel it uses
but it's almost certainly less than an Airbus 330 and it only had to
shut down operations for a day or so, so call it another 400,000. Now,
a bunch of people had to rush about and make phone calls and whatnot to
put the whole thing together, so call it another 400,000. That's 1.6
million dollars. Divide that by 300 million and you get half a cent.
So you really begrudge somebody HALF A GODDAMN PENNY?
If we can't afford half a cent every now and then to bail out somebody
who took a risk then we really should just pack it up and change the
name of the country from "The United States of America" to "The Nanny
States of America".
> Going to an amusement park entails some
> risk too, but the park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket
> price) the crews needed to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?
You might want to see who comes when somebody needs rescuing at an
amusement park. I don't think you'll like it. And I don't think you'll
like they way they get paid either.
On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a record.
>
>
> Vey well put.
If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>> record.
>>
>>
>> Vey well put.
>
> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
> come on, half a cent?
Half a cent here, half a cent there, pretty soon I can buy dinner and a
movie ...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>> record.
>>
>>
>> Vey well put.
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>
> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>
What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
On 6/13/2010 1:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered with
>> search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their charter
>> that you are proposing.
>
> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
How much less?
>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>> should not be rendered.
>
> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
> difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
> have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?
So start issuing rescue policies and convincing government agencies to
start billing rescuees.
> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
> same as you?
Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?
On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>>
>>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>>
>
> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
> country during the year.
Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
rescue last year?
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>>
>>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>
>
> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
On 6/13/2010 12:18 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>> record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vey well put.
>>
>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>> come on, half a cent?
>
> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
> penny for me.
Oh, booh hooh.
On 6/13/2010 1:29 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> And Ed - you're not being asked to chip in - you already have. Your
>> tax money is going toward offering these services. Now you're asking
>> to qualify what constitutes a valid service. That sounds logical on
>> the surface, but in reality, you're spending more on those acceptable
>> services than you are on the one off extreme services.
>
> What is wrong with controlling costs?
If you want to "control costs" then the one time in 50 years event is
not the one you need to work on.
> What is wrong with excitement
> seekers paying for their failures?
As long as you also demand that everyone else who potentially uses the
service must also pay that's fine, but you are singling out people whose
activities, even if completely curtailed, would make only a very tiny
difference in the cost of providing the service.
> IIRC, Balloon Boy parents are being
> billed for some of the costs of their foolishness.
A bit different case, in that the kid was never in the balloon and did
not need rescue and there is reason to believe that they were aware of this.
> They should pay. If
> someone is taking risk to develop a newmilitary aircraft I have no
> problem as it has a potential reward for society.
So taking risks to develop weapons is OK with you?
Would you be kind enough to provide an exhaustive list of activities of
which you approve?
>>> I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships
>>> take a lot of precautions to avoid the "shit happens" moment but it
>>> still does. When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the
>>> risk and should be willing to pay if they get into trouble.
>>
>> Why??? If shit happens on cruise ships, then why should shit not
>> happen in stunts?
>
> When stunts are done by Evil Kenevil he pays for all sort of safety
> equipment and people to be on hand in the event of failure. Same with
> Hollywood stuntmen. Why should individual thrill seekers not have some
> responsibility?
For one thing, "stunt men" are doing it as a paid job and are in an
environment in which injury is _likely_. You act like the almost
inevitable result of a solo circumnavigation attempt is a rescue. Do
you have any reason to believe this, or is it just that you, having
probably never been on a boat in your life, cannot concieve of the
notion that someone can sail across an ocean singlehanded without coming
to grief?
How many singlehanded offshore sailors have needed rescue in the past
half century? Do you have a number? If they have not been a problem,
then why should they be penalized?
On 6/13/2010 9:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>
>> Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally
>> disapprove who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
>
> Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
> actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
> their way.
You have said it in just about every post on this thread. You want the
Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond that would
effectively preclude their activities, but you have not stated that you
want the same of cruise ships and airliners and all the rest that
constitute the lion's share of rescue costs. You seem to be operating
under the fantasy that they already pay for some kind of "search and
rescue insurance".
>>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
>>> same as you?
>>
>> Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?
>>
> Some ambulances now bill for services.
Does car insurance pay for it?
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Why??? If shit happens on cruise ships, then why should shit not happen in
> stunts?
There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. At least the chick is
keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...
> Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. Why is it
> so irritating to people here? In a woodworking group?
What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for any
accidents. Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.
What also irritates me is some people are doing the same shit not for
fun, but for MONEY, and damned if I don't have to foot the bill for any
accidents those greedy bastards have...
And what about those dammed murdercycle people and the goofy bike riders
with the funky helmets that get run over by innocent guys like me in my
pickup, hauling wood for some bird feeders I'm making for the needy
wildlife?
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
On Jun 21, 12:12=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0"Robatoy" wrote:
> > LOL... in Stein's case? maybe something best left unsaid. (Think boy
> > scout or choirboy or whatever else he can entice in an airport
> > washroom.)
>
> PS... I have seen the The Deer Hunter, I know what Stein likes....
> -------------------------
> I didn't, so share.
>
> Lew
Plenty of plot outlines all over the intarwebs.
On Jun 20, 10:50=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> Not trusting Douche-Nozzle Stein is a good bet. Right-wing nutbars
> like him will always be able to be bribed. Money is everything to
> them... that and a cock.
> ---------------------------------------------
> But whose?
>
> Lew
LOL... in Stein's case? maybe something best left unsaid. (Think boy
scout or choirboy or whatever else he can entice in an airport
washroom.)
On Jun 20, 8:34=A0pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:14:35 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
> >buddy robocop! =A0
>
> Douche-nozzle is reserved for assholes like you. The big difference
> between you and Robatoy is that I'd trust Robatoy whereas a red neck
> like you I wouldn't have anything to do with if my life depended on
> it.
Not trusting Douche-Nozzle Stein is a good bet. Right-wing nutbars
like him will always be able to be bribed. Money is everything to
them... that and a cock.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:14:35 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
>buddy robocop!
Douche-nozzle is reserved for assholes like you. The big difference
between you and Robatoy is that I'd trust Robatoy whereas a red neck
like you I wouldn't have anything to do with if my life depended on
it.
On Jun 20, 11:11=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 10:50=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> > Not trusting Douche-Nozzle Stein is a good bet. Right-wing nutbars
> > like him will always be able to be bribed. Money is everything to
> > them... that and a cock.
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > But whose?
>
> > Lew
>
> LOL... in Stein's case? maybe something best left unsaid. (Think boy
> scout or choirboy or whatever else he can entice in an airport
> washroom.)
PS... I have seen the The Deer Hunter, I know what Stein likes....
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:14:35 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just call him a douche-nozzle like your fukking coon't
>> buddy robocop!
> Douche-nozzle is reserved for assholes like you. The big difference
> between you and Robatoy is that I'd trust Robatoy whereas a red neck
> like you I wouldn't have anything to do with if my life depended on
> it.
I'm not a big fan of socialist bastards, so you might, for once, be
making a sound decision, for an asshole like you of course.
--
Jack
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 20, 10:50 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>>
>> Not trusting Douche-Nozzle Stein is a good bet. Right-wing nutbars
>> like him will always be able to be bribed. Money is everything to
>> them... that and a cock.
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> But whose?
>>
>> Lew
>
> LOL... in Stein's case? maybe something best left unsaid. (Think boy
> scout or choirboy or whatever else he can entice in an airport
> washroom.)
Pretty weak for a homophobic 12 year old.
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>> come on, half a cent?
>>
>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>> penny for me.
> Oh, booh hooh.
This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
"much more" is of course, relative.
--
Jack
Mr. Geithner, May I Borrow Your TurboTax?
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
>> What is wrong with controlling costs?
> If you want to "control costs" then the one time in 50 years event is
> not the one you need to work on.
Hey, Ali-Boma spent $14,500,000,000 (that's $14.5 BILLION) just to COUNT
how many people we got. That's a kool $50 a person. The dumb fuck
could have paid ACORN $5 a pop to count everyone and the number would
have been distributed more to his liking...
Or, simply paid everyone to show up with some ID and pay them $50 a head
to count themselves.... Thats $200 for a family of four. I'd have
taken the government bus downtown with my families birth certificates
and SS cards for 200 bucks and I don't even live near a border....
--
Jack
A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote:
:> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
:>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
:>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
:>> record.
:>
:>
:> Vey well put.
:>
:> -- Andy Barss
: Except that neither of you are paying for it.
Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
-- Andy BArss
On 6/13/2010 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
>> ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
>> the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
>>
>
> There are a lot of factors. Sporting is skiing down the patrolled
> slopes. Stunting would be going off a cliff not patrolled and seen as
> risky.
I see. So it's "stunting" if it is not done in an area that is "patrolled"?
> Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building,
> stunting is base jumping from it.
I see. So the risk of injury to others doesn't enter into it either.
> Maturity and skill level are more
> important than age.
>
> I once took a small (14') boat out in the ocean on a day that I should
> not have. We realized this but could not safely turn around right away.
> Once past the breakwater we turned around and came back into the bay.
> Staying out there would have been foolhardy, going back was prudent.
Pity there was nobody around to charge you a million dollar rescue
insurance premium before you engaged in such a stunt.
>
>
>
On 6/13/2010 1:19 PM, Nova wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vey well put.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that.
>>> But come on, half a cent?
>>
>>
>>
>> Half a cent here, half a cent there, pretty soon I can buy dinner and
>> a movie ...
>
> I'd rather see my tax dollars spent rescuing a teenager attempting to
> set a would record than to pay the cost of a presidential snack:
>
> http://americanbullmoose.com/content/economics/the-most-expensive-chicken-wings-ever-sold-or-next-time-mr-president-just-send-us-a-card
So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.
On 6/13/2010 11:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 9:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>>>
>>>> Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally
>>>> disapprove who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
>>>
>>> Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
>>> actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
>>> their way.
>>
>> You have said it in just about every post on this thread.
>
> Show me where I said I disapprove. Never said that. They can do as they
> please, but should take responsibility.
But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
very strong that there are certain activities that one should be allowed
to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance fee, and
others for which one should be required to pay such a fee, with the
requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing to do with
the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such activities.
So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
approve or disapprove of such and such activity.
>
>> You want the Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond
>> that would effectively preclude their activities,
>
> Why would it preclude their activities? What is the cost of the boat and
> outfitting of it? Quite a tidy sum and insurance would just be another
> part of the cost of doing business, just as we all pay now.
What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been
talking about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to
solo circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their
rescue should such be needed. If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out a
single group which historically has made little use of rescue services,
and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for the cost of
rescue.
On 6/13/2010 4:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>
>>> Show me where I said I disapprove. Never said that. They can do as they
>>> please, but should take responsibility.
>>
>> But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
>> not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
>> very strong that there are certain activities that one should be
>> allowed to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance
>> fee, and others for which one should be required to pay such a fee,
>> with the requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing
>> to do with the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such
>> activities.
>
> But that has nothing at all to do with approval or disapproval aside
> from YOUR translation. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything they
> want to do.
So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for singling
out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your rescue
insurance and not another? So far you have not given any rational
basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another is
not. Can you (a) define "stunt" in a manner which allows no room for
opinion and (b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?
>> So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
>> approve or disapprove of such and such activity.
>
> Nope, my personal feeling have nothing to do with it.
So give us your dispassionate rational basis.
>>>> You want the Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond
>>>> that would effectively preclude their activities,
>>>
>>> Why would it preclude their activities? What is the cost of the boat and
>>> outfitting of it? Quite a tidy sum and insurance would just be another
>>> part of the cost of doing business, just as we all pay now.
>>
>> What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been
>> talking about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to
>> solo circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their
>> rescue should such be needed.
>
>
> I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
> person/boat/voyage.
Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so
mightily distressed, it seems germaine.
> I'm talking about a lot of suspect activities that may put a strain on
> resources because some thrill seeker wants to orgasm in some strange
> way. I never said a fee, I said insurance or a surety bond, payable to
> the rescue country. I don't want to pay for your foolishness.
Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that
comes out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's. If instead
of quibbling over nomenclature you would address the reason that
particular activities should be required to pay it while others that
place greater strain on rescue capabilities are not required to pay it
then perhaps some progress might be made.
> If you were talking about a fee to be
>> paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
>> be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
>> a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
>> services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
>> the cost of rescue.
>
> Even though you refuse to see the difference, there is.
So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
appeals to emotion.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>> I'd rather see my tax dollars spent rescuing a teenager attempting to
>> set a would record than to pay the cost of a presidential snack:
>>
>> http://americanbullmoose.com/content/economics/the-most-expensive-chicken-wings-ever-sold-or-next-time-mr-president-just-send-us-a-card
> So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
> taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
> that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.
If the SAR guys make as much per hour as the SS agents, and the
operating cost of a plane, not counting the plane, is 100 g's an hour,
then I'm out, don't wanna pay for none of it...
--
Jack
A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com
On 6/13/2010 11:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for
>> singling out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your
>> rescue insurance and not another?
>
> My rational was explained in my first post. If you want to take risk, go
> right ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your cleanup. Pretty simple eh?
So you would favor the same charges being levied against tankers,
container ships, cruise ships, commercial fishing vessels, commercial
airliners, and the like as against singlehanded sailors?
> So far you have not given any rational
>> basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another
>> is not.
>
> Stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport. Many names can be
> applied. They differ from normal voyages. Crossing the sea in a small
> boat, skiing in risky places normally inaccessible would qualify.
So define these terms in such a way that a person from another planet
can figure out what is "stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport".
> (b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
>> actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?
>
> I'm not inclined to look, but feel free to report back if you do.
Doesn't work that way. You're the one who wants to levy the charge,
it's up to you to prove that the charge is justified.
>>> I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
>>> person/boat/voyage.
>>
>> Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so
>> mightily distressed, it seems germaine.
>
> Never said I was distressed,
So how many messages have you posted on this topic?
> that is your reading and misinterpretation.
When someone posts messages whining about something, that is generally
an indication that they are upset about it. If you don't want to be
thought upset, then do not whine.
> I just stated an opinion on the cost of rescue and who should pay. If
> she breaks a record or not, my life is not going to change. I'm still
> getting up at 5:30 tomorrow and going to work. I'll probably have an egg
> and toast for breakfast.
So why do you need to post messages about it?
>> Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that
>> comes out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's.
>
> Correct. I just don't want it to come out of my pocket. I'm happy to pay
> for police and fire protection, a strong military, paved roads. I don't
> want to pay for sports stadiums used commercially, or cleanup for
> someone's frivolity.
Define "frivolity" in an objective way. Greenpeace would argue that
Japanese whaling ships are "frivoloties" so if "frivoloties" are to be
charged in case they need rescue, then Japanese whaling ships would need
to be charged this fee.
But just the fact that you say "frivolity" says that you have made the
judgment that you deny that you have made.
>>> If you were talking about a fee to be
>>>> paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
>>>> be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
>>>> a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
>>>> services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
>>>> the cost of rescue.
>
> In many cases others do pay.
Who pays, and who do they pay?
> Just because they may historically use
> little service, thee is still a danger and cost that is not needed. So
> you think it is OK if someone picks your pocket as long as they only
> take a little of your money?
Making use of a government service available to all at need is not
"picking my pocket", it is picking _everybody_'s pocket in a way that
the political process has approved.
>> So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
>> appeals to emotion.
>
> I've been trying logic, but you seem to put emotion into it. It was you
> that called me dispassionate.
No, you have not made one single logical argument that shows that your
fee is necessary or desirable. The only thing that you have argued is
that you don't want to pay for something you consider to be a
"frivolity" but then you have denied and denied and denied and denied
that you have made a value judgment.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered
>>> with search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their
>>> charter that you are proposing.
>>
>> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
>>
>>
>>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>>> should not be rendered.
>>
>> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
>> difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I
>> bet they have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why
>> not rescue?
>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>
>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay
>> the same as you?
>
> I don't have a hardcore stance that there should be no cost recovery, but
> neither do I have a stance that says all costs should be borne by the
> individual (or their insurance). I think I'm exploring this idea real
> time via these discussions, myself.
>
Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and are
injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary risk. If you
drink and drive, you subject your passengers and everyone else along your
route to an unnecessary risk.
The captain of the fishing vessel that picked up Sunderland II went into the
water. He was OK, but he was subjected to an unnecessary risk. I imagine he
has dreams and if he has children, they also have dreams. Should he have
been subjected to that risk because a 16 year old from the US had a "dream"?
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>
>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>> penny for me.
>
>> Oh, booh hooh.
>
> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
> "much more" is of course, relative.
They charter airliners for practice missions?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>
>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>
>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>
>>
>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>
> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
When it's been done, yes. When the first thing you do is hire PR and
'technical spokespersons', yes. When you're lining up the book tours, yes.
When you advertise your blog, yes. When you do all that shit Before you even
leave port, then EMPHATICALLY yes.
> How about ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age?
> What is the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
See above.
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>
>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>
>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Mike-
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
>> country during the year.
>
> Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
> rescue last year?
>
You got this Strawman thing down pat!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>
>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>
>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
>> and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>
>
> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's already
> in the funding for the SAR service.
Including the charter of an aircraft?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and
>> are injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary
>> risk. If you drink and drive, you subject your passengers and
>> everyone else along your route to an unnecessary risk.
>
> I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
> personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't
> do anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that
> the Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
> services provided? That would indeed represent personal responsibility,
> wouldn't it? But many would still have their undies in a wad over the
> risk.
Yes, it would. But I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>
>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>
>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>
>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>
> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to do
> just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself, but I
> would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their operational
> plan all along. But back to the comments that have appeared here - that
> charter airplane did not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny -
> or even a half a penny.
Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
>>> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
>>> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
>>> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
>>> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>>
>> World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
>> proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
>> Boy, subject is just more of same.
>>
>> Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>>
>> http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
>>
>>
>> And all equally disgusting ...
>
>
> Like I said:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
GOOD GRIEF! He's got three more kids to support him!!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:50b6c4d9-0369-4bc2-94e9-4011b876d44f@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:00 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
> >> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
> >> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
> >> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
> >> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
> >> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>
> > World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
> > proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
> > Boy, subject is just more of same.
>
> > Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>
> >http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-we...
>
> > And all equally disgusting ...
>
> Like I said:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_t...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Sortakinda has a BalloonBoyDad-ish feel to it, eh?
Follow the money, or the pursuit thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T U N T - writ large!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>> set a record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>
>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>
>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans
>>> to do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>> myself, but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>>> their operational plan all along. But back to the comments that
>>> have appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>> doing the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>
>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>
> And you point is???? I don't know if they do or not. Does not matter to
> the point I expressed above.
You did suggest that such missions were good for training.
On 6/14/2010 3:40 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>>>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>>>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered
>>>> with search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their
>>>> charter that you are proposing.
>>>
>>> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>>>> should not be rendered.
>>>
>>> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way.
>>> Big difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I
>>> bet they have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why
>>> not rescue?
>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>>
>>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay
>>> the same as you?
>>
>> I don't have a hardcore stance that there should be no cost recovery,
>> but neither do I have a stance that says all costs should be borne by
>> the individual (or their insurance). I think I'm exploring this idea
>> real time via these discussions, myself.
>>
>
> Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and are
> injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary risk. If
> you drink and drive, you subject your passengers and everyone else along
> your route to an unnecessary risk.
>
> The captain of the fishing vessel that picked up Sunderland II went into
> the water.
Why did he do that?
> He was OK, but he was subjected to an unnecessary risk. I
> imagine he has dreams and if he has children, they also have dreams.
> Should he have been subjected to that risk because a 16 year old from
> the US had a "dream"?
So if he had slipped on some fish guts and busted his brains out on a
cleat you'd be fine with it.
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>
>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>
>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to
>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself,
>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>
> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
For training what?
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>
>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>
>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>
> When it's been done, yes.
What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
in 1898.
If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a "stunt".
> When the first thing you do is hire PR and
> 'technical spokespersons', yes. When you're lining up the book tours,
> yes. When you advertise your blog, yes. When you do all that shit Before
> you even leave port, then EMPHATICALLY yes.
>
>> How about ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the
>> age? What is the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
>
> See above.
I'm sorry but that is not an answer. Is it or is it not a stunt?
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>
>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>> penny for me.
>>
>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>
>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>
> They charter airliners for practice missions?
I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
On 6/14/2010 3:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>
>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -Mike-
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
>>> country during the year.
>>
>> Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
>> rescue last year?
>>
>
> You got this Strawman thing down pat!
You said that there are "plenty of others around the country". I'm
asking you to identify them. What's the matter, having shot your mouth
off you can't back it up?
On 6/14/2010 1:56 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
>>>> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
>>>> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
>>>> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
>>>> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>>>
>>> World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
>>> proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
>>> Boy, subject is just more of same.
>>>
>>> Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>>>
>>> http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And all equally disgusting ...
>>
>>
>> Like I said:
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
>>
>
> GOOD GRIEF! He's got three more kids to support him!!
GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
On 6/14/2010 4:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>
>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>
>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
>>> and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>
>>
>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>
> Including the charter of an aircraft?
Yep. If it had been a ocean liner in trouble or a cruise ship or a
cargo ship or that French fishing ship, they'd need to do the same
thing. So it's budgeted.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 3:40 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not spending your money. That money has already been
>>>>> allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
>>>>> attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered
>>>>> with search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their
>>>>> charter that you are proposing.
>>>>
>>>> True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
>>>>> should not be rendered.
>>>>
>>>> No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way.
>>>> Big difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I
>>>> bet they have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why
>>>> not rescue?
>>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>>>
>>>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay
>>>> the same as you?
>>>
>>> I don't have a hardcore stance that there should be no cost recovery,
>>> but neither do I have a stance that says all costs should be borne by
>>> the individual (or their insurance). I think I'm exploring this idea
>>> real time via these discussions, myself.
>>>
>>
>> Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and are
>> injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary risk. If
>> you drink and drive, you subject your passengers and everyone else along
>> your route to an unnecessary risk.
>>
>> The captain of the fishing vessel that picked up Sunderland II went into
>> the water.
>
> Why did he do that?
Apparently he fell in while trying to rescue the Circumnavigation Princess
Of The Month.
>
>> He was OK, but he was subjected to an unnecessary risk. I
>> imagine he has dreams and if he has children, they also have dreams.
>> Should he have been subjected to that risk because a 16 year old from
>> the US had a "dream"?
>
> So if he had slipped on some fish guts and busted his brains out on a
> cleat you'd be fine with it.
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>>> penny for me.
>>>
>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>
>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>
>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>
> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>
But not the Military.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>
>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>
>> When it's been done, yes.
>
> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race since
> 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four years since
> 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was in 1898.
>
> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a "stunt".
It is. Or at least has become such.
>
>> When the first thing you do is hire PR and
>> 'technical spokespersons', yes. When you're lining up the book tours,
>> yes. When you advertise your blog, yes. When you do all that shit Before
>> you even leave port, then EMPHATICALLY yes.
>>
>>> How about ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the
>>> age? What is the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
>>
>> See above.
>
> I'm sorry but that is not an answer. Is it or is it not a stunt?
>
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 3:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mike-
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
>>>> country during the year.
>>>
>>> Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
>>> rescue last year?
>>>
>>
>> You got this Strawman thing down pat!
>
> You said that there are "plenty of others around the country". I'm asking
> you to identify them. What's the matter, having shot your mouth off you
> can't back it up?
>
Other stunters. You don't read the news?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>
>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>
>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to
>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself,
>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>
>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>
> For training what?
>
SAR training.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 4:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>
>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>
>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
>>>> and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>
>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>
> Yep. If it had been a ocean liner in trouble or a cruise ship or a cargo
> ship or that French fishing ship, they'd need to do the same thing. So
> it's budgeted.
>
Is it?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 1:56 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
>>>>> trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
>>>>> then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
>>>>> her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
>>>>> obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
>>>>
>>>> World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
>>>> proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
>>>> Boy, subject is just more of same.
>>>>
>>>> Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And all equally disgusting ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Like I said:
>>>
>>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
>>>
>>
>> GOOD GRIEF! He's got three more kids to support him!!
>
> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
>
I WAS WRONG.; There are FIVE more kids to support the irresponsible
Scumsucker!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>>>>>>>>> encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil
>>>>>>>>>>> that wants to set a record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>
>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>> plans to do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I
>>>>> don't know myself, but I would not be at all surprised if a
>>>>> charter was part of their operational plan all along. But back to
>>>>> the comments that have appeared here - that charter airplane did
>>>>> not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny - or even a half
>>>>> a penny.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>
>>> And you point is???? I don't know if they do or not. Does not
>>> matter to the point I expressed above.
>>
>> You did suggest that such missions were good for training.
>
> It is no wonder you have such trouble carrying on a conversation.
I don't.
> What do you do - imagine this stuff? You surely lack any level of reading
> comprehension. Please show where I ever even remotely suggested such
> missions were good for training. You need a reality check.
>
See Lew's latest
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
> ----------------------------------------
> SFWIW, the link below is to Latitude 38, a well respected sailing rag here
> on the left coast.
>
> Looks like the story may have some legs.
>
> http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
>
> Lew
>
>
Something for you folks erecting Strawmen (Marlowe and Clarke in
particular), particularly this gem from a Responsible circumnavigator:
[Interestingly enough, in the July issue of Latitude, you'll read about a
woman who was attempting to do the same circumnavigation as Abby - but on
her own dime and without any publicity. She was also forced to stop in Cape
Town because of boat problems. Seeing as winter was fast approaching in the
Southern Ocean, this woman, who had already completed a normal solo
circumnavigation, decided it was too unsafe and unfair to those who might
have to rescue her if she restarted. She'll try again during the next
Southern Ocean summer. ]
Fries with that Crow?
(not you, Lew - you've been pretty stable with this - more than me anyway).
On 6/15/2010 4:00 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> SFWIW, the link below is to Latitude 38, a well respected sailing rag
>> here on the left coast.
>>
>> Looks like the story may have some legs.
>>
>> http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
>>
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
> Something for you folks erecting Strawmen (Marlowe and Clarke in
> particular), particularly this gem from a Responsible circumnavigator:
>
> [Interestingly enough, in the July issue of Latitude, you'll read about
> a woman who was attempting to do the same circumnavigation as Abby - but
> on her own dime and without any publicity. She was also forced to stop
> in Cape Town because of boat problems. Seeing as winter was fast
> approaching in the Southern Ocean, this woman, who had already completed
> a normal solo circumnavigation, decided it was too unsafe and unfair to
> those who might have to rescue her if she restarted. She'll try again
> during the next Southern Ocean summer. ]
>
> Fries with that Crow?
Her choice.
On 6/14/2010 11:38 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> GOOD GRIEF! Next you're going to be citing the National Enquirer.
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
> ----------------------------------------
> SFWIW, the link below is to Latitude 38, a well respected sailing rag
> here on the left coast.
>
> Looks like the story may have some legs.
>
> http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
If true, this explains much. Wonder how much the manufacturers of all
the electronic crap that went bust paid her to use it? Probably
couldn't get a sponsorship from a windvane manufacturer.
Hmm--running backstay, electronic steering, now a picture is beginning
to form. A windvane doesn't keep you on a course, it keeps you at a
given angle to the wind. I presume that the modern electronic thingies
can do the same but can also be set to hold a course. If she did that
and went to sleep and the wind shifted, bye bye mast. And even if she's
as sharp as Chichester, it's the kind of mistake a tired person makes.
Of course, relying on self-steering in heavy weather isn't all that wise
anyway--a masthead vane is moving around a lot in ways that will make it
give false readings, and a conventional windvane is low enough that it
gets blanketed by waves.
Running backstays have always made me nervous, just as a concept. One
more thing to go wrong. Wasn't aware of that "feature".
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>
>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to
>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself,
>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>
>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>
>> For training what?
>>
>
> SAR training.
If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why would
they not?
On 6/15/2010 3:53 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 4:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
>>>>> and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>
>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>
>> Yep. If it had been a ocean liner in trouble or a cruise ship or a
>> cargo ship or that French fishing ship, they'd need to do the same
>> thing. So it's budgeted.
>>
>
> Is it?
If it isn't then somebody didn't do his job.
On 6/15/2010 3:49 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 3:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Mike-
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
>>>>> country during the year.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
>>>> rescue last year?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got this Strawman thing down pat!
>>
>> You said that there are "plenty of others around the country". I'm
>> asking you to identify them. What's the matter, having shot your mouth
>> off you can't back it up?
>>
>
> Other stunters. You don't read the news?
I see, so you don't classify beyond "stunters", which, since you define
Olympic athletes as "stunters" means, well, pretty much nothing.
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct.
>>>>> But
>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>
>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>
>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>
>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
>> in 1898.
>>
>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>> "stunt".
>
> It is. Or at least has become such.
I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>
>>
>>> When the first thing you do is hire PR and
>>> 'technical spokespersons', yes. When you're lining up the book tours,
>>> yes. When you advertise your blog, yes. When you do all that shit Before
>>> you even leave port, then EMPHATICALLY yes.
>>>
>>>> How about ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the
>>>> age? What is the demarcation between "sporting activity" and
>>>> "stunting"?
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> I'm sorry but that is not an answer. Is it or is it not a stunt?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>
>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>
>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>
>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>
>
> But not the Military.
So what?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole
>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>
>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>
>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>
>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> But not the Military.
>
> So what?
>
Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>
>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
>>> in 1898.
>>>
>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>> "stunt".
>>
>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>
> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
No. It's entertainment.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set
>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>
>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to
>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself,
>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>
>>> For training what?
>>>
>>
>> SAR training.
>
> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why would
> they not?
>
Expense.
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>
>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
>>>> in 1898.
>>>>
>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>> "stunt".
>>>
>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>
>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>
> No. It's entertainment.
So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>
>>>> For training what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> SAR training.
>>
>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>> would they not?
>>
>
> Expense.
So which costs more, renting or owning?
On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred.
>>>>>> Not
>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>
>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>
>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But not the Military.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>
> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
What ever gave you _that_ idea?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
>>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred.
>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that aspect of
>>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
>>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But not the Military.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
>
> What ever gave you _that_ idea?
Correction AMSA.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware that
>>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation was
>>>>> in 1898.
>>>>>
>>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>>> "stunt".
>>>>
>>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>>
>>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>>
>> No. It's entertainment.
>
> So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
>
Politics.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>
>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SAR training.
>>>
>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>> would they not?
>>>
>>
>> Expense.
>
> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>
You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance costs?
On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people doing
>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>
>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>> would they not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Expense.
>>
>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>
>
> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
> costs?
Answer the question.
On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite
>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> in 1898.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>>>> "stunt".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>>>
>>>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>>>
>>> No. It's entertainment.
>>
>> So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
>>
>
> Politics.
So "politics" is what determines whether something is a "stunt" or
"entertainment" or "a sporting event"? The defense rests.
>
On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred.
>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that
>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
>>>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But not the Military.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
>>
>> What ever gave you _that_ idea?
>
>
> Correction AMSA.
And what does that organization say about the resources it will use at need?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
>>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred.
>>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that
>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all
>>>>>>> civilian
>>>>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not the Military.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
>>>
>>> What ever gave you _that_ idea?
>>
>>
>> Correction AMSA.
>
> And what does that organization say about the resources it will use at
> need?
>
I have no idea and CCFL.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic race
>>>>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> in 1898.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>>>>> "stunt".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>>>>
>>>> No. It's entertainment.
>>>
>>> So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
>>>
>>
>> Politics.
>
> So "politics" is what determines whether something is a "stunt" or
> "entertainment" or "a sporting event"? The defense rests.
>>
>
What are you defending?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's
>>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their
>>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>>> would they not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Expense.
>>>
>>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>>
>>
>> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
>> costs?
>
> Answer the question.
>
It depends.
On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it's been done, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "when it's been done"? You seem to be unaware
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> there has been a regularly scheduled singlehanded transatlantic
>>>>>>>> race
>>>>>>>> since 1960, and a singlehanded round the world race held every four
>>>>>>>> years since 1982, and that the first singlehanded circumnavigation
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> in 1898.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If singlehanded ocean sailing is a "stunt" then the Olympics is a
>>>>>>>> "stunt".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is. Or at least has become such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. So is major league baseball a stunt?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It's entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> So how is the Olympics different from major league baseball?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Politics.
>>
>> So "politics" is what determines whether something is a "stunt" or
>> "entertainment" or "a sporting event"? The defense rests.
>>>
>>
>
> What are you defending?
Google "humor".
On 6/16/2010 2:30 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
>>>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't
>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue
>>>>>>>>>> occurred.
>>>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that
>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all
>>>>>>>> civilian
>>>>>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not the Military.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
>>>>
>>>> What ever gave you _that_ idea?
>>>
>>>
>>> Correction AMSA.
>>
>> And what does that organization say about the resources it will use at
>> need?
>>
>
> I have no idea and CCFL.
So you've been going on at length about what that organization does or
does not do and now you admit that you have no idea?
Maybe you should just go find a lobby.
On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that -
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>>>> would they not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Expense.
>>>>
>>>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
>>> costs?
>>
>> Answer the question.
>>
>
> It depends.
Evasive. Answer the question.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/16/2010 2:30 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come on, half a cent?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>> penny for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, booh hooh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
>>>>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue
>>>>>>>>>>> occurred.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>>>>> "much more" is of course, relative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They charter airliners for practice missions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that
>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>> training. However you might want to be aware that almost all
>>>>>>>>> civilian
>>>>>>>>> flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But not the Military.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?
>>>>>
>>>>> What ever gave you _that_ idea?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correction AMSA.
>>>
>>> And what does that organization say about the resources it will use at
>>> need?
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea and CCFL.
>
> So you've been going on at length about what that organization does or
> does not do and now you admit that you have no idea?
No, I have not.
>
> Maybe you should just go find a lobby.
Maybe you should find a hobby.
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>>>>> would they not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expense.
>>>>>
>>>>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
>>>> costs?
>>>
>>> Answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> It depends.
>
> Evasive. Answer the question.
>
Not evasive at all. The decision to rent or own depends on a lot of factors.
On 6/16/2010 1:44 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>>>>>> would they not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
>>>>> costs?
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It depends.
>>
>> Evasive. Answer the question.
>>
>
> Not evasive at all. The decision to rent or own depends on a lot of
> factors.
Still evading.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/16/2010 1:44 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encounter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vey well put.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Andy Barss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that neither of you are paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junkies and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already in the funding for the SAR service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including the charter of an aircraft?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operational plan all along. But back to the comments that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared here - that charter airplane did not cost the people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commenting, a penny - or even a half a penny.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For training what?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SAR training.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the use of such is a regular part of their activities then why
>>>>>>>>> would they not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So which costs more, renting or owning?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You thinking of leasing? Have you considered the required maintenance
>>>>>> costs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends.
>>>
>>> Evasive. Answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> Not evasive at all. The decision to rent or own depends on a lot of
>> factors.
>
> Still evading.
>
Nope. You apparently don't understand the issues.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:57 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
>> stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. At least the chick is
>> keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
>> stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...
>
> Like Dick Cheney's?
>
>>> Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. Why is it
>>> so irritating to people here? In a woodworking group?
>> What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
>> jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
>> and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for any
>> accidents.
>
>> Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.
>
> You have no class. Best you be careful, karma is a bitch.
I think the ones advocating denying free services to those taking higher
risks than they personally deem OK are the ones that should be worried
about "karma". I think when the collective is pitching in, everyone
should reap the bounty.
So if you are over 65 and running a table saw, or, in a wheelchair
running a table saw, or 16 and sailing the oceans, you should NOT be
denied the same care anyone else would get if something goes awry. If
you disagree then your karma is not looking good, as if it ever has....
--
Jack
From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:56:15 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> As I said, you have all the reasoning power of a slug. I'm not
>> surprised.
>I'm not surprised you're surprised.
I guess the biggest problem here is that you're just too stupid to
comprehend what you read. Funny how you're deluded powers of
comprehension continue to drive your inane ranting and frothing at the
mouth. Go for it Jack. Let's what else you're got to say. I appreciate
your comedy show though. It brightens up my day with every screwed up
message you post.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>>>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>> Done. So what?
>>So why aren't you whining about her?
>
> Are you really that desperate to troll another argument about a teen
> sailor?
Apparently he is. Trying to redirect attention from his lack of knowledge on
transportation.
On 6/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>>> Done. So what?
>>> So why aren't you whining about her?
>>
>> Are you really that desperate to troll another argument about a teen
>> sailor?
>
> Apparently he is. Trying to redirect attention from his lack of
> knowledge on transportation.
Dosser, I have one thing to say to that. <plonk>
When you grow up get back to us.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any of you whining about Jessica Watson . . .
>>>>> Done. So what?
>>>> So why aren't you whining about her?
>>>
>>> Are you really that desperate to troll another argument about a teen
>>> sailor?
>>
>> Apparently he is. Trying to redirect attention from his lack of
>> knowledge on transportation.
>
> Dosser, I have one thing to say to that. <plonk>
>
> When you grow up get back to us.
>
The last refuge of the Ignorant.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
>> paying for the rescue efforts now?
>
>Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
>exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
>them, if they can't be used.
Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.
At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
>>> restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
>>
>> I'm not saying there are not areas where there are restrictions.
>
> BULL.
I quit with you Lobby. You have not read anything - you've just jumped from
one red herring to another and insist on creating a make believe world that
ignores what people actually say. Unfortunately for you - there is a record
of what I've written.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>
>>>>> s/slopes/trails/
>>>>>
>>>>> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I *know* you're wrong.
>>
>> You know no such thing. Show me the law that prohibits skiing in
>> areas other than ski resorts.
>>
>>>
>>>> On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
>>>> That's different.
>>>
>>> No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public
>>> agency assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done
>>> all the time in the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.
>>
>> Off the trails??? I'm talking about non-ski resort areas. There is
>> no requirement anywhere - in the NE or anywhere else, to ski only in
>> ski resorts. I live in the NE and I do know that it's pure bull to
>> state that the chances are you will be sent a bill for rescue
>> efforts. Maybe in some areas, but certainly not to the extent to
>> say that you will most likely. You see - I know - I have performed
>> those services. What have you done to make you so confident?
>>
>>>
>>>> Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
>>>> resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing
>>>> on land that is just open land - not related to a resort. That
>>>> would be a closer analogy to open water boating.
>>>
>>> Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups
>>> will send you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone.
>>> Always. Get caught in there and you'll be paying for more than a
>>> rescue.
>>
>> Pure bull. That is pure unadulterated bull. Maybe in some areas
>> that is true, but that is far from the norm. You might need to
>> travel outside of your own local area.
>
> Northwest.
Don't get what you're trying to say here Lobby. I know the north west does
not ban the use of open land for activities. There is wide open
snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, swimming, and all sorts of activities. They
are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted within the
confines of an established buisiness.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the
>> *youngest* to do something dangerous. It was a particularly
>> dangerous time of the year to be doing this. She couldn't wait
>> because by the time it was safER, she would no longer qualify for
>> being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.
>
>I guess it's all in how you define stunt.
The definition of the word is not important. The fact that she did what she
did, apparently leaving other to pay, is.
>Sure she was after a record - what's wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Leaving others with the cleanup is.
>She's more adventurous than you, or me, or most of
>us here - big deal. You just described why she went when she did - that
>does not really make it a stunt to me. It was a record attempt.
No, it was a stunt, not a lot different than Evel Knievel's jumping of the
Snake River Canyon. Whether you or I would do it is irrelevant, other than to
point out that it is "not normal" (stunt points).
>> Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
>> Climbers, also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for
>> emergency services on the mountain.
>
>What if you require emergency services in your shop?
My taxes pay for it, and you bet my insurance company will also pay. Last
ambulance ride my wife took (15 years ago) cost over $500, for the mile. Yes,
my insurance forked over, after the deductible.
>What is you get a speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to pay for his
>services in stopping you and administering the law since you were doing a
>stunt by speeding?
You bet. Most such stops are a money grab.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the comments
have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions like this, and
that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>
>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>
>>> s/slopes/trails/
>>>
>>> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> I *know* you're wrong.
You know no such thing. Show me the law that prohibits skiing in areas
other than ski resorts.
>
>> On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
>> That's different.
>
> No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public
> agency assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done
> all the time in the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.
Off the trails??? I'm talking about non-ski resort areas. There is no
requirement anywhere - in the NE or anywhere else, to ski only in ski
resorts. I live in the NE and I do know that it's pure bull to state that
the chances are you will be sent a bill for rescue efforts. Maybe in some
areas, but certainly not to the extent to say that you will most likely.
You see - I know - I have performed those services. What have you done to
make you so confident?
>
>> Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
>> resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing on
>> land that is just open land - not related to a resort. That would
>> be a closer analogy to open water boating.
>
> Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups
> will send you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone.
> Always. Get caught in there and you'll be paying for more than a
> rescue.
Pure bull. That is pure unadulterated bull. Maybe in some areas that is
true, but that is far from the norm. You might need to travel outside of
your own local area.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you
>>>> get a speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to
>>>> pay for his services in stopping you and administering the law
>>>> since you were doing a stunt by speeding?
>>>
>>> You can't even quote a valid example. Up here in Ontario, Canada,
>>> doing 50km/h an hour or more over the speed limit qualifies as stunt
>>> driving. The driver's license is taken, the car is impounded for 7
>>> days and between fines and insurance rate increases, it will cost
>>> him thousands of dollars if convicted. So, yes, there are
>>> consequences for driving too fast.
>>
>> Stop it. I did not suggest there were not consequences for driving
>> too fast. Go back and read the thought before twisting it. I asked
>> a question based on the claims to charge people for things that some
>> think are inappropriate use of resources. I'm trying to tie that
>> idea to more common day to day occurrances.
>
> He just did.
Not at all.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I'm not frequently accused of using strawmen. In fact it is quite
>> rare when it can be demonstrated that my responses are not directly
>> to the point on the table. That said - this is getting more
>> contentious than should be in a group like this, and is not worth
>> any further pusuit based just on that factor. I'll be bagging out
>> of this one.
>
> Concur!
Beers on me. Belly up. Oh btw - ya got a five spot I can borrow?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the
>>> *youngest* to do something dangerous. It was a particularly
>>> dangerous time of the year to be doing this. She couldn't wait
>>> because by the time it was safER, she would no longer qualify for
>>> being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.
>>
>> I guess it's all in how you define stunt.
>
> The definition of the word is not important. The fact that she did
> what she did, apparently leaving other to pay, is.
Oh - not important. You use the words then you back out. Ok - I get it.
You are just jealous because she got something out of this that you don't
get in your life. Oh well...
>
>> Sure she was after a record - what's wrong with that?
>
> Nothing at all. Leaving others with the cleanup is.
She has not at all been proven to be leaving anyone with any cleanup.
>
>> She's more adventurous than you, or me, or most of
>> us here - big deal. You just described why she went when she did -
>> that
>> does not really make it a stunt to me. It was a record attempt.
>
> No, it was a stunt, not a lot different than Evel Knievel's jumping
> of the Snake River Canyon. Whether you or I would do it is
> irrelevant, other than to point out that it is "not normal" (stunt
> points).
>
Whatever...
>>> Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
>>> Climbers, also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for
>>> emergency services on the mountain.
>>
>> What if you require emergency services in your shop?
>
> My taxes pay for it, and you bet my insurance company will also pay.
> Last ambulance ride my wife took (15 years ago) cost over $500, for
> the mile. Yes, my insurance forked over, after the deductible.
>
So - both your taxes and the contributions of the other policy holders in
your insurance company will foot the bill for your stunt. Clearly your
premiums were not enough to cover the cost of surgery (think shared risk),
so you are benefiting from someone else cleaning up your mess. But that's
different, isn't it?
>> What is you get a speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be
>> required to pay for his services in stopping you and administering
>> the law since you were doing a
>> stunt by speeding?
>
> You bet. Most such stops are a money grab.
You bet? Not a doubt in my mind that you'd be at the front of the line
bitching if you got a speeding ticket and were then served with charges for
the use of the cop's car, equipment, time, etc. in observing your actions,
chasing you down, writing the ticket, etc.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
> restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
I'm not saying there are not areas where there are restrictions. Quite the
opposite, I simply said there are areas where activities are not as
restricted as claimed by others. I am not wrong - I have been to them. Why
do people not read what has been stated, but instead respond with anecdotal
contradictions? I never said there were not areas where restrictions
applied - that makes your response irrelevant to my comment.
>
>> They are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted
>> within the confines of an established buisiness.
>
> Don't know whether or not you've noticed, but there's just not a
> whole lot of free range downhill skiing opportunities below the
> treeline.
Don't know whether you've noticed, but I know a lot of people who ski in
areas that are not resorts in the NW. I've snowmobiled in them. I've
fished, camped, canoed, and hunted in them. You seem intent on proving some
small point in a conversation of a larger context.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
>>
>> But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the
>> comments have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions
>> like this, and that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
>
> It cost the owners of the vessel something. Could well have cost the
> captain his life. Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!
Indeed - at least with respect to the costs to the fishing vessel. But...
read my comment again. How much has that fishing vessel cost you?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you
>> get a speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to
>> pay for his services in stopping you and administering the law since
>> you were doing a stunt by speeding?
>
> You can't even quote a valid example. Up here in Ontario, Canada,
> doing 50km/h an hour or more over the speed limit qualifies as stunt
> driving. The driver's license is taken, the car is impounded for 7
> days and between fines and insurance rate increases, it will cost him
> thousands of dollars if convicted. So, yes, there are consequences for
> driving too fast.
Stop it. I did not suggest there were not consequences for driving too
fast. Go back and read the thought before twisting it. I asked a question
based on the claims to charge people for things that some think are
inappropriate use of resources. I'm trying to tie that idea to more common
day to day occurrances.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> I've read your strawmen and am getting fed up with it. Others seem to
> have had prior experience.
I'm not frequently accused of using strawmen. In fact it is quite rare when
it can be demonstrated that my responses are not directly to the point on
the table. That said - this is getting more contentious than should be in a
group like this, and is not worth any further pusuit based just on that
factor. I'll be bagging out of this one.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you get a
>speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to pay for his
>services in stopping you and administering the law since you were doing a
>stunt by speeding?
You can't even quote a valid example. Up here in Ontario, Canada,
doing 50km/h an hour or more over the speed limit qualifies as stunt
driving. The driver's license is taken, the car is impounded for 7
days and between fines and insurance rate increases, it will cost him
thousands of dollars if convicted. So, yes, there are consequences for
driving too fast.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you
>>> get a speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to
>>> pay for his services in stopping you and administering the law since
>>> you were doing a stunt by speeding?
>>
>> You can't even quote a valid example. Up here in Ontario, Canada,
>> doing 50km/h an hour or more over the speed limit qualifies as stunt
>> driving. The driver's license is taken, the car is impounded for 7
>> days and between fines and insurance rate increases, it will cost him
>> thousands of dollars if convicted. So, yes, there are consequences for
>> driving too fast.
>
> Stop it. I did not suggest there were not consequences for driving too
> fast. Go back and read the thought before twisting it. I asked a
> question based on the claims to charge people for things that some think
> are inappropriate use of resources. I'm trying to tie that idea to more
> common day to day occurrances.
He just did.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the
>>>> *youngest* to do something dangerous. It was a particularly
>>>> dangerous time of the year to be doing this. She couldn't wait
>>>> because by the time it was safER, she would no longer qualify for
>>>> being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.
>>>
>>> I guess it's all in how you define stunt.
>>
>> The definition of the word is not important. The fact that she did
>> what she did, apparently leaving other to pay, is.
>
> Oh - not important. You use the words then you back out. Ok - I get it.
> You are just jealous because she got something out of this that you don't
> get in your life. Oh well...
>
>>
>>> Sure she was after a record - what's wrong with that?
>>
>> Nothing at all. Leaving others with the cleanup is.
>
> She has not at all been proven to be leaving anyone with any cleanup.
So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>
>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>
>>>> s/slopes/trails/
>>>>
>>>> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I *know* you're wrong.
>
> You know no such thing. Show me the law that prohibits skiing in areas
> other than ski resorts.
>
>>
>>> On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
>>> That's different.
>>
>> No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public
>> agency assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done
>> all the time in the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.
>
> Off the trails??? I'm talking about non-ski resort areas. There is no
> requirement anywhere - in the NE or anywhere else, to ski only in ski
> resorts. I live in the NE and I do know that it's pure bull to state that
> the chances are you will be sent a bill for rescue efforts. Maybe in some
> areas, but certainly not to the extent to say that you will most likely.
> You see - I know - I have performed those services. What have you done to
> make you so confident?
>
>>
>>> Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
>>> resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing on
>>> land that is just open land - not related to a resort. That would
>>> be a closer analogy to open water boating.
>>
>> Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups
>> will send you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone.
>> Always. Get caught in there and you'll be paying for more than a
>> rescue.
>
> Pure bull. That is pure unadulterated bull. Maybe in some areas that is
> true, but that is far from the norm. You might need to travel outside of
> your own local area.
Northwest.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Off designated slopes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s/slopes/trails/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> I *know* you're wrong.
>>>
>>> You know no such thing. Show me the law that prohibits skiing in
>>> areas other than ski resorts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
>>>>> That's different.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public
>>>> agency assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done
>>>> all the time in the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.
>>>
>>> Off the trails??? I'm talking about non-ski resort areas. There is
>>> no requirement anywhere - in the NE or anywhere else, to ski only in
>>> ski resorts. I live in the NE and I do know that it's pure bull to
>>> state that the chances are you will be sent a bill for rescue
>>> efforts. Maybe in some areas, but certainly not to the extent to
>>> say that you will most likely. You see - I know - I have performed
>>> those services. What have you done to make you so confident?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
>>>>> resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing
>>>>> on land that is just open land - not related to a resort. That
>>>>> would be a closer analogy to open water boating.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups
>>>> will send you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone.
>>>> Always. Get caught in there and you'll be paying for more than a
>>>> rescue.
>>>
>>> Pure bull. That is pure unadulterated bull. Maybe in some areas
>>> that is true, but that is far from the norm. You might need to
>>> travel outside of your own local area.
>>
>> Northwest.
>
> Don't get what you're trying to say here Lobby. I know the north west
> does not ban the use of open land for activities. There is wide open
> snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, swimming, and all sorts of activities.
You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
> They are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted within
> the confines of an established buisiness.
Don't know whether or not you've noticed, but there's just not a whole lot
of free range downhill skiing opportunities below the treeline.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
>
> But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the comments
> have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions like this, and
> that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
It cost the owners of the vessel something. Could well have cost the captain
his life. Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>
>> You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
>> restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
>
> I'm not saying there are not areas where there are restrictions.
BULL.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
>>>
>>> But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the
>>> comments have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions
>>> like this, and that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
>>
>> It cost the owners of the vessel something. Could well have cost the
>> captain his life. Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!
>
> Indeed - at least with respect to the costs to the fishing vessel. But...
> read my comment again. How much has that fishing vessel cost you?
Irrelevant.
On 6/14/2010 1:53 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
>>
>> But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the
>> comments have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions
>> like this, and that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
>
> It cost the owners of the vessel something.
What did it cost? The ship's operating expenses would be the same
regardless.
> Could well have cost the
> captain his life.
So could stepping on a squid. The sea is dangerous. Sailors live with
it, lubbers don't understand it.
> Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
>>>> restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying there are not areas where there are restrictions.
>>
>> BULL.
>
> I quit with you Lobby. You have not read anything - you've just jumped
> from one red herring to another and insist on creating a make believe
> world that ignores what people actually say. Unfortunately for you -
> there is a record of what I've written.
I've read your strawmen and am getting fed up with it. Others seem to have
had prior experience.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/14/2010 1:53 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??
>>>
>>> But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the
>>> comments have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions
>>> like this, and that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.
>>
>> It cost the owners of the vessel something.
>
> What did it cost? The ship's operating expenses would be the same
> regardless.
>
>> Could well have cost the
>> captain his life.
>
> So could stepping on a squid.
Which is the acceptable risk in his profession.
>
> The sea is dangerous. Sailors live with it, lubbers don't understand it.
Ah jeez, now yer going all salty.
>
>> Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!
>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>
>> I've read your strawmen and am getting fed up with it. Others seem to
>> have had prior experience.
>
> I'm not frequently accused of using strawmen. In fact it is quite rare
> when it can be demonstrated that my responses are not directly to the
> point on the table. That said - this is getting more contentious than
> should be in a group like this, and is not worth any further pusuit based
> just on that factor. I'll be bagging out of this one.
Concur!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> I'm not frequently accused of using strawmen. In fact it is quite
>>> rare when it can be demonstrated that my responses are not directly
>>> to the point on the table. That said - this is getting more
>>> contentious than should be in a group like this, and is not worth
>>> any further pusuit based just on that factor. I'll be bagging out
>>> of this one.
>>
>> Concur!
>
> Beers on me. Belly up. Oh btw - ya got a five spot I can borrow?
>
Nah, ye'll have to pour it on yourself!
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
>> restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.
>
> I'm not saying there are not areas where there are restrictions. Quite the
> opposite, I simply said there are areas where activities are not as
> restricted as claimed by others. I am not wrong - I have been to them. Why
> do people not read what has been stated, but instead respond with anecdotal
> contradictions? I never said there were not areas where restrictions
> applied - that makes your response irrelevant to my comment.
>
>>> They are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted
>>> within the confines of an established buisiness.
>> Don't know whether or not you've noticed, but there's just not a
>> whole lot of free range downhill skiing opportunities below the
>> treeline.
>
> Don't know whether you've noticed, but I know a lot of people who ski in
> areas that are not resorts in the NW. I've snowmobiled in them. I've
> fished, camped, canoed, and hunted in them. You seem intent on proving some
> small point in a conversation of a larger context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQk76u0DU8&feature=geosearch
--
Jack
Obama Care: Efficiency of the DMV, compassion of the IRS!
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:52:15 -0500, "[email protected]"
>>There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
>>nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it - open
>>skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden about either.
>
>Absolutely clueless.
He's shit disturbing. It's his nature
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> Define "forbidden area".
>>>
>>> Off designated slopes.
>>
>> s/slopes/trails/
>>
>> Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.
>
>I don't think so.
I *know* you're wrong.
>On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
>That's different.
No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public agency
assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done all the time in
the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.
>Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
>resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing on land
>that is just open land - not related to a resort. That would be a closer
>analogy to open water boating.
Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups will send
you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone. Always. Get caught
in there and you'll be paying for more than a rescue.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>> : I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
>> : but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
>> record.
>>
>>
>> Vey well put.
>
> If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
> come on, half a cent?
I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole penny
for me.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Show me where I said I disapprove. Never said that. They can do as they
>> please, but should take responsibility.
>
> But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
> not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
> very strong that there are certain activities that one should be allowed
> to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance fee, and
> others for which one should be required to pay such a fee, with the
> requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing to do with
> the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such activities.
But that has nothing at all to do with approval or disapproval aside from
YOUR translation. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything they want to
do.
>
> So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
> approve or disapprove of such and such activity.
Nope, my personal feeling have nothing to do with it.
>
>>
>>> You want the Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond
>>> that would effectively preclude their activities,
>>
>> Why would it preclude their activities? What is the cost of the boat and
>> outfitting of it? Quite a tidy sum and insurance would just be another
>> part of the cost of doing business, just as we all pay now.
>
> What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been talking
> about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to solo
> circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their rescue
> should such be needed.
I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
person/boat/voyage.
I'm talking about a lot of suspect activities that may put a strain on
resources because some thrill seeker wants to orgasm in some strange way.
I never said a fee, I said insurance or a surety bond, payable to the rescue
country. I don't want to pay for your foolishness.
If you were talking about a fee to be
> paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would be
> making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out a
> single group which historically has made little use of rescue services,
> and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for the cost of
> rescue.
Even though you refuse to see the difference, there is.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
> Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
> overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward
> as a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
> Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just that purpose.
> We already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why should someone
> pay for utilizing a service that is already funded and exists just for
> that purpose?
If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for rescue
on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or jump off a
cliff is another story. Make them pay into a mountain rescue fund or have
insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a record.
>
>>
>> At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
>> to cover rescue costs.
>
> I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to delve
> into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in defining
> some basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in existence,
> but any additional services such as securing the boat, or whatever, being
> outside of that basic rescue provision.
Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting out
for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond payable to
the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should the people of
(fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of thousands of dollars
to rescue a kid from California that want to set a records?
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:11:44 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?
>>
>> Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
>> who must "take responsibility for their actions"?
>
>Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
>actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
>their way.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
>>> same as you?
>>
>> Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?
>>
>Some ambulances now bill for services.
They have for at *least* 20 years.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
> ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
> the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?
>
There are a lot of factors. Sporting is skiing down the patrolled slopes.
Stunting would be going off a cliff not patrolled and seen as risky.
Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building, stunting is
base jumping from it. Maturity and skill level are more important than
age.
I once took a small (14') boat out in the ocean on a day that I should not
have. We realized this but could not safely turn around right away. Once
past the breakwater we turned around and came back into the bay. Staying
out there would have been foolhardy, going back was prudent.
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> Not to take away from her accomplishments, but without autopilot she
> would not be able to do this sort of trip. Nor would most of us.
---------------------------------------
That's what a windvane is for.
A mechanical system that automatically steers a boat to the apparent
wind.
Been used forever on blue water passages.
No electrons req'd.
Lew
Lew
From her 05/05/2010 blog:
Well, I made it into Cape Town today.
------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Posted 04/24/2010
>>
>> Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>>
>> Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>>
>> Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO,
>> not sea going blue water sailboats.
>>
>> Details available at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:38:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
>overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
>a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
Not really. Indulgent behavior is rampant in most societies. Much of
that indulgent behavior is putting great strain on systems such as the
medical system ~ everywhere around the world. Not everybody is
similarly indulgent, but there's enough evidence in the developed
societies to state categorically that it's a serious, soon to be
catastrophic problem.
It may never happen, but 'Soylent Green' is always just lurking around
the corner. We as a species sit and wait for technology to solve
everything. Suspect we will continue to wait for a long, long, time.
While we're waiting, we indulge ourselves ~ an indulgence which is
certainly an untenable habit.
On 6/11/2010 9:16 AM, Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:38:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
>> overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
>> a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
>
> Not really. Indulgent behavior is rampant in most societies. Much of
> that indulgent behavior is putting great strain on systems such as the
> medical system ~ everywhere around the world. Not everybody is
> similarly indulgent, but there's enough evidence in the developed
> societies to state categorically that it's a serious, soon to be
> catastrophic problem.
>
> It may never happen, but 'Soylent Green' is always just lurking around
> the corner. We as a species sit and wait for technology to solve
> everything. Suspect we will continue to wait for a long, long, time.
> While we're waiting, we indulge ourselves ~ an indulgence which is
> certainly an untenable habit.
Well said.
The best that can be said about this now provably foolhardy stunt is
that technology trumped immature judgment and reckless behavior.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:35:21 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote the following:
>
>"cavelamb" wrote
>>
>> The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
>> But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.
>>
>Hope she can cook or clean fish.
>
>And it is a french boat too. There could be a language problem. And she
>would be a 16 year old girl on a boat of horny men. It could end up to an
>interesting adventure all on its own.
Surely there will be a glory hound alongside the very next day to
further "rescue" her.
--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:31:05 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
>proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
>Boy, subject is just more of same.
>http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/03/donna-simpson-wants-to-weigh-1000-pounds/
>And all equally disgusting ...
Inevitable result of world wide communications as they are and the
speed in which instant fame can be achieved. I can't condone it in one
respect, but do understand the allure. Unfortunately, it's quite often
only the older generation who don't approve of this behavior. Used to
be you had to work really hard to succeed in life. Now, it's as simple
a process as pulling off some 'stunt' and often just the act of
attempting the stunt. If you survive, you often succeed.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:32:02 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 1/15/2010 9:13 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
>> one with longer life experiences.
>
>Yeah, just watch as a teenage girl goes by, sitting with left leg up on
>the car seat, texting with one hand, while doing 70mph, all the while 5'
>from the bumper of the car in front of her, then tell me how much
>"potential danger" the majority of them understand.
>
>If you drive anywhere other than the grocery store and maintain you
>haven't seen this ubiquitous phenomenon with young female drivers, then
>+you+ damn sure aren't paying enough attention while driving either ...
If you've seen it, you've obviously been paying attention NOT to the
road, but to the babes behind the wheels. Gotcha! <chortle>
Teens all use the phone, too. People of all ages use phones, put on
makeup, shave, swat kids in the back seat, read the paper, eat donuts
with one hand while drinking coffee with the other while steering with
their, erm, other appendage, um, knee/thigh.
P.S: Yes, I've seen and enjoyed that while cringing about the
tailgating by the nice tail.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Feb 17, 4:38 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
> Per her 02/16/10 blog
> =============================
> Tuesday, February 16, 2010
> Skype and Wind!
> Today has been a really good day. It started out much like all the
> others, 90 degrees while pouring rain and rolling around not going
> anywhere. I'm officially in the doldrums, and they are not fun. But
> today the wind picked up to 20 - 30 kts and it made today one of the
> best I've had in awhile!
>
> -----------------------------------.
Guess she'll have to return to Cabo San Lucas to acheive her record,
then up to Cali to go home. Good luck to her. Tom
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:07:33 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> I'll bet the guys at Coursemaster are shitting themselves over the
>> global negative advertising their autopilots are getting.
>------------------------------------------
>IMHO, it doesn't make any difference who makes them, they are not
>suited for blue water sailing.
Y'know, I believe you're right, Lew. The lone instance I've been on
the open seas (within a couple miles of shore), the auto pilot broke
on the concrete hulled fishing boat we were on...in 30' seas. I
pinched buttonholes out of my skivvies, I did.
--
...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should
not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin
On Apr 25, 11:02=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:07:33 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
> >"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
> >> I'll bet the guys at Coursemaster are shitting themselves over the
> >> global negative advertising their autopilots are getting.
> >------------------------------------------
> >IMHO, it doesn't make any difference who makes them, they are not
> >suited for blue water sailing.
>
> Y'know, I believe you're right, Lew. The lone instance I've been on
> the open seas (within a couple miles of shore), the auto pilot broke
> on the concrete hulled fishing boat we were on...in 30' seas. I
> pinched buttonholes out of my skivvies, I did.
>
> --
> ...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should
> not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-- John Ruskin
The whole Abby Sunderland package was way too Hollywood for my tastes.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:22:44 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>Snip
>>
>>>
>>> What part of "Her parents have already thought it through, decided to
>>> let her go, and she's on the high seas now." bit did you guys miss?
>>
>>Larry,, ;~) I think they baloon boy's parents could use you right about
>>now
>>in their defense.
>
> AFAIK, Abby's parents aren't the criminal type. The balloon boy's
> parents showed that they are. What's the final bill presented to that
> idiot? Or did they just jail him. I don't watch TV so I didn't see
> how it ended. <sigh>
IIRC he did have to pay a fine.... maybe, but again IIRC it was way low and
almost insignificant.
Thanks, Lew.
The sailing groups are so full of sludge these days, I've given up on them.
So I haven't been following her progress as closely as I wanted.
I'm glad the kid is around the Horn.
That's a significant milestone.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Posted 03/31/2010
>
> She is around the "Horn"
>
> Headed for Africa.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> Lew
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>> Posted 03/27/2010
>>
>> She is headed for the "Horn"
>>
>> If interested, link will get you to her blog.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:24:18 -0700, the infamous Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 11:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>>>
>>>
>>>> A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
>>>
>>> Indeed!
>>
>> Well ... actually, that's not counting all the damn weight you can gain
>> in 19 years by quitting smoking. :(
>>
>>
>I quit smoking in '98 and ballooned to 260 lbs. Last Feb 9, I started
>this thing called the "British Heart Foundation Diet" which I call the
>"Bataan Death March Diet". I don't lose 10 lbs in a week as advertised,
>more like 4-5, and then gain 3-4 back in the next 4 days. In 11 months,
>down 31 lbs to 229 and aiming for 220 - my football weight when I was
>18. I'm on it Monday through Wednesday. As my wife discovered, this
>only works if you also cut any booze for the 3 days on diet. Here it is:
>
>============================================================================
>
>The Official British Heart Foundation Lose - 10lb in 3 days - Diet!!
>
>You must drink 5 x 8oz glasses of water per day, and no other drink.
>
>Day 1:
>
>BREAKFAST:
>Black tea/coffee
>1/2 grapefruit
>1 slice toast
>2 tspn peanut butter
>
>LUNCH:
>Black tea/coffee
>4oz tuna
>1 slice toast
>
>DINNER:
>2 slices any cold meat
>1 - cup string beans
>4oz beetroot (canned beets)
>1 small apple
>4oz vanilla ice cream
>
>Day 2:
>
>BREAKFAST:
>Black tea/coffee
>1 egg
>1 slice toast
>1/2 banana
>
>LUNCH:
>4oz cottage cheese
>5 saltine crackers
>
>DINNER:
>2 hot dog sausages
>3oz broccoli
>2oz carrots
>1/2 banana
>4oz vanilla ice cream,
>
>Day 3:
>
>BREAKFAST:
>Black tea/coffee
>5 saltine crackers
>1 slice cheddar cheese
>1 small apple
>
>LUNCH:
>1 hard - boiled egg
>1 slice toast
>
>DINNER:
>
>4oz tuna
>4oz beetroot
>4oz cauliflower
>1/2 melon
>4oz vanilla ice cream
>
>Following the diet, eat moderately/ normally. Exercise is encouraged,
>but not required.
>
>=======================================================================
>
>BTW, the British Heart Foundation disavows any knowledge of this thing.
> I wouldn't recommend this to anyone - only relating my experience with it.
If one wishes to put their body into death mode, by all means, follow
that diet. It's not enough nutrition to properly support an 8 year
old, let alone an adult. No wonder the BHF disavows it!
P.S: You, sir, are a masochist.
P.P.S: I'm rereading the first several chapters of Mary Enig's _Eat
Fat, Lose Fat_ now, and will finish reading the book and try her diet
next. I'll let you know how it goes. I already have her book,
_Nourishing Traditions_.
EFLF http://fwd4.me/Bex from $7.94 at eBay, $9.24 in the Amazone. But
ya gotta love coconut, which I do.
Dr. Enig is the lady who challenged the Powers That Be, the PTB who
saw to it that millions of Americans died by eating hydrogenated fats.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:13:10 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 1/15/2010 11:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around you,
>> no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no need to
>> stay behind the wheel.
>>
>> I'd still love to see the stats if anyone can dig 'em up.
>
>As I stated before, lack of experience and mature judgment is a function
>of AGE, not activity.
And like I said, she's already out there. Find your own acceptance of
that fact and you'll be happier. ;)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.
>
> Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than she
> can generate.
And she's learned an important life less. Never trust the specs on
_anything_ if anything important depends on it meeting them.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.
>>
>> Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than
>> she can generate.
>
> And she's learned an important life less.
Arrrgh. Life less_on_.
> Never trust the specs on
> _anything_ if anything important depends on it meeting them.
And thinking on it--it never occurred to me that she needed all that
generating capacity just to carry the load--I assumed that she had
redundancy--that she could run on any one of her sources, not that she
needed all three in order to function. If that's the case then I'm with the
doomsayers.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:20:52 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Jan 15, 12:00 pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:56:14 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't see what age has to do with having experience being chased
>> >> by
>> >> pirates. As for being chased by rapers and murderers, one is far
>> >> more
>> >> likely to be chased by rapers and murderers on the way to high
>> >> school than
>> >> in the middle of the ocean, but if she was 21 or 31 or 41 or 101 she
>> >> still
>> >> wouldn't have any relevant experience in being chased by such unless
>> >> she had
>> >> phenomenally bad luck.
>> >-------------------------------------------------
>> >The whole pirate thing is a little overblown.
>>
>> >If you bother to read her proposed sail plan, this will be a nonstop,
>> >fast as possible given prudent safety issues such as avoiding ice
>> >bergs.
>>
>> >(The closer you sail to Antarctica, the shorter the trip, but the
>> >higher the risk.)
>>
>> >That route will put her a long way from known piracy activities.
>>
>> Posting a proposed route also gives pirates her location, potentially
>> negating that safety margin. :/
>>
>
>These modern day pirates are after big settlements from insurance
>companies.
>I suppose that if the opportunity presented itself, they might hold
>her for ransom, but they want container ships and tankers.
Is there a small possibility that SOME of the modern day pirates are
also in it for the booty? The challenge? The audacity? The mean
spiritedness? [additional questions here]
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On 4/25/2010 6:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Posted 04/24/2010
>>
>> Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>>
>> Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>>
>> Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO,
>> not sea going blue water sailboats.
>>
>> Details available at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not to take away from her accomplishments, but without autopilot she
> would not be able to do this sort of trip. Nor would most of us.
Ed, google "windvane self-steering".
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:22:44 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Snip
>
>>
>> What part of "Her parents have already thought it through, decided to
>> let her go, and she's on the high seas now." bit did you guys miss?
>
>Larry,, ;~) I think they baloon boy's parents could use you right about now
>in their defense.
AFAIK, Abby's parents aren't the criminal type. The balloon boy's
parents showed that they are. What's the final bill presented to that
idiot? Or did they just jail him. I don't watch TV so I didn't see
how it ended. <sigh>
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Posted 04/24/2010
>
> Autopilot failure will force Abby to stop in Capetown for repairs.
> ----------------------------------------------
> So much for electronics on board a small vessel at sea.
>
> Personally, I'd not go to sea without a windvane.
>
> Electronic autopilots are for stink boats in protected waters IMHO, not
> sea going blue water sailboats.
>
> Details available at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Not to take away from her accomplishments, but without autopilot she would
not be able to do this sort of trip. Nor would most of us.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:37:13 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>>
>>
>
>
>>You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>
>............. I am speechless. You actually shot your self in the foot.
>
>
LOL!
On Jan 15, 3:02=A0pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > dadiOH wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>> As for "systems failing
> >>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
> >>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
> >>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>
> >> And winches,
>
> > Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>
> >> stays,
>
> > Just ropes.
>
> *Wire* ropes. =A0With turnbuckles.
> ___________
>
> >> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>
> > Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>
> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope.
> _____________
>
> >> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>
> >> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
> >> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. =A0The wonder is that they do a=
s
> >> well as they do.
>
> > Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. =A0As for thei=
r
> > failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them.
>
> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope. =A0Obviously, you know=
zero
> about sailing.
> _____________
>
> > =A0If it was really so
> > complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how
> > would being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
>
> It isn't the age so much as the (probable) lack of experience. =A0For
> example...
>
> 1. To/from Catalina with others.
>
> 2. Crusing off shore to/from La Paz with others
>
> 3. To/from Hawaii with others.
>
> 3. All the above single handed.
>
> Like that.
>
> Experience (and common sense) really *does* count. =A0I recall a fellow y=
ears
> ago that was - IIRC - near Ecuador. =A0He dropped and broke his sextant. =
=A0They
> found him nine months - *NINE MONTHS* - later out in the middle of the
> Pacific. =A0He was still alive, subsisted on rain water and (mostly) plan=
ts
> and critters that grow on the bottom of boats. =A0He had no idea where he=
was.
>
> If he had any experience and the sense that god gave geese he would have
> known that you can sail downhill most anywhere in the world and hit land.
>
Sense is especially lacking around these parts. Many figure...well
hell, it's a LAKE, right? (Lake Huron)
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:36:38 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the
following:
>On Jan 14, 10:06 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
>> believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
>> them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding armies
>> at that age.
>
>You're kidding, right? I didn't see a smiley or wink, so I will
>assume you were. Otherwise to follow that statement to its untimely
>end, we would have to say that the average person lived (depending on
>the source) about 30 years on this planet.
>
>So in your world, using your example, she is matured to middle aged?
>
>Are you comparing her to the social standards of almost 25 centuries
>past?
>
>Surely you must be kidding.
>
>This is a girl that can't even legally drive a car without an adult in
>it.
With driver training, many states allow that. consider that many girls
her age are also having sex and smoking for years. Kids grow up far
earlier these days in the constantly-connected age.
>(Yeah I know, I am waiting for the farm boys to chime in and tell us
>they started driving on their grandpa's lap at 4 yrs. old.... save
>it.)
>
>Now this girl wants to sail by herself, unassisted, non stop, for what
>will probably turn out to be a year. A year of isolation, a year of
>constant danger going through as described "some of the most dangerous
>waters in the world", called "the sailor's graveyard".
Have you ever heard of a girl being raped, drowning, or getting
crushed in a car wreck in the same neighborhood you live? Live is
dangerous _everywhere_, Robert. Acknowledge it!
>>This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
>> out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
>> gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
>> equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
>> _problem_?
>
>I don't know how much credence I would put in a 16 year old's
>assessment when "thinking things through" when their life is at
>stake. While she may be quite competent for a 16 year old, indeed,
>she is still 16.
Young kids saving older, dumber people's lives. Googlit. Be amazed at
how many times the reporters are astounded by the maturity of a 10
year old boy, etc.
>I don't care how much it is, but the claim that "gotten a good deal of
>relevant experience" doesn't include being pursued by pirates/rapers/
>muderers, handling her boat when the systems fail in a storm, say in
>"sailor's graveyard", etc.
Here, too. Nowhere is safe when things go wrong. You can bet that
she's being tracked six ways from Sunday, too. I'll bet the NSA is
keeping an eye on her in case she goes in for nude sunbathing. ;)
>I hope everything turns out OK for this kid and she can come back and
>parlay this into her fifteen minutes. She can write a book, a
>children's inspirational book, a TV movie for Kid's Discovery, and go
>on Oprah. She can be an inspiration for further pointless grabs for
>attention by kids everywhere.
Like the 2-month younger echo from California?
>If she is murdered, missing, or smashed to pieces in a storm during
>this event I hope they go after they parents for negligence.
>
>After all, at 16 you can't even enter into a legally binding agreement
>as you are still considered a minor.
Except for the thousands who are emancipated minors. Face it: many
kids are safer away from bad homes and have grown up very early.
>Just because folks have the money to do whatever they want when they
>want, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
I know, I'm jealous of her, too. <wink, wink>
So, find the odds on how much difference there is between her home
city and the ocean as far as safety. I'll bet you find them similar,
if not better on the sea. All except the AAA service calls.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> What I was saying is that kids grow up/mature a whole lot earlier
> today than they did when we were kids. Many are _much_ more mature.
> You can accept that or not.
>
I'm not so sure. Kids are exposted to many more situation than we were as
kids, but being around a lot of technology and perhaps more experiences does
not always make them more mature. Typical teenager has more possisions than
we had, may have been to Disney World, has a cellphone, has a Facebook page,
but that does not make them any better equipped to make serious decisions
about their life.
"charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>> and
>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>
>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
>> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>
>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
>> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>>
>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>> then what?
>
> and how is that different if the person is 46?
Jeez..... It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let me ask
you this? You you rather it be you rather than your 16 year old daghter
that goes down with the boat? Why?
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> --
> The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
> of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
> --Abraham Lincoln
----------------------------------
Today that "small piece" is often measured in hundreds, even thousands
of acres.
The ever changing face of American agriculture.
Lew
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:44:20 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:19:28 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
>> ><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?
>> >
>> >Depends on where you're standing. I would NOT want to be too close
>> >astern when SHE circumnavigates!
>>
>> Um, weren't you circumnavigated as a child, Baldy?
>
>None of your damned business.
>
>Noticed you fixed the sig delimiter... Any particular reason?
Damn, forgot to futz that one up, too, I guess.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:54:46 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Lets let our 16 year old daughter make the journey.
>Ohhhhhhh.... We prey she fairs well and with out harm.
A budding Amelia Earhart in the making. I wonder what kind of shit
will come down the pipe when one of these kids dies out there?
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:06:17 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Leon wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:66cda2d7-6da5-4ead-9035-91240462aa97@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Imagine...
>>>
>>> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>>>
>>> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>>>
>>> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
>>> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
>>> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
>>> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>>>
>>> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>>>
>>> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>>>
>>> Apparently not.
>>
>>
>> No kidding.
>
>It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
>believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
>them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding armies
>at that age. This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
>out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
>gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
>equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
>_problem_?
I'm with you, J. It shows how much the parents trust her and how
intelligent they believe she is. It's surely a character builder. But
that's not what the Nanny State wants. <shrug>
OTOH, if (Somali!) pirates do get her, the parents will be _crucified_
in the media.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:18:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how old
>do you consider to be "old enough"?
A better understanding of the risks means that you often don't take
that risk in the first place. That's something that age and experience
can give you.
Along the same lines, a better understanding of the risks might mean
that you've had other risks similar to the one that's at hand and have
a better chance of knowing how some risk might turn out.
A better understanding of the risks might mean that you have the
knowledge to use a different method to attenuate the risk and not
experience injury.
Kids don't have the maturity and experience to better balance the pros
and cons of a particular risk. Adults are generally far better
equipped because of experience and observation than the brashness and
inexperience that a younger person would not consider.
As an example, I used all sorts of drugs when I was a kid, because I
just didn't understand the risks. Now that I'm older, I'd never
consider doing some of the stuff now that I did then. Not because I
had a particularly bad time because of drugs, but because over the
years, I've observed other people going through hell because of them.
My age and experience tells me what is sensible. Go ahead and refute
my experience.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:07:43 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia anyway.
>
>I was totally totally unaware that there were only "Somalia" pirates, I was
>under the assumption that pirates might be any where.
They are. I had just brought them up for -fun-, a bit earlier in the
thread.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on those
> days when there *is* no wind.
Actually I was yanking Lew's chain a bit. Forgive me Lew...;~)
I have not been on sailboats much but am aware of that the bigger ons
somethmes come with... Grew up 3 miles from salt water and have always live
within 60 miles of the salt water. It is hard to miss seeing the boats.
;~)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>
>> You can even climb Mt Everest today with a little experience and
>> $60,000.
>
> You definitely WILL NOT sail around the world for $60,000.
>
> The toughest part is not the sailing, but getting the sponsors.
>
> Having talked to a couple of people who have done it, sponsorship is
> the biggest hurdle.
>
> Lew
>
>
> Lew
That's why I'm going to climb Everest instead. Just trying to save a few
bucks.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ---------------------------------
> Different horses for different courses.
>
> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>
> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an engine
> which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover which are the
> sails.
>
> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere engine
> as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a prime mover.
So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets see, how
would you put that,
Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail boat is
about as useful as a set if tits
on a boar hog.
Does that sound about right?
On 1/14/2010 4:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I don't know how much credence I would put in a 16 year old's
> assessment when "thinking things through" when their life is at
> stake. While she may be quite competent for a 16 year old, indeed,
> she is still 16.
> Just because folks have the money to do whatever they want when they
> want, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Experienced a tragic example of that a few years back.
I grew up on a horse farm; rode, trained, show jumped, rodeoed, roped,
rode dressage and three day events, and even held a farriers license at
one time, so there is little about a horse, and horsemanship, I haven't
been exposed to since I was old enough to remember.
Two years ago all the horse crazy kids and their Moms in this affluent
neighborhood were all talking up, and hiring, a 14 year old girl as the
"OMG!!, BEST 'horse trainer' in the whole world!!".
I'm sorry, but there is simply NO way a 14 year old kid is old enough to
have the "experience", knowledge, and judgment to be anything but a
pimple on a real horseman's butt.
Sure enough, and with parents with more money than sense pushing her all
the while, the young lady, two years later and tragically, is a now a
quadriplegic ... simply because of her inexperience and lack of judgment
in getting herself into a situation that no "horseman" would have gotten
into in the first place.
It was sobering for a lot of these kids ... but damn, there are simply
some things you just don't fool with without both lengthy experience,
knowledge, and a finely tuned judgment based on both ... mother nature,
and large quadrapeds capable of killing you, included.
Despite the current cultural perception to the contrary, life is NOT a
farking "My Friend Flicka" movie/video game ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 11:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>>
>>
>>> A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
>>
>> Indeed!
>
> Well ... actually, that's not counting all the damn weight you can gain
> in 19 years by quitting smoking. :(
>
>
I quit smoking in '98 and ballooned to 260 lbs. Last Feb 9, I started
this thing called the "British Heart Foundation Diet" which I call the
"Bataan Death March Diet". I don't lose 10 lbs in a week as advertised,
more like 4-5, and then gain 3-4 back in the next 4 days. In 11 months,
down 31 lbs to 229 and aiming for 220 - my football weight when I was
18. I'm on it Monday through Wednesday. As my wife discovered, this
only works if you also cut any booze for the 3 days on diet. Here it is:
============================================================================
The Official British Heart Foundation Lose - 10lb in 3 days - Diet!!
You must drink 5 x 8oz glasses of water per day, and no other drink.
Day 1:
BREAKFAST:
Black tea/coffee
1/2 grapefruit
1 slice toast
2 tspn peanut butter
LUNCH:
Black tea/coffee
4oz tuna
1 slice toast
DINNER:
2 slices any cold meat
1 - cup string beans
4oz beetroot (canned beets)
1 small apple
4oz vanilla ice cream
Day 2:
BREAKFAST:
Black tea/coffee
1 egg
1 slice toast
1/2 banana
LUNCH:
4oz cottage cheese
5 saltine crackers
DINNER:
2 hot dog sausages
3oz broccoli
2oz carrots
1/2 banana
4oz vanilla ice cream,
Day 3:
BREAKFAST:
Black tea/coffee
5 saltine crackers
1 slice cheddar cheese
1 small apple
LUNCH:
1 hard - boiled egg
1 slice toast
DINNER:
4oz tuna
4oz beetroot
4oz cauliflower
1/2 melon
4oz vanilla ice cream
Following the diet, eat moderately/ normally. Exercise is encouraged,
but not required.
=======================================================================
BTW, the British Heart Foundation disavows any knowledge of this thing.
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone - only relating my experience with it.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/14/2010 4:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I don't know how much credence I would put in a 16 year old's
> > assessment when "thinking things through" when their life is at
> > stake. While she may be quite competent for a 16 year old, indeed,
> > she is still 16.
>
> > Just because folks have the money to do whatever they want when they
> > want, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
>
> Experienced a tragic example of that a few years back.
>
> I grew up on a horse farm; rode, trained, show jumped, rodeoed, roped,
> rode dressage and three day events, and even held a farriers license at
> one time, so there is little about a horse, and horsemanship, I haven't
> been exposed to since I was old enough to remember.
>
> Two years ago all the horse crazy kids and their Moms in this affluent
> neighborhood were all talking up, and hiring, a 14 year old girl as the
> "OMG!!, BEST 'horse trainer' in the whole world!!".
>
> I'm sorry, but there is simply NO way a 14 year old kid is old enough to
> have the "experience", knowledge, and judgment to be anything but a pimple
> on a real horseman's butt.
>
> Sure enough, and with parents with more money than sense pushing her all
> the while, the young lady, two years later and tragically, is a now a
> quadriplegic ... simply because of her inexperience and lack of judgment
> in getting herself into a situation that no "horseman" would have gotten
> into in the first place.
>
> It was sobering for a lot of these kids ... but damn, there are simply
> some things you just don't fool with without both lengthy experience,
> knowledge, and a finely tuned judgment based on both ... mother nature,
> and large quadrapeds capable of killing you, included.
>
> Despite the current cultural perception to the contrary, life is NOT a
> farking "My Friend Flicka" movie/video game ...
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I too have worked around horses most of my life, it seems that
teenage girls like to think of horses as friends and pets, they are neither.
Me and SWMBO recently got a Belgian Warmblood from a horse
barn that catered to young riders. This guy is 17.4 hands and 3/4's ton
of bad attitude, an animal like this requires constant vigilance when
handling, he will hurt you.(but he can also jump a 4 ft. fence without
blinking)
I can't imagine a 17 yr old of either gender being able to handle this
horse.
Three day eventers "have to own a crazy horse" it's in the rules.
Disclaimer: I no longer ride, I consider myself too old and fragile.
basilisk
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia
>>> anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was totally totally unaware that there were only "Somalia" pirates,
>> I was under the assumption that pirates might be any where.
>
> Pirates operate where there's profit to be made. That means shipping
> channels. There's precious little shipping in the Antarctic Ocean.
You do realize..for God's sake I hope you realize, that to "G o A r o u n
d T h e W o r l d" it requires a voyage through several oceans.....
I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
responsibility.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> I pity your kids.
>>
>> Apparently you don't have kids...
>
> Or maybe I just don't keep them bundled up in cotton so that when they
> turn
> 18 and they have to deal with the big bad drill sergeant they'll be ready.
>
>
Or maybe you don't have kids.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> If you had been paying attention for the past 50 years you would know
> that solo circumnavigation is no longer something that "few with far
> more experienced and knowledgeable have done"--a lot of people have
> done it, some of whom had as their major qualifications "made a lot
> of money".
You can even climb Mt Everest today with a little experience and $60,000.
Not at all like it was when Hillary did it.
www.himex.com for details.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
> and
> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to get out
of a problem should you get into one.
Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good chance
of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and then
what?
Risk is not so much the problem as is correcting the damage should a problem
happen.
>
> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives us
> the stats.
>
> --
> The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
> of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
> --Abraham Lincoln
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:19:28 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
> ><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?
> >
> >Depends on where you're standing. I would NOT want to be too close
> >astern when SHE circumnavigates!
>
> Um, weren't you circumnavigated as a child, Baldy?
None of your damned business.
Noticed you fixed the sig delimiter... Any particular reason?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:19:28 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>> So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?
>
>Depends on where you're standing. I would NOT want to be too close
>astern when SHE circumnavigates!
Um, weren't you circumnavigated as a child, Baldy?
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Jan 17, 8:54 am, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>> Walking by the hippo
>> exposition, I strolleddown to the underwater viewing area when the
>> hippo decided to evacuate. Holy Crom! That's a metric (my fave)
>> shitload, alright.
>
>Ummm, Larry... it is metric, henceforth not a shitload but an assload.
>Metric assload.
>You _could_ say metric shitload, but it's just not done. It's like
>saying one tenth of a foot. (Yes, and I know...there is such a thing
>as a tenth of an inch.)
>Metric assload, Larry.
OK, I'll file that in the metric portion of my brain.
>I get real testy when people keep getting there UOM all mixed up..like
>their tiches and tads, smidgens and c-hairs.
>;-)
That's RCH to you, son. (they're finer)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dadiOH wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> dadiOH wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for "systems failing
>>>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
>>>>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>>>
>>>> And winches,
>>>
>>> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>>>
>>>> stays,
>>>
>>> Just ropes.
>>
>> *Wire* ropes. With turnbuckles.
>
> So what? They can be replaced in an emergency with dacron, Kevlar, or
> many
> other textiles, with knots.
>> ___________
>>
>>>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>>>
>>> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>>
>> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope.
>
> I really should put a video of that up on Youtube just to piss you off.
>
> The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so FUCKING WHAT? You
> replace it with a spare, clamp on a patch, or replace it with something
> else. You act like replacing or repairing a goddamned piece of rope takes
> the entire resources of NASA or something.
If you would step away from the computer, cool off, collect yourself, you
could probably think more rationally.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
>> responsibility.
>
> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>
>
>You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
............. I am speechless. You actually shot your self in the foot.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
>>one with longer life experiences.
>
> True, but knowledge doesn't necessarily mean the older person will
> know WTF to do when something strange happens. A crafty young person
> might well do better than a sedate old fart.
>
>
>>She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of how
>>her
>>life would change should any harm come to her.
>
> Tell ya what: You do that with your kid and let these fine folks raise
> their own the way they (and she) see fit. Deal? Good. ;)
Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were nuts
for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far more
experienced and knowledgeable have done. Then every one wanted to defend
the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will probably do fine. But if
something happened to my child I would blame myself forever for not being
responsible as a parent. It is only common sense, which seems to be lacking
here, to try to protet your children.
Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land because
they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on land help can be
given and you do have to live some where. You have to pick your battles.
Picking one where a child is alone for months on end performing a balancing
act with mother nature would not be a wise one IMHO.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>> and
>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>
>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
>> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>
>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
>> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>>
>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>> then what?
>
> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
> century
> you know.
>
> And how do you get rescued when you get nabbed by a pimp and shot full of
> drugs?
>
>> Risk is not so much the problem as is correcting the damage should a
>> problem happen.
>
> So how do you get rescued from being run over by a bus?
I pity your kids.
Apparently you don't have kids...
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:54:46 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>Lets let our 16 year old daughter make the journey.
>>Ohhhhhhh.... We prey she fairs well and with out harm.
>
> A budding Amelia Earhart in the making. I wonder what kind of shit
> will come down the pipe when one of these kids dies out there?3
Great example...
I suspect that if it is an American, USA, child that dies, the sponsors,
boat builder, electronics suppliers, and government will be held
responsible by the parents attorney. And with the current governemet
administration, sailing will be out lawed all together. ;~)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SFWIW:
>
> Abby is scheduled to leave tomorrow; however, we have a series of winter
> storms headed into SoCal which will put the winds on her nose and build
> the waves again on the nose.
>
> May have to wait until next week end.
Ahhh, the voice of reason rings out again!
>
> She at the mercy of mother nature.
Careful there Lew. There's a couple here that would consider that there
comment, fight'n words.
> BTW:
>
> Murphy's third law: Mother Nature is a BITCH.
Often an unforgiving Bitch.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> Different horses for different courses.
>>>>
>>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>>>
>>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>>>> which are the sails.
>>>>
>>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>>>> prime mover.
>>>
>>>
>>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
>>> see, how would you put that,
>>>
>>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
>>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
>>> on a boar hog.
>>>
>>> Does that sound about right?
>>
>> Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on
>> those days when there *is* no wind.
>
> Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
> circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
> really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
> the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
> just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take you a
fur piece :)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> ahhh.. the voice of reason.... you have restored my faith Lew. Good
>> on'ya
>
> Single handing a 30 ft boat, on the Great Lakes, an average of 1,500
> miles/year, for 10 years will do that to you.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Kinda relates back to a few that believe that because they observe all the
safety rules and are always paying attention will never have an accident in
the shop... They just don't have enough experience to know that they don't
know what they don't know. ;~)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Must be the weather.
>
> Abby Sunderland, 16 year old sister of Zak, a 17 year old circumnavigator,
> departs on Saturday from Marina Del Rey, (Los Angeles) in her 40 ft racing
> sail boat, headed for the horn.
>
> She is a few months younger than Jessica.
>
> Lew
Here is how a few of us see this adventure...
CRACKEY! That particular alligator resting on the bank of this pond is the
most dangerous in the world! And this one is older and therefore wiser, he
had to be to have survived this long. His temperament is very
unpredictable and at any moment he could strike out at me with the force and
speed of a raging locomotive and I would have little chance of escape.
I'm going to I will poke it with this short stick!
Ohhhhhhhh... that sting ray just stabbed me in my heart with his barb....
Well Mate, lets plan a world adventure on the high seas. Lets plan the
trip to do it alone as to gain recognition. Lets do it with out a motor so
that we will be at the mercy of the sea. Although the trip will lead to
some of the oceans most dangerous regions, this will only add to the hype
and excitement that will be generated. Fans will watch with excitement like
NASCAR fans do. When will there be a wreck or when will there be a storm???
The excitement and unforeseen elements will be too numerous to count. We
will be at natures mercy.
Lets let our 16 year old daughter make the journey.
Ohhhhhhh.... We prey she fairs well and with out harm.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:33:58 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"dadiOH" wrote:
>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>> you a fur piece :)
>---------------------------------------
>200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
>ballast?
Diesel has a density about 70% of water. Negative ballast. ;-)
>Doubtful.
On 1/14/2010 5:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>
> Apparently not.
Just another example of what would otherwise be a noble adventure of
personal achievement in the privacy of the open ocean, cheapened by the
blogging, hype, and orchestrated media involvement into nothing more
than a publicity stunt for milking "pop culture" of the perceived
rewards of '15 minutes of fame' ... barely half a peg higher than the
balloon boy's.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>> and
>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
>>>> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>>>
>>>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
>>>> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>>>>
>>>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>>>> then what?
>>>
>>> and how is that different if the person is 46?
>>
>> Jeez..... It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let
>> me ask you this? You you rather it be you rather than your 16 year
>> old daghter that goes down with the boat? Why?
>
> Many parents would rather it be them than their kid when anything bad
> happens. So what?
Do you have any friends in school that might be able to explain this in
words you may understand?
J. Clarke wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> As for "systems failing
>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
>>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>
>> And winches,
>
> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>
>> stays,
>
> Just ropes.
*Wire* ropes. With turnbuckles.
___________
>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>
> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope.
_____________
>> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>>
>> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
>> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do as
>> well as they do.
>
> Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for their
> failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them.
Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope. Obviously, you know zero
about sailing.
_____________
> If it was really so
> complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how
> would being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
It isn't the age so much as the (probable) lack of experience. For
example...
1. To/from Catalina with others.
2. Crusing off shore to/from La Paz with others
3. To/from Hawaii with others.
3. All the above single handed.
Like that.
Experience (and common sense) really *does* count. I recall a fellow years
ago that was - IIRC - near Ecuador. He dropped and broke his sextant. They
found him nine months - *NINE MONTHS* - later out in the middle of the
Pacific. He was still alive, subsisted on rain water and (mostly) plants
and critters that grow on the bottom of boats. He had no idea where he was.
If he had any experience and the sense that god gave geese he would have
known that you can sail downhill most anywhere in the world and hit land.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/15/2010 9:13 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
>> one with longer life experiences.
>
> Yeah, just watch as a teenage girl goes by, sitting with left leg up on
> the car seat, texting with one hand, while doing 70mph, all the while 5'
> from the bumper of the car in front of her, then tell me how much
> "potential danger" the majority of them understand.
>
> If you drive anywhere other than the grocery store and maintain you
> haven't seen this ubiquitous phenomenon with young female drivers, then
> +you+ damn sure aren't paying enough attention while driving either ...
I'm on the wrong side of town to be interested in watching young female
drivers while on the way to the store these days.
I don't like the mixed flavors.
More likely to happen in your neighborhood. ;~)
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible. Suppose a
>>hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a ball with
>>her....literally, that is my problem..
>
> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
The difference is maturity and over all knowledge. Regardless of experience
in a particular field, age gives the advantage of "life in general"
experiences. With age comes better decisions, typically a person does not
become less experienced with life in general.
All things being equal older more mature people have more life experiences
to help them make better decisions. They have more information from
repeated experiences to know what they are getting into.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm guessing by stink boat, you're talking about some floating barge
> with all the buoyancy of a lead bucket. In any event, I was
> referring
> to the better boats, designed to be safer. Any boat can capsize in
> the
> open seas under the right circumstances, even with an experienced
> sailor.
-----------------------------------------------
"Stink boat", a term used by sailors to describe the toy power boats
found in most marinas.
Anything under about 60-70 ft qualifies.
"Floating condos" best describes the larger ones including Tigers.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?
Depends on where you're standing. I would NOT want to be too close
astern when SHE circumnavigates!
On Jan 17, 8:54=A0am, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> =A0Walking by the hippo
> exposition, I strolleddown to the underwater viewing area when the
> hippo decided to evacuate. =A0Holy Crom! That's a metric (my fave)
> shitload, alright.
Ummm, Larry... it is metric, henceforth not a shitload but an assload.
Metric assload.
You _could_ say metric shitload, but it's just not done. It's like
saying one tenth of a foot. (Yes, and I know...there is such a thing
as a tenth of an inch.)
Metric assload, Larry.
.
.
..
I get real testy when people keep getting there UOM all mixed up..like
their tiches and tads, smidgens and c-hairs.
.
.
.
;-)
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:39:27 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>
>> $50k might pound it into his head to never try that again, but only
>> if
>> some media asshole doesn't come up with it as a bribe to get him to
>> write the book about it. (See -why- I turned off the TV?)
>-------------------
>
>Not to sweat it, judge has that covered.
Oh, good. It wouldn't be right if he were to profit from some scam
like that.
>==========================
>> As to NPR, I'm a liberally moderate conservative who doesn't listen
>> to
>> it. Thanks anyway.
>---------------------
>You choose to keep your head where the moon doesn't shine, that's your
>loss,
My 25th AA birfday is on July 10th, when I'll celebrate a quarter
century without any moon shinin' in me.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:19:38 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
>> that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
>> sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
>> settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
>> stuff here.
--snip--
>According to the zoo's owner, Dragan Pejovic, the townsfolk have
>nothing to worry about. "Nikica does not represent a threat to anyone,"
So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?
>he said, "unless someone attacks and kicks her." But that is not
>entirely true. The evacuation of Nikica's cage is one thing -- but when
>Nikica herself evacuates, it can be dangerous.
I've seen that happen in the Sandy Eggo zoo. Walking by the hippo
exposition, I strolleddown to the underwater viewing area when the
hippo decided to evacuate. Holy Crom! That's a metric (my fave)
shitload, alright. Within 30 seconds, a roughly 10x12x8' area was
saturated and opaque. I went to the top and watched a dozen kids go
"Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!" Unforgettable.
Maybe Abby will pick her up and won't have to be alone for the rest of
the voyage. (jusssssst kidding)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:45:27 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>We are not talking about stink boats here but well found blue water
>boats designed for the task.
I'm guessing by stink boat, you're talking about some floating barge
with all the buoyancy of a lead bucket. In any event, I was referring
to the better boats, designed to be safer. Any boat can capsize in the
open seas under the right circumstances, even with an experienced
sailor.
Sorry, I'm not arguing this anymore.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> I think you forgot to add the possibility storms, and 40' waves..
>
> 40' waves and storms are a given, most probably higher than 40', but boat
> is designed to handle them.
>
> Just make sure the jack lines are secured, and your harness line is
> attached.
>
That is all you have to do??? Just make sure the jack lines are secured and
your harness line is attached?
That simple statement will cover every possibly thing that could or has ever
happed gone wrong while in high seas?
That sound a bit naive doesn't it?
On 1/15/2010 11:26 AM, charlie wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>> and
>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>
>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives
>>> us the stats.
>>
>> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give
>> you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment"
>> justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while operating
>> motor
>> vehicles.
>>
>> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing
>> at sea.
>
> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the distractions
> to driving and the quick changing road environment simply aren't there in
> mid-ocean
Horseshit! ... lack of experience and mature judgment are factors of
age, not type of activity.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
J. Clarke wrote:
> As for "systems failing
> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an
> effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
And winches, stays, tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things. Bodies
too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck - that
systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do as well as
they do.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were
>> nuts for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far
>> more experienced and knowledgeable have done.
>
> So Robin Lee Graham and Tania Aebi were "far more experienced and
> knowledgeable"? Or would you have arrested them to save them from
> themselves?
>
> If you had been paying attention for the past 50 years you would know that
> solo circumnavigation is no longer something that "few with far more
> experienced and knowledgeable have done"--a lot of people have done it,
> some
> of whom had as their major qualifications "made a lot of money".
huh?
>
>> Then every one wanted
>> to defend the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will probably
>> do fine. But if something happened to my child I would blame myself
>> forever for not being responsible as a parent.
>
> Well why don't you worry about your kids and let other peopld worry about
> their kids?
That sound about right, coming from you.
>
> And how would you feel if after having read the kid the riot act and
> prevented her from doing this thing that you consider to be so horribly
> dangerous she died in an automobile crash while being kidnapped and raped
> by
> her English teacher?
>
> You can't protect your kids from everything you know.
I would not consider 16 years from infantcy "forever".... Maybe that is so
for you.
>
>> It is only common
>> sense, which seems to be lacking here, to try to protet your children.
>
> No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_ child
> so
> what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
Ohhhhh.... let's not get our panties in a wad now.... I am entitled to my
openion and have meerly been answering the question that "your have asked".
I am sorry if you for some reason feel you may have been jilted in your up
bringing.
>
>> Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land
>> because they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on
>> land help can be given and you do have to live some where.
>
> Help can be given if someone is somewhere where there is help hanging
> around. There are plenty of places even in New England where one can die
> of
> exposure long before some stranger happens along and finds your corpse.
Have you seen much help on the high seas in the middle of nowhere?
>> You have
>> to pick your battles. Picking one where a child is alone for months
>> on end performing a balancing act with mother nature would not be a
>> wise one IMHO.
>
> But it's not your battle to pick, Mr. Busybody.
You are soooooo naive..
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
> insisting in staying this loop.
>
> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>
Better yet look at upscales response.
On 1/15/2010 11:35 AM, basilisk wrote:
> Me and SWMBO recently got a Belgian Warmblood from a horse
> barn that catered to young riders. This guy is 17.4 hands and 3/4's ton
> of bad attitude, an animal like this requires constant vigilance when
> handling, he will hurt you.(but he can also jump a 4 ft. fence without
> blinking)
> I can't imagine a 17 yr old of either gender being able to handle this
> horse.
My favorite horse idiocy tales revolve around the propensity of urban
raised females, even older ones, refusing to geld their colts.
> Three day eventers "have to own a crazy horse" it's in the rules.
LOL ... you got that right.!
> Disclaimer: I no longer ride, I consider myself too old and fragile.
I just haven't had the opportunity the past twenty years or so.
That said, although it is blurry as hell, the below is my 86 year old
Dad, just this past November (09), putting a "handle" on one of his race
track retreads that will no longer race, but may be handy around the farm!!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0tirrX1h8
As blurry and brief as it is, a true horseman will appreciate the supple
grace of his "seat" even at that age ... although I kidded him a bit
about his feet being too far forward ... until he said "Here, show me!". :)
A true horseman will also notice this horse is not all that happy with
being trained, by his demeanor under saddle, and his tail twisting.
My Dad will probably ride til the day he dies.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 1/15/2010 1:46 PM, basilisk wrote:
> He looks good, I hope he has many more years to ride, for me it is
> simply not my passion and therefore not worth the risk anymore.
Thanks ... met too.
I feel your pain. :)
I got real tired of the "human vanity" aspect of the horse business at a
young age ... like breeding 1200 lb horses with feet that take 000 shoes
because they "look better" to some fancy pants judge.
That, plus mucking 10 to 30 stalls a day for the first 17 years of life
tends to suck the romanticism right outta of the equine "mystique".
Of course, I changed my tune again for a time in my twenties when
noticing how just many lovely young ladies were horse crazy ... :)
Now, I try to stay out of horse conversations, particularly with my Dad,
who will name every progenitor in the bloodline of this one, or that
one, going back 20 generations, along with how much they, and each and
every one of their offspring have won on the track, and the speed and
distance at which it took them to do so. <yawn>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dadiOH" wrote:
>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>> you a fur piece :)
> ---------------------------------------
> 200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
> ballast?
No, on a 14.5 ton boat with 3 tons of lead outside, maybe another half ton
inside.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Lets do it with out a motor so that we will be at the mercy of the sea.
> -----------------------------------------
> Clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the endeveaor.
Did you think I was describing a sailboat with a motor? I simply said a
boat without a motor, referring to using a sailboat vs. a boat that uses a
motor for all travel between point A to point B
> An engine (motor) on a sail boat is about as useful as a set if tits on a
> boar hog.
I'll take your word for it but that was not what I was refering to.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:48:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:01:25 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:33:58 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dadiOH" wrote:
>>>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>>>> you a fur piece :)
>>>---------------------------------------
>>>200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
>>>ballast?
>>
>>Diesel has a density about 70% of water. Negative ballast. ;-)
>>
>
>Nope, not negative ballast. If it is inside the hull, it is applying
>downward force.
It's less weight than the displaced water. It has a net buoyancy. It
will change the COG, though.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around you,
> no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no need to
> stay behind the wheel.
I think you forgot to add the possibility storms, and 40' waves..
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 15, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat and
> some gang of pirates decided to rape her
That would NEVER, NEVER happen...NEVER!
**********************************************************************
Unless one of the pirates was Janet Reno...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so FUCKING WHAT?
> You replace it with a spare, clamp on a patch, or replace it with
> something else. You act like replacing or repairing a goddamned
> piece of rope takes the entire resources of NASA or something.
Try this, oh experienced and clever one...
storm
50-60 kph wind
BIG waves
forestay tang pops off the (probably) aluminum mast
Let's see *you* replace the goddamned piece of "rope"
_____________
>> If he had any experience and the sense that god gave geese he would
>> have known that you can sail downhill most anywhere in the world and
>> hit land.
>
> And the relevance of this is?
What I said...experience and common sense count.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On Jan 16, 12:00=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> Leon wrote:
>
> >> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
> >> insisting in staying this loop.
>
> >> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>
> > Better yet look at upscales response.
>
> I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I don'=
t
> see anything from upscale either.
This from a guy who thinks he can 20 knots out of a 40-foot
displacement hull.
And of course you lost interest in anything I had to say because I
continually kept whooping your ass by calling your bullshit and bad
temper on a regular basis.
On Jan 14, 6:19=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Imagine...
>
> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>
> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>
> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? =A0(I don't
> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>
> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>
> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>
> Apparently not.
>
> Robert
As records for 'The Youngest' keep being challenged, at some point in
the future it will have to be a 6-year old who sets sail.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> What is your point?
>
> There is no AAA roadside service at sea.
>
> If you expect others to save your ass with a SAR mission, you may/will
> have a long wait.
>
> It's a big ocean out there.
>
> Prudent seamanship is your best chance of not needing outside assistance.
>
> Lew
ahhh.. the voice of reason.... you have restored my faith Lew. Good on'ya
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 15, 11:24 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 15, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
> > of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat
> > and
> > some gang of pirates decided to rape her
>
> That would NEVER, NEVER happen...NEVER!
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Unless one of the pirates was Janet Reno...
>
OOOOOOooooooooooo Janet with a strap-on....kinkeeeeeee
.
.
.
.
You are a sick man, Mr. Marlow. May I kiss your ring?
**************************************************************************
Rise my humble servant - your recognition is all I require. Alas, many are
the times I have found myself secretly bowing in deference to things of your
keyboard.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:56:14 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> I don't see what age has to do with having experience being chased
>> by
>> pirates. As for being chased by rapers and murderers, one is far
>> more
>> likely to be chased by rapers and murderers on the way to high
>> school than
>> in the middle of the ocean, but if she was 21 or 31 or 41 or 101 she
>> still
>> wouldn't have any relevant experience in being chased by such unless
>> she had
>> phenomenally bad luck.
>-------------------------------------------------
>The whole pirate thing is a little overblown.
>
>If you bother to read her proposed sail plan, this will be a nonstop,
>fast as possible given prudent safety issues such as avoiding ice
>bergs.
>
>(The closer you sail to Antarctica, the shorter the trip, but the
>higher the risk.)
>
>That route will put her a long way from known piracy activities.
Posting a proposed route also gives pirates her location, potentially
negating that safety margin. :/
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:54:25 -0500, the infamous "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" wrote
>>
>> Using that engine to drive a reverse osmosis unit for potable water and an
>> alternator to recharge batteries are more appropriate uses of that diesel
>> fuel.
>>
>I know nothing of power on a sailboat.
>
>The backpackers now have some super filtering divices for water. I beleive
>they use ceramic filters. Iunderstand that themilitaryhave these too. They
>filter out everything. Any way that something like this could be adapted to
>sailing?
You bet. Dad and I traveled (flew) to Puerto Vallarta in '84, we took
the ferry over to La Paz, and found out that the water was drinkable
there. No trots! The entire city was served by a huge desalination
plant.
The bay, OTOH, was a filthy, stinking sewer. They didn't treat sewage
and the city sewer outlets flowed directly into the bay. It was
gawdawful.
I went snorkeling 13 miles down the road in pristine, crystal-clear
water at Pichilingue Beach. When I reached down for a piece of broken
coral, I couldn't pick it up. I then kicked for it and missed. When I
dove for it, I found that what looked like it was within reach was
actually over ten feet down! Amazing!
Anyway, they have reverse osmosis machines in all sizes, for hikers,
sailors, and cities.
>Also, couldn't some solar panels and a little wind device be used to charge
>batteries?
Ayup. Or pedal powered generators to charge battery banks?
>Also, if you were sailing around the world, wouldn't you catch some fish to
>eat now and then? And would you have a way to cook it?
Ayup, and only if you didn't want to eat it raw, respectively.
(Ewwwwwww!)
Anyone else read _Life of Pi_? An eastern Indian boy is trapped on a
lifeboat with a bengal tiger for 133 days. Fun story. It was
primarily fiction, but the author mentioned fish behavior in it.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Jan 15, 10:18=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0 Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat an=
d
> some gang of pirates decided to rape her
That would NEVER, NEVER happen...NEVER!
On Jan 15, 8:24=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:06:17 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
> > I'm with you, J. =A0It shows how much the parents trust her and how
> > intelligent they believe she is. It's surely a character builder. But
> > that's not what the Nanny State wants. =A0<shrug>
>
> Exactly,,, reminds me of the "baloon boy" parents.. =A0those that don't t=
hink
> too far ahead.
>
>
>
> > OTOH, if (Somali!) pirates do get her, the parents will be _crucified_
> > in the media.
>
> As if any one but she and the pirates would ever know, I highly suspect t=
he
> secrets would go down with the boat, and as if the pirates cared what any
> one thought.
Nawww.. the pirates would tie her to the mast and skilfully cut away
her clothing, bit-by-bit while their parrots would scream
"ARRRRRGGHHHHH" and they'd lift up their eye-patches and stare her in
the eyes as one of them lifts up her chin with his hook, drooling..
just then......<<<carrier lost>>>>
Arrrrgggg
On Jan 14, 10:06 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
> believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
> them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding armies
> at that age.
You're kidding, right? I didn't see a smiley or wink, so I will
assume you were. Otherwise to follow that statement to its untimely
end, we would have to say that the average person lived (depending on
the source) about 30 years on this planet.
So in your world, using your example, she is matured to middle aged?
Are you comparing her to the social standards of almost 25 centuries
past?
Surely you must be kidding.
This is a girl that can't even legally drive a car without an adult in
it.
(Yeah I know, I am waiting for the farm boys to chime in and tell us
they started driving on their grandpa's lap at 4 yrs. old.... save
it.)
Now this girl wants to sail by herself, unassisted, non stop, for what
will probably turn out to be a year. A year of isolation, a year of
constant danger going through as described "some of the most dangerous
waters in the world", called "the sailor's graveyard".
>This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
> out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
> gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
> equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
> _problem_?
I don't know how much credence I would put in a 16 year old's
assessment when "thinking things through" when their life is at
stake. While she may be quite competent for a 16 year old, indeed,
she is still 16.
I don't care how much it is, but the claim that "gotten a good deal of
relevant experience" doesn't include being pursued by pirates/rapers/
muderers, handling her boat when the systems fail in a storm, say in
"sailor's graveyard", etc.
I hope everything turns out OK for this kid and she can come back and
parlay this into her fifteen minutes. She can write a book, a
children's inspirational book, a TV movie for Kid's Discovery, and go
on Oprah. She can be an inspiration for further pointless grabs for
attention by kids everywhere.
If she is murdered, missing, or smashed to pieces in a storm during
this event I hope they go after they parents for negligence.
After all, at 16 you can't even enter into a legally binding agreement
as you are still considered a minor.
Just because folks have the money to do whatever they want when they
want, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Robert
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:10:49 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]
>LOL.... One would think.... I know one day too soon I will miss his
>repeated comments.
That makes me think back to my dad who died in 1986. I remember some
of the heated arguments we hand when I was younger. Now I'd give
anything to say some of the things I should have said back then. Why
do we wait until it's too late?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:13:57 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'd flip a coin. What the one person has done in five years may be far
>superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip for 20
>years. The more years experience "usually" translates into being better
>equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and agility work better
>than wisdom and creaky joints. Too many variables here to pick a clear
>advantage.
Flip a coin eh? Bullshit! Your life is going to be on the line. As
well, you're adding variables to change the equation. Nice attempt,
making the 35 person sound weak and incapable, but that's just you
changing the equation.
IF it helps you, both are in excellent health and the 35 year old has
much more accumulated experience. Which are you going to pick now?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:10:49 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]
>>LOL.... One would think.... I know one day too soon I will miss his
>>repeated comments.
>
> That makes me think back to my dad who died in 1986. I remember some
> of the heated arguments we hand when I was younger. Now I'd give
> anything to say some of the things I should have said back then. Why
> do we wait until it's too late?
I think because usually we cannot get a word in edgewise. ;~) Take heart
though, you can still say what you need to say to him.. he will hear you.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:45:48 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
>> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
>> You haven't met either one of them before.
>>
>> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
>> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>>
>> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you?
>==============================
>Indeterminite.
>
>Does the 5 year person have 5 years experience or 1 years experience 5
>times?
>
>Does the 20 year person have 20 years experience or 1 years experience
>20 times?
>
>Questions, questions.
>
>Lew
>
>
Thanks, Lew. I was going to ask the exact same question.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:13:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
>> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
>> You haven't met either one of them before.
>>
>> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
>> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>>
>> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
>> your reasoning for that choice.
>
>I'd flip a coin. What the one person has done in five years may be far
>superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip for 20
>years. The more years experience "usually" translates into being better
>equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and agility work better
>than wisdom and creaky joints. Too many variables here to pick a clear
>advantage.
I'd pick that sailor guy from Schute's _Trustee_, myself.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:26:19 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible. Suppose a
>>>hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a ball with
>>>her....literally, that is my problem..
>>
>> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
>> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
>> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
>
>
>The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
>
>The difference is maturity and over all knowledge. Regardless of experience
>in a particular field, age gives the advantage of "life in general"
>experiences. With age comes better decisions, typically a person does not
>become less experienced with life in general.
>
>All things being equal older more mature people have more life experiences
>to help them make better decisions. They have more information from
>repeated experiences to know what they are getting into.
Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
and
B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives us
the stats.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:56:03 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:45:27 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>We are not talking about stink boats here but well found blue water
>>boats designed for the task.
>
>I'm guessing by stink boat, you're talking about some floating barge
>with all the buoyancy of a lead bucket. In any event, I was referring
>to the better boats, designed to be safer. Any boat can capsize in the
>open seas under the right circumstances, even with an experienced
>sailor.
>
My 30 foot sailboat has been knocked over flat on it's side a couple
of times in severe conditions. The thing about sailboats is that they
pop back up. The danger when it happens is that things and people go
flying. In the sort of conditions where that can happen, all openings
in the boat are shut and secured, and anyone topside is clipped in on
a short tether.
It's not uncommon for the crew of a sailboat to call for rescue and be
picked up, and then the boat is found floating months later with
little actual damage.
The vast majority of sailboats that sink, do so while at their dock,
tied up.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:66cda2d7-6da5-4ead-9035-91240462aa97@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Imagine...
>
> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>
> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>
> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>
> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>
> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>
> Apparently not.
No kidding.
LDosser wrote:
> Oops, I thought the RSAT part was for Radar Satellite as in RORSAT,
> which is what I was writing SW for. They watched us and we watched
> them watching us.
==========================
EPIRB as in Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon.
Found on aircraft and ships.
Each one is unique and registered.
Lew
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
> You haven't met either one of them before.
>
> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>
> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you?
==============================
Indeterminite.
Does the 5 year person have 5 years experience or 1 years experience 5
times?
Does the 20 year person have 20 years experience or 1 years experience
20 times?
Questions, questions.
Lew
[email protected] wrote:
>
> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
> You haven't met either one of them before.
>
> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>
> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
> your reasoning for that choice.
I'd flip a coin. What the one person has done in five years may be far
superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip for 20
years. The more years experience "usually" translates into being better
equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and agility work better
than wisdom and creaky joints. Too many variables here to pick a clear
advantage.
On Jan 17, 12:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 12:00=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Leon wrote:
> >> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> >>> Leon wrote:
>
> >> >> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you a=
re
> >> >> insisting in staying this loop.
>
> >> >> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>
> >> > Better yet look at upscales response.
>
> >> I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I d=
on't
> >> see anything from upscale either.
>
> >This from a guy who thinks he can 20 knots out of a 40-foot
> >displacement hull.
>
> It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
> which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
> they have hit 25 knots.
>
> Of course, this involves surfing! They are still competitive in the
> TransPac.
And here I thought I was haulin ass with a Hobie 16 @ 14.5 knots...
On 1/16/2010 10:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> I know one thing. If I had to choose a companion for circumnavigation I'd
> take Abby Sunderland or Jessica Watson over Leon any day. And I'd take
> Abby's 18 year old brother over _anybody_ on this newsgroup.
LOL ... based on the above, being the absolute mother of self delusion,
there is NO doubt they wouldn't have you anyway.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:12:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>So how old should one be before being allowed to "walk alone in a seedy
>>part
>>of town"? And would it make a difference if they were boys instead of
>>girls? And how would being 18 make them safer?
>
> Why don't we put this into terms that your limited intellect can
> understand?
>
> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
> You haven't met either one of them before.
>
> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>
> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
> your reasoning for that choice.
I can tell you right now that there are too many variables for him to decide
or he will not understand the question at all.
Because he very seldom has anything to really contribute to the group I did
it to him again, saves space.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
> It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
> which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
> they have hit 25 knots.
And here I was wondering why you would need 20 knots in something. ;~)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:39:53 -0700, "charlie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new driver
>at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has the
>experience.
>
>comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would be
>comparable.
And after 10 years of driving everybody has all the experience they'll
ever need and have absolutely nothing else to learn?
If that's true, then tell me how two people over 30 with 10+ years of
driving experience can get into a car accident with each other? By
your standards, the accident should never have happened. Explain that
to me please.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:49:06 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>;~) I cannot go anywhere without my dad remarking about every corner and
>what happened there 30 years ago.
Aren't you old enough now to remember for yourself what was on those
street corners 30 years ago?
On Jan 16, 11:57=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
> >> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
> >> You haven't met either one of them before.
>
> >> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
> >> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>
> >> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
> >> your reasoning for that choice.
>
> > I'd flip a coin. =A0What the one person has done in five years may be
> > far superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip
> > for 20 years. =A0The more years experience "usually" translates into
> > being better equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and
> > agility work better than wisdom and creaky joints. =A0Too many
> > variables here to pick a clear advantage.
>
> I know one thing. =A0If I had to choose a companion for =A0circumnavigati=
on I'd
> take Abby Sunderland or Jessica Watson over Leon any day. =A0And I'd take
> Abby's 18 year old brother over _anybody_ on this newsgroup.
You take them that old?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:42:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
>>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>>
>> ............. I am speechless. You actually shot your self in the
>> foot.
>
>Since you spoke in response to that one it didn't leave you speechless. I
>note that an earlier post _did_ leave you speechless.
So says the self-acknowleged "retarded bullfrog".
On Jan 15, 4:52=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:49:06 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >;~) =A0I cannot go anywhere without my dad remarking about every corner =
and
> >what happened there 30 years ago.
>
> Aren't you old enough now to remember for yourself what was on those
> street corners 30 years ago?
I actually had someone tell me to turn left at "that house where the
Vanderburgs used to live"
On Jan 17, 12:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 12:00=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Leon wrote:
> >> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> >>> Leon wrote:
>
> >> >> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you a=
re
> >> >> insisting in staying this loop.
>
> >> >> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>
> >> > Better yet look at upscales response.
>
> >> I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I d=
on't
> >> see anything from upscale either.
>
> >This from a guy who thinks he can 20 knots out of a 40-foot
> >displacement hull.
>
> It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
> which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
> they have hit 25 knots.
>
> Of course, this involves surfing! They are still competitive in the
> TransPac.
You mean planing.... I was talking about a displacement hull, like
Jessica's
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:01:36 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
>>>one with longer life experiences.
>>
>> True, but knowledge doesn't necessarily mean the older person will
>> know WTF to do when something strange happens. A crafty young person
>> might well do better than a sedate old fart.
>>
>>
>>>She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of how
>>>her
>>>life would change should any harm come to her.
>>
>> Tell ya what: You do that with your kid and let these fine folks raise
>> their own the way they (and she) see fit. Deal? Good. ;)
>
>Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were nuts
>for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far more
>experienced and knowledgeable have done. Then every one wanted to defend
>the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will probably do fine. But if
>something happened to my child I would blame myself forever for not being
>responsible as a parent. It is only common sense, which seems to be lacking
>here, to try to protet your children.
>Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land because
>they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on land help can be
>given and you do have to live some where. You have to pick your battles.
>Picking one where a child is alone for months on end performing a balancing
>act with mother nature would not be a wise one IMHO.
>
>
The Sunderlands firmly believe that all they need is prayer to solve
all their problems.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:39:53 -0700, "charlie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new
>> driver at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has
>> the experience.
>>
>> comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would
>> be comparable.
>
> And after 10 years of driving everybody has all the experience they'll
> ever need and have absolutely nothing else to learn?
>
> If that's true, then tell me how two people over 30 with 10+ years of
> driving experience can get into a car accident with each other? By
> your standards, the accident should never have happened. Explain that
> to me please.
it's either called an accident, or neglicence on one or the other's part.
given that statement, then no one should never go out in a boat since they
would never have enough experience.
we're not comparing 2 30 year olds against each other in this case. you're
asking about the insurance company statistics of comparing people with
similar years of experience at their individual tasks. i doubt that a person
sailing in mid ocean is going to collide with someone driving.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:39:53 -0700, "charlie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2010 11:26 AM, charlie wrote:
>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and
>>>>>> gives us the stats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure
>>>>> give you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature
>>>>> "judgment" justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year
>>>>> old while operating motor
>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically
>>>>> disappearing at sea.
>>>>
>>>> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the
>>>> distractions to driving and the quick changing road environment
>>>> simply aren't there in mid-ocean
>>>
>>> Horseshit! ... lack of experience and mature judgment are factors of
>>> age, not type of activity.
>>
>> then you prove your counter argument.
>>
>> lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new
>> driver at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has
>> the experience.
>>
>> comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would
>> be comparable.
>>
>
> Actually, that isn't directly comparable. The average person, once
> they have their driver's license doesn't spend every moment they are
> driving, trying to improve their skills and knowlege. The average
> sailor never stops trying to learn more and improve their sailing.
> Comes with the territory.
the topic under discussion is insurance statistics and comparing general
population individuals. they also don't know if the average driver has
stopped learning (they wouldn't know that i have years of high speed car
racing experience with multiple racetrack classes, for example, which may
make me a bit safer than the average driver). they would only compare
similarly aged drivers against each other, with modifications as to years of
driving experience, lack of prior accidents, ticket history, and perhaps
other non-related things like credit score.
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 12:22 PM, charlie wrote:
>
>
>> the topic under discussion is insurance statistics and comparing
>> general population individuals.
>
> Bzzzzt ... do us all a favor and DAGS to prove to yourself that "lack
> of experience AND immature judgement" DUE TO AGE, IS the reason for
> the increased cost of motor vehicle insurance for 18 - 25 year olds
> ...
> This is inarguable, so quitcher arguing.
but isn't that the whole point of this argument? in this case, she DOES have
the experience, negating the comparison in age between her and a new driver.
she is NOT a new sailor, whereas a new driver DOES have a lack of experience
due to their age.
Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:56:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_
>>> child so
>>> what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
>>
>> If it's no one's business, then what are you doing here talking about
>> it?
>>
>> Clarke, you're quite the hypocritical asshole, aren't you.
>
> For give him, he just needs attention, something that he probably
> missed out on in his childhood. He probably cannot help it.
ROF,L. You're the one begging for attention by telling people how horrible
is is that someone who very likely has more offshore experience than you're
ever in your life going to get is doing wrong by going for a sail.
Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:12:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> So how old should one be before being allowed to "walk alone in a
>>> seedy part
>>> of town"? And would it make a difference if they were boys instead
>>> of girls? And how would being 18 make them safer?
>>
>> Why don't we put this into terms that your limited intellect can
>> understand?
>>
>> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
>> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
>> You haven't met either one of them before.
>>
>> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
>> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>>
>> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
>> your reasoning for that choice.
>
>
> I can tell you right now that there are too many variables for him to
> decide or he will not understand the question at all.
> Because he very seldom has anything to really contribute to the group
> I did it to him again, saves space.
The question is irrelevant. We aren't talking about choice of companions
for a trip, we're talking about how much experience one should have before
undertaking the trip at all.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
>> taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
>> You haven't met either one of them before.
>>
>> All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
>> other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
>>
>> Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
>> your reasoning for that choice.
>
> I'd flip a coin. What the one person has done in five years may be
> far superior to the person that has been exposed to this type of trip
> for 20 years. The more years experience "usually" translates into
> being better equipped in a tough situation, but sometimes youth and
> agility work better than wisdom and creaky joints. Too many
> variables here to pick a clear advantage.
I know one thing. If I had to choose a companion for circumnavigation I'd
take Abby Sunderland or Jessica Watson over Leon any day. And I'd take
Abby's 18 year old brother over _anybody_ on this newsgroup.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:43:25 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
>>>> century
>>>> you know.
>>> ============================
>>> You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if you
>>> are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a day, and
>>> sattelite coverage is spotty.
>>>
>>> Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
>>
>>What is your point? All the seamanship in the world doesn't help if
>>today
>>is the day that the sea has decided to kill your ship. And there is no
>>ship
>>that the sea cannot kill when it is in the mood. And it doesn't matter if
>>you have a sixteen year old girl at the helm or a 40 year veteran Navy
>>captain.
>>
>>The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not "spotty".
>
> Through thick clouds? <g>
>
Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
LDosser wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:43:25 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the
>>>>> 21st century
>>>>> you know.
>>>> ============================
>>>> You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if
>>>> you are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a
>>>> day, and sattelite coverage is spotty.
>>>>
>>>> Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
>>>
>>> What is your point? All the seamanship in the world doesn't help
>>> if today
>>> is the day that the sea has decided to kill your ship. And there
>>> is no ship
>>> that the sea cannot kill when it is in the mood. And it doesn't
>>> matter if you have a sixteen year old girl at the helm or a 40 year
>>> veteran Navy captain.
>>>
>>> The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not
>>> "spotty".
>>
>> Through thick clouds? <g>
>>
>
> Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
I don't really see what Larry thinks that "thick clouds" would have to do
with the transmission of radio signals. Maybe he doesn't understand how an
EPIRB works.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:43:25 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the
>>>>>> 21st century
>>>>>> you know.
>>>>> ============================
>>>>> You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if
>>>>> you are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a
>>>>> day, and sattelite coverage is spotty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> What is your point? All the seamanship in the world doesn't help
>>>> if today
>>>> is the day that the sea has decided to kill your ship. And there
>>>> is no ship
>>>> that the sea cannot kill when it is in the mood. And it doesn't
>>>> matter if you have a sixteen year old girl at the helm or a 40 year
>>>> veteran Navy captain.
>>>>
>>>> The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not
>>>> "spotty".
>>>
>>> Through thick clouds? <g>
>>>
>>
>> Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
>
> I don't really see what Larry thinks that "thick clouds" would have to do
> with the transmission of radio signals. Maybe he doesn't understand how
> an
> EPIRB works.
>
Oops, I thought the RSAT part was for Radar Satellite as in RORSAT, which is
what I was writing SW for. They watched us and we watched them watching us.
Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
>> which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
>> they have hit 25 knots.
>
>
> And here I was wondering why you would need 20 knots in something.
> ;~)
It's not only been done. It's been done by Abby Sunderland.
http://soloround.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html See "Respite in Fort
Pierce" about halfway down.
As to why you need it, you need it to win races of course.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:12:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>So how old should one be before being allowed to "walk alone in a seedy part
>of town"? And would it make a difference if they were boys instead of
>girls? And how would being 18 make them safer?
Why don't we put this into terms that your limited intellect can
understand?
You're going on a dangerous and life threatening trip. You will be
taking one person with you that is experienced in this type of trip.
You haven't met either one of them before.
All you know is that one of them has five years experience and the
other has twenty years experience in this type of trip.
Which one are you going to ask to accompany you? Pick one and explain
your reasoning for that choice.
On 1/15/2010 12:22 PM, charlie wrote:
> the topic under discussion is insurance statistics and comparing general
> population individuals.
Bzzzzt ... do us all a favor and DAGS to prove to yourself that "lack of
experience AND immature judgement" DUE TO AGE, IS the reason for the
increased cost of motor vehicle insurance for 18 - 25 year olds ...
This is inarguable, so quitcher arguing.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:56:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_ child so
>what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
If it's no one's business, then what are you doing here talking about
it?
Clarke, you're quite the hypocritical asshole, aren't you.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:43:25 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
>>> century
>>> you know.
>> ============================
>> You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if you
>> are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a day, and
>> sattelite coverage is spotty.
>>
>> Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
>
>What is your point? All the seamanship in the world doesn't help if today
>is the day that the sea has decided to kill your ship. And there is no ship
>that the sea cannot kill when it is in the mood. And it doesn't matter if
>you have a sixteen year old girl at the helm or a 40 year veteran Navy
>captain.
>
>The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not "spotty".
Through thick clouds? <g>
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:56:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_ child
>>so
>>what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
>
> If it's no one's business, then what are you doing here talking about
> it?
>
> Clarke, you're quite the hypocritical asshole, aren't you.
For give him, he just needs attention, something that he probably missed out
on in his childhood. He probably cannot help it.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:39:53 -0700, "charlie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 11:26 AM, charlie wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>> and
>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives
>>>>> us the stats.
>>>>
>>>> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give
>>>> you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment"
>>>> justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while
>>>> operating motor
>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing
>>>> at sea.
>>>
>>> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the
>>> distractions to driving and the quick changing road environment
>>> simply aren't there in mid-ocean
>>
>> Horseshit! ... lack of experience and mature judgment are factors of
>> age, not type of activity.
>
>then you prove your counter argument.
>
>lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new driver
>at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has the
>experience.
>
>comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would be
>comparable.
>
Actually, that isn't directly comparable. The average person, once
they have their driver's license doesn't spend every moment they are
driving, trying to improve their skills and knowlege. The average
sailor never stops trying to learn more and improve their sailing.
Comes with the territory.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e1bfc6c7-ef2f-4bb7-8bdc-da93cf050af5@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 4:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:49:06 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >;~) I cannot go anywhere without my dad remarking about every corner and
> >what happened there 30 years ago.
>
> Aren't you old enough now to remember for yourself what was on those
> street corners 30 years ago?
I actually had someone tell me to turn left at "that house where the
Vanderburgs used to live"
You musta been out in the country.... Every one knows where every one lives
out there. ;~)
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:02:58 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 12:00 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> >> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
>> >> insisting in staying this loop.
>>
>> >> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>>
>> > Better yet look at upscales response.
>>
>> I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I don't
>> see anything from upscale either.
>
>This from a guy who thinks he can 20 knots out of a 40-foot
>displacement hull.
>
It's been done. And not even a modern boat. The venerable Cal 40,
which was introduced in the early 1960's. Sustained 15 knot runs, and
they have hit 25 knots.
Of course, this involves surfing! They are still competitive in the
TransPac.
On 1/15/2010 12:42 PM, charlie wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 12:22 PM, charlie wrote:
>>
>>
>>> the topic under discussion is insurance statistics and comparing
>>> general population individuals.
>>
>> Bzzzzt ... do us all a favor and DAGS to prove to yourself that "lack
>> of experience AND immature judgement" DUE TO AGE, IS the reason for
>> the increased cost of motor vehicle insurance for 18 - 25 year olds
>> ...
>> This is inarguable, so quitcher arguing.
>
> but isn't that the whole point of this argument? in this case, she DOES have
> the experience, negating the comparison in age between her and a new driver.
> she is NOT a new sailor, whereas a new driver DOES have a lack of experience
> due to their age.
Charlie, I will grant you that "experience" does lead to better
judgment, but not necessarily to mature judgment.
Look at the age range to better understand the "immaturity" aspect.
I really don't want to argue this any longer, but do appreciate your POV.
Thanks ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:49:06 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>;~) I cannot go anywhere without my dad remarking about every corner and
>>what happened there 30 years ago.
>
> Aren't you old enough now to remember for yourself what was on those
> street corners 30 years ago?
LOL.... One would think.... I know one day too soon I will miss his
repeated comments.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:33 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 1/15/2010 10:34 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I quit when it cost less for a carton than it does for a single pack
>> today. Today's ex-smokers can purchase major power tools or truckloads
>> of wood for the annual price of their habit, so they benefit even
>> more than I did. (bringing the drift back on topic, just to annoy)
>
>I quit, cold turkey, Sunday, November 17, 1991 at just after 1 AM, after
>31 years of smoking.
Congrats, sir.
>At the time it was costing me roughly $5/day for a three pack a day
>habit. And you're right, I immediately started buying tools with the +/-
>$1800/year I saved thenceforth.
Excellent.
>To this day I still use that fact/figure as all the justification
>necessary to buy whatever I feel may be somewhat of an unnecessary, but
>something I really want, expense in the shop, and still have not come
>anywhere near the $34k in 1991 dollars saved thus far.
Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
Indeed!
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On 1/14/2010 10:06 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>>>
>>> Apparently not.
>>
>>
>> No kidding.
>
> It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
> believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
> them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding armies
> at that age. This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
> out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
> gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
> equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
> _problem_?
Your gullibility?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
[email protected] wrote:
> Imagine...
>
> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>
> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>
> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>
> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>
> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>
> Apparently not.
Tania Aebi circumnavigated in a smaller boat starting at 18. And she did
have parents--they gave her the choice--sail this boat around the world, go
to college, or we're cutting you off. She took the boat. Why they offered
her that particular choice I have no idea. Was a good one though--she got a
lot of life experience, a writing career, a husband, a cat, and a Hell of a
tan out of it. However officially it didn't count as a solo
circumnavigation because she gave somebody a ride between two islands
somewhere in the depths of the Pacific. She had no prior sailing experience
to speak of.
Robin Lee Graham started his circumnavigation at 16 in a 24 foot boat and
traded it for a 33 footer along the way.
Right now there's another 16 year old girl halfway around on a
circumnavigation.
Abby is sailing an Open 40, which is purpose-designed for singlehanded
circumnavigation, which puts her well ahead of Tania and Robin at the start.
And her parents seem to be behind her 100 percent on this.
My view is that she's lucky to be able to get that particular bug out of her
system at an early age, and no matter what she goes into it's going to look
damned good on her resume.
Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:66cda2d7-6da5-4ead-9035-91240462aa97@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> Imagine...
>>
>> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>>
>> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>>
>> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
>> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
>> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
>> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>>
>> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>>
>> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>>
>> Apparently not.
>
>
> No kidding.
It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding armies
at that age. This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
_problem_?
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> $50k might pound it into his head to never try that again, but only
> if
> some media asshole doesn't come up with it as a bribe to get him to
> write the book about it. (See -why- I turned off the TV?)
-------------------
Not to sweat it, judge has that covered.
==========================
> As to NPR, I'm a liberally moderate conservative who doesn't listen
> to
> it. Thanks anyway.
---------------------
You choose to keep your head where the moon doesn't shine, that's your
loss,
Lew
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:47:33 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> The balloon boy's
>> parents showed that they are. What's the final bill presented to
>> that
>> idiot? Or did they just jail him. I don't watch TV so I didn't see
>>> how it ended. <sigh>
>-------------------------------------
>Jail + probation time for BOTH husband and wife as well as a $50K
>civil assessment to cover SAR expenses.
$50k might pound it into his head to never try that again, but only if
some media asshole doesn't come up with it as a bribe to get him to
write the book about it. (See -why- I turned off the TV?)
>BTW, no TV, there is always NPR.
No,no,no, Lew. You misunderstood. I called DISH and said "NO MORE OF
THIS 500 CHANNELS OF NOTHING! Come take your crap away."
As to NPR, I'm a liberally moderate conservative who doesn't listen to
it. Thanks anyway.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:15:23 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not "spotty".
>>
>> Through thick clouds? <g>
>
>Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
I bow to your considerably deeper experience with it.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:15:23 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not
>>>>"spotty".
>>>
>>> Through thick clouds? <g>
>>
>>Used to write software to read the USSR versions ...
>
> I bow to your considerably deeper experience with it.
Turns out it wasn't so deep ... :(
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:32:56 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
Best comment in this thread!
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:24:27 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Jan 14, 6:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>> Imagine...
>>>
>>> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>>>
>>> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>>>
>>> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
>>> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
>>> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
>>> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>>>
>>> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>>>
>>> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>>>
>>> Apparently not.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>
>>As records for 'The Youngest' keep being challenged, at some point in
>>the future it will have to be a 6-year old who sets sail.
>
> And it'll be featured on the "Who Wants To Be a Masochist?" TV show!
>
> (Next month will mark my 3rd happy year without the boob tube and my
> 22nd without cigs.)
Well Done!! May 1st I'm four years off cigarettes.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a girl that can't even legally drive a car without an adult
>> in it.
>>
>> (Yeah I know, I am waiting for the farm boys to chime in and tell us
>> they started driving on their grandpa's lap at 4 yrs. old.... save
>> it.)
>
> OK then, I piloted an airplane at 12. I was under age to sign a
> contract myself when I bought my first house, but I did buy one. It
> was not easy because most realtors did not want to talk to be.
>
> I'm not about to set off around the world in a boat, but that does
> not mean the 16 yo is not qualified. I don't know here or her
> experience so I'm not going to say if she should or not. Yes, it
> certainly has a lot of risk. I just don't see that any of us here
> can make the assessment as we don't know her, and her abilities, at
> all.
This business of "not driving a car" is local. I had a full driver's
license at 16. One can get a pilot's license in the US at 16. Balamurali
Ambeti was licensed to practice medicine in the state of New York at 17.
>> I don't care how much it is, but the claim that "gotten a good deal
>> of relevant experience" doesn't include being pursued by
>> pirates/rapers/ muderers, handling her boat when the systems fail in
>> a storm, say in "sailor's graveyard", etc.
>
> Just like going to the mall some days.
I don't see what age has to do with having experience being chased by
pirates. As for being chased by rapers and murderers, one is far more
likely to be chased by rapers and murderers on the way to high school than
in the middle of the ocean, but if she was 21 or 31 or 41 or 101 she still
wouldn't have any relevant experience in being chased by such unless she had
phenomenally bad luck. As for "systems failing in a storm", the "systems"
in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake,
technology that was old when Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:44:00 -0800, Larry Jaques .
>It doesn't seem that anyone has them, listening to you 3 naysayers.
>I'm an AGWK skeptic, you three are circumnavigation skeptics. Small
>world. ;)
Not once have I stated that she didn't know what she was doing in her
sailboat. The point I've been trying to get across all this time is
that age, maturity and experience all contribute to how one makes
decisions. That's an important factor whether you want to admit it or
not.
dadiOH wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> As for "systems failing
>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's an
>> effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>
> And winches,
Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
> stays,
Just ropes.
> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
Just fancy substitutes for knots.
> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>
> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do as
> well as they do.
Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for their
failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them. If it was really so
complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how would
being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:55:35 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:44:00 -0800, Larry Jaques .
>>It doesn't seem that anyone has them, listening to you 3 naysayers.
>>I'm an AGWK skeptic, you three are circumnavigation skeptics. Small
>>world. ;)
>
>Not once have I stated that she didn't know what she was doing in her
>sailboat. The point I've been trying to get across all this time is
>that age, maturity and experience all contribute to how one makes
>decisions. That's an important factor whether you want to admit it or
>not.
We all acknowledge that, but some of us choose to live life in spite
of the wisest, most mature, most sane options. _Spice_, mon!
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible.
>>> Suppose a hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a
>>> ball with her....literally, that is my problem..
>>
>> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
>> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
>> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
>
>
> The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how old
do you consider to be "old enough"? Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat and
some gang of pirates decided to rape her exactly how would she use that
experience to protect herself?
But I really don't understand why people are on about rapists and murderers
and pirates. Pirates tend to work close to shore, not in the middle of the
Antarctic ocean. And if you were looking for a teenaged girl to rape and
murder where would you go, the middle of the ocean or the nearest mall?
> The difference is maturity and over all knowledge.
Maturity and overall knowledge do not beat a faster boat and superior
firepower. The adult male crews of the various large ships that have been
taken by pirates in recent years seem to have been unable to apply that
"maturity and overall knowledge" in such a way as to prevent the piracy, so
it would seem to be a moot point.
> Regardless of
> experience in a particular field, age gives the advantage of "life in
> general" experiences. With age comes better decisions, typically a
> person does not become less experienced with life in general.
What do you bet that by the time they get home these two girls will have
more life experience than most people twice their age? How much "life
experience" would you consider to be the minimum before one is allowed by
you to go sailing?
> All things being equal older more mature people have more life
> experiences to help them make better decisions. They have more
> information from repeated experiences to know what they are getting
> into.
I see. So your average stockbroker from Omaha has had repeated experiences
crossing oceans on small sailing vessels?
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:06:17 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>> I'm with you, J. It shows how much the parents trust her and how
>> intelligent they believe she is. It's surely a character builder. But
>> that's not what the Nanny State wants. <shrug>
>
> Exactly,,, reminds me of the "baloon boy" parents.. those that don't
> think too far ahead.
>
>>
>> OTOH, if (Somali!) pirates do get her, the parents will be
>> _crucified_ in the media.
>
> As if any one but she and the pirates would ever know, I highly
> suspect the secrets would go down with the boat, and as if the
> pirates cared what any one thought.
And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia anyway.
Seems an awful long way to go to nab a teenager in a small sailboat--they'd
have to pass up an awful lot of more profitable freighters and tankers to
get there.
But if they did we might very well know about it--wouldn't put it past her
to set up a live feed.
On 01/15/2010 10:29 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:24 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jan 15, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hillary Clinton has a mighty shitload
>>> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat and
>>> some gang of pirates decided to rape her
>>
>> That would NEVER, NEVER happen...NEVER!
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>> Unless one of the pirates was Janet Reno...
>>
> OOOOOOooooooooooo Janet with a strap-on....kinkeeeeeee
> .
> .
> .
> .
> You are a sick man, Mr. Marlow. May I kiss your ring?
Aaack! I'm blind!
--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>> and
>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>
>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives
>> us the stats.
>
> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give
> you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment"
> justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while operating
> motor
> vehicles.
>
> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing
> at sea.
apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the distractions
to driving and the quick changing road environment simply aren't there in
mid-ocean.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:26:08 -0700, "charlie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the
>> distractions to driving and the quick changing road environment
>> simply aren't there in mid-ocean.
>
> You mean because of inexperience, you can't mismanage the operation of
> a sailboat and swamp it or turn it over?
no. i mean that you're not going to be spilling a slushee whilst texting and
talking to the other 4 teens in the car in crowded rush hour traffic at 60
mph tailgating trying to find the right tune on your ipod whilst trying to
put on makeup in mid-ocean.
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 11:26 AM, charlie wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>> and
>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives
>>>> us the stats.
>>>
>>> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give
>>> you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment"
>>> justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while
>>> operating motor
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing
>>> at sea.
>>
>> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the
>> distractions to driving and the quick changing road environment
>> simply aren't there in mid-ocean
>
> Horseshit! ... lack of experience and mature judgment are factors of
> age, not type of activity.
then you prove your counter argument.
lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new driver
at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has the
experience.
comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would be
comparable.
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>> and
>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>
> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>
> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>
> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
> then what?
and how is that different if the person is 46?
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote
>>
>> Using that engine to drive a reverse osmosis unit for potable water
>> and an alternator to recharge batteries are more appropriate uses of
>> that diesel fuel.
>>
> I know nothing of power on a sailboat.
>
> The backpackers now have some super filtering divices for water. I
> beleive they use ceramic filters. Iunderstand that themilitaryhave
> these too. They filter out everything. Any way that something like
> this could be adapted to sailing?
No. You have to remove dissolved salt, which filters cannot do.
> Also, couldn't some solar panels and a little wind device be used to
> charge batteries?
>
> Also, if you were sailing around the world, wouldn't you catch some
> fish to eat now and then? And would you have a way to cook it?
Only if you're becalmed. Abby isn't sailing your father's cruiser. An Open
40 can sustain 10 knots and hit 20 when she's got enough wind to drive her.
Catching fish at that speed would be quite an adventure.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for "systems failing
>>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
>>>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>>
>>> And winches,
>>
>> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>>
>>> stays,
>>
>> Just ropes.
>>
>>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>>
>> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>>
>>> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
>>> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do
>>> as well as they do.
>>
>> Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for
>> their failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them. If it was
>> really so complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen
>> year old, how would being an "adult" however you define it make a
>> difference?
>
> You can find an way to remedy for most anything... That is what a
> sailor does...
>
> In rough seas you slip and fall, break both arms.... now what? Not
> a far reach of what could happen.
And how does being `18 or 28 or 180 make a difference when that happens?
> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as
> developed as one with longer life experiences.
Neither is a 40 year old's. So what?
> She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of
> how her life would change should any harm come to her.
I see. So how old would that be? And what is so special about sailing that
she shouldn't be allowed to do that while she is allowed to cross the street
and risk getting hit by a drunk driver?
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia
>> anyway.
>
>
>
> I was totally totally unaware that there were only "Somalia" pirates,
> I was under the assumption that pirates might be any where.
Pirates operate where there's profit to be made. That means shipping
channels. There's precious little shipping in the Antarctic Ocean.
Leon wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
>> insisting in staying this loop.
>>
>> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
>>
>
> Better yet look at upscales response.
I lost interest in anything Robatoy had to say a long time ago and I don't
see anything from upscale either.
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>> and
>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>
> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>
> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>
> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
> then what?
You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st century
you know.
And how do you get rescued when you get nabbed by a pimp and shot full of
drugs?
> Risk is not so much the problem as is correcting the damage should a
> problem happen.
So how do you get rescued from being run over by a bus?
I pity your kids.
Leon wrote:
> "charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>> and
>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>
>>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
>>> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>>
>>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
>>> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>>>
>>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>>> then what?
>>
>> and how is that different if the person is 46?
>
> Jeez..... It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let
> me ask you this? You you rather it be you rather than your 16 year
> old daghter that goes down with the boat? Why?
Many parents would rather it be them than their kid when anything bad
happens. So what?
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around
>> you, no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no
>> need to stay behind the wheel.
>
> I think you forgot to add the possibility storms, and 40' waves..
And how, exactly, are 40 foot waves a problem? And storms are a part of
life at sea. So what?
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as
>>> developed as one with longer life experiences.
>>
>> True, but knowledge doesn't necessarily mean the older person will
>> know WTF to do when something strange happens. A crafty young person
>> might well do better than a sedate old fart.
>>
>>
>>> She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of
>>> how her
>>> life would change should any harm come to her.
>>
>> Tell ya what: You do that with your kid and let these fine folks
>> raise their own the way they (and she) see fit. Deal? Good. ;)
>
> Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were
> nuts for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far
> more experienced and knowledgeable have done.
So Robin Lee Graham and Tania Aebi were "far more experienced and
knowledgeable"? Or would you have arrested them to save them from
themselves?
If you had been paying attention for the past 50 years you would know that
solo circumnavigation is no longer something that "few with far more
experienced and knowledgeable have done"--a lot of people have done it, some
of whom had as their major qualifications "made a lot of money".
> Then every one wanted
> to defend the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will probably
> do fine. But if something happened to my child I would blame myself
> forever for not being responsible as a parent.
Well why don't you worry about your kids and let other peopld worry about
their kids?
And how would you feel if after having read the kid the riot act and
prevented her from doing this thing that you consider to be so horribly
dangerous she died in an automobile crash while being kidnapped and raped by
her English teacher?
You can't protect your kids from everything you know.
> It is only common
> sense, which seems to be lacking here, to try to protet your children.
No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_ child so
what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
> Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land
> because they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on
> land help can be given and you do have to live some where.
Help can be given if someone is somewhere where there is help hanging
around. There are plenty of places even in New England where one can die of
exposure long before some stranger happens along and finds your corpse.
> You have
> to pick your battles. Picking one where a child is alone for months
> on end performing a balancing act with mother nature would not be a
> wise one IMHO.
But it's not your battle to pick, Mr. Busybody.
dadiOH wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for "systems failing
>>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
>>>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>>
>>> And winches,
>>
>> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>>
>>> stays,
>>
>> Just ropes.
>
> *Wire* ropes. With turnbuckles.
So what? They can be replaced in an emergency with dacron, Kevlar, or many
other textiles, with knots.
> ___________
>
>>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>>
>> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>
> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope.
I really should put a video of that up on Youtube just to piss you off.
The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so FUCKING WHAT? You
replace it with a spare, clamp on a patch, or replace it with something
else. You act like replacing or repairing a goddamned piece of rope takes
the entire resources of NASA or something.
> _____________
>
>>> Bodies too: cuts, scrapes, concussions, broken bones...
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever sailed a boat knows - or had exceptional luck -
>>> that systems *DO* fail, storms or not. The wonder is that they do
>>> as well as they do.
>>
>> Calling them "systems" doesn't make them any less ropes. As for
>> their failing, anybody who can tie a knot can fix them.
>
> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope. Obviously, you
> know zero about sailing.
Why are you on about "making a knot in wire rope"? Are you a moron or
something?
> _____________
>
>> If it was really so
>> complicated as to be beyond the abilities of a sixteen year old, how
>> would being an "adult" however you define it make a difference?
>
> It isn't the age so much as the (probable) lack of experience. For
> example...
>
> 1. To/from Catalina with others.
What about it? Are you saying that this is all she's done or what she
should do or what?
> 2. Crusing off shore to/from La Paz with others
>
> 3. To/from Hawaii with others.
>
> 3. All the above single handed.
>
> Like that.
>
> Experience (and common sense) really *does* count.
Well, since a retarded moron can figure out how to fix a busted stay and you
seem to not have the slightest clue, I'd say that she has you thoroughly
beat on "common sense".
> I recall a fellow
> years ago that was - IIRC - near Ecuador. He dropped and broke his
> sextant. They found him nine months - *NINE MONTHS* - later out in
> the middle of the Pacific. He was still alive, subsisted on rain
> water and (mostly) plants and critters that grow on the bottom of
> boats. He had no idea where he was.
Your point being?
> If he had any experience and the sense that god gave geese he would
> have known that you can sail downhill most anywhere in the world and
> hit land.
And the relevance of this is?
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> In rough seas you slip and fall, break both arms.... now what? Not
>>> a far reach of what could happen.
>>
>> And how does being `18 or 28 or 180 make a difference when that
>> happens?
>
> What? Were we talking about 28 or 180 yearold people sailing? You
> are changing the subject.
The subject is that some how "more experience" will allow people to deal
with breaking both arms in the middle of the ocean. If you think that
please explain how someone "older with more experience" would deal with it.
>>> A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as
>>> developed as one with longer life experiences.
>>
>> Neither is a 40 year old's. So what?
>
> Do you have kids? If you do,, did they always make their own
> decisions with out any of your input?
> Did you "ever" veto their decisions? Why?
Do you have employees in their forties? Do they always make their own
decisions without any of your input? Did you "ever" veto their decisions?
Why?
Doesn't matter how old you are there's always somebody with more "life
experience". If you defer all your decisions until you are the one who has
the most life experience then you don't do _anything_.
>>> She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of
>>> how her life would change should any harm come to her.
>>
> I see. So how old would that be?
>
> Answer this. Would you rather you or your child go into a dangerous
> situation.
Answer this--if you child enlisted in the Marines would you be having this
kind of tantrum over it?
>> And what is so special about sailing that
>> she shouldn't be allowed to do that while she is allowed to cross the
>> street
>> and risk getting hit by a drunk driver?
>
>
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 16 year old sailing.
And yet you're raising this huge hue and cry over it.
> Did I
> say that a 16 year old sailing was a problem or was that you changing
> the landscape of the situation.
So what is the problem then?
> It's the months on end around the
> world that adds the element of danger.
I see. So how long should a 16 year old be allowed to sail? Minutes?
Hours? Days?
> And if you cannot see the point.... it further clairifies your
> mentality.
I see the point just fine. The point is that you're a busybody who wants to
tell complete strangers how to live their lives.
> Crossing the street only takes seconds of your time to pay close enogh
> attention to what you are doing.
Which is small consolation to the dead.
> Sailing alone around the world
> require continuious attention.
And yet hundreds of people have done it and all them spent significant
portions of their voyages not paying attention to anything.
> A better example to compair to would
> be to have your 16 year old daughter walk alone in a seedy part of
> town late at night, every night, for several months.
So how old should one be before being allowed to "walk alone in a seedy part
of town"? And would it make a difference if they were boys instead of
girls? And how would being 18 make them safer?
Leon wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What I was saying is that kids grow up/mature a whole lot earlier
>> today than they did when we were kids. Many are _much_ more mature.
>> You can accept that or not.
>
> So a couple of years more mature/grown up does not make them wise.
So how old in your expert opinion does one have to be in order to be "wise"?
And when are you going to hit that age?
>>> (BTW - you would think I am a genius using those parameters!
>>> Well... not so much any more, but 25 - 30 years ago you would have
>>> been impressed.)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Robert, had her parents not seen that she showed extraordinary
>> maturity, she wouldn't have been allowed to go. End of story.
>> <shrug>
>
> LOL... Now what parents don't think that their child is the smartest,
> prettiest, bla bla. Her parent may be idiots compared to her. She
> the child may very well rule the roost as many teenagers do.
But not yours of course.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was totally totally unaware that there were only "Somalia"
>>> pirates, I was under the assumption that pirates might be any where.
>>
>> Pirates operate where there's profit to be made. That means shipping
>> channels. There's precious little shipping in the Antarctic Ocean.
>
>
> You do realize..for God's sake I hope you realize, that to "G o A
> r o u n d T h e W o r l d" it requires a voyage through several
> oceans.....
No, it doesn't. You don't even know what these girls are planning, do you?
This isn't going to be one of those deals where they sail to some place and
hang out for a while and sail somewhere else and hang out for a while.
They're both hitting the Antarctic Ocean (also called the "Southern Ocean"
and several other names) as fast as they can, then staying there for the
major part of their voyage, then returning home. Jessica Watson has it
easy--she starts there and finishes there. Abby Sunderland has to take a
long run down the Pacific first, then back north on the return, so her route
is longer. But both are going to be way the Hell out in the middle of an
empty ocean for almost their entire voyages.
You would know this if you had actually LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THEY
WERE PLANNING instead of starting in right away with the ignorant criticism.
> I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
> responsibility.
You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
>> century
>> you know.
> ============================
> You may have quite a wait in parts of the South Pacific where if you
> are lucky, you may get a scheduled air line fly over once a day, and
> sattelite coverage is spotty.
>
> Prudent seamanship beats technology every time out of the box.
What is your point? All the seamanship in the world doesn't help if today
is the day that the sea has decided to kill your ship. And there is no ship
that the sea cannot kill when it is in the mood. And it doesn't matter if
you have a sixteen year old girl at the helm or a 40 year veteran Navy
captain.
The SARSAT satellites are in polar orbit--their coverage is not "spotty".
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how
>>>>> to get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably
>>>>> good chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you
>>>>> survive...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>>>>> then what?
>>>>
>>>> and how is that different if the person is 46?
>>>
>>> Jeez..... It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let
>>> me ask you this? You you rather it be you rather than your 16 year
>>> old daghter that goes down with the boat? Why?
>>
>> Many parents would rather it be them than their kid when anything bad
>> happens. So what?
>
> Do you have any friends in school that might be able to explain this
> in words you may understand?
What you need to understand is that you can't protect your kids from
everthing forever. A time comes when you have to let them start taking
chances. You don't seem to think that 16 is old enough. The Sunderlands,
who know a mighty shitload more about teenaged circumnavigation than you are
ever going to know, disagree with you.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> I think you forgot to add the possibility storms, and 40' waves..
>
> 40' waves and storms are a given, most probably higher than 40', but
> boat is designed to handle them.
>
> Just make sure the jack lines are secured, and your harness line is
> attached.
I think that the folks here who are being such naysayers should keep an eye
on
http://twitter.com/jessicawatson93
http://www.youngestround.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/jessicawatsonvideo
http://soloround.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/abbysunderland
Also, they should take a look at
http://petethomas.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a77b966b970b012876aa9a4e970c-pi.
Look _real_ close at the T-shirt that the guy standing next to Abby is
wearing.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>> and
>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>
>>> I don't believe the risks are so much the problem here as are how to
>>> get out of a problem should you get into one.
>>>
>>> Walk home, get mugged, get hit by a car, you have a reasonably good
>>> chance of being seen and taken to a hospital should you survive...
>>>
>>> Sail around the world, sink your boat in the middle of nowhere and
>>> then what?
>>
>> You trigger your EPIRB and wait for rescue of course. It's the 21st
>> century
>> you know.
>>
>> And how do you get rescued when you get nabbed by a pimp and shot
>> full of drugs?
>>
>>> Risk is not so much the problem as is correcting the damage should a
>>> problem happen.
>>
>> So how do you get rescued from being run over by a bus?
>
>
>
> I pity your kids.
>
> Apparently you don't have kids...
Or maybe I just don't keep them bundled up in cotton so that when they turn
18 and they have to deal with the big bad drill sergeant they'll be ready.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/15/2010 11:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>>
>>
>>> A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
>>
>> Indeed!
>
> Well ... actually, that's not counting all the damn weight you can gain in
> 19 years by quitting smoking. :(
I was hoping that stopped after a while. :()
The good news for me is I now seem to be allergic to tobacco smoke. Somebody
lights up or smokes anywhere near me and my nose starts running, I'm
sneezing and start getting a headache.
Congrats on your 19!
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible.
>>>> Suppose a hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a
>>>> ball with her....literally, that is my problem..
>>>
>>> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
>>> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
>>> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
>>
>>
>> The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
>
> How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how
> old
> do you consider to be "old enough"? Hillary Clinton has a mighty
> shitload
> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat and
> some gang of pirates decided to rape her exactly how would she use that
> experience to protect herself?
She'd cut their nuts off!
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> What is your point?
>
> There is no AAA roadside service at sea.
So what?
> If you expect others to save your ass with a SAR mission, you may/will
> have a long wait.
Nobody expects to have their ship sunk. But the whole SAR system exists for
a reason.
> It's a big ocean out there.
Yes, it's a big ocean, but one doesn't have to search the entire ocean, one
just has to locate a signal.
> Prudent seamanship is your best chance of not needing outside
> assistance.
Nobody has said otherwise. But it you think that "prudent seamanship"
guarantees that one will always be safe and you spend much time on the water
you're going to get a big fat surprise one day.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were
>>> nuts for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far
>>> more experienced and knowledgeable have done.
>>
>> So Robin Lee Graham and Tania Aebi were "far more experienced and
>> knowledgeable"? Or would you have arrested them to save them from
>> themselves?
>>
>> If you had been paying attention for the past 50 years you would
>> know that solo circumnavigation is no longer something that "few
>> with far more experienced and knowledgeable have done"--a lot of
>> people have done it, some
>> of whom had as their major qualifications "made a lot of money".
>
> huh?
>
>
>>
>>> Then every one wanted
>>> to defend the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will
>>> probably do fine. But if something happened to my child I would
>>> blame myself forever for not being responsible as a parent.
>>
>> Well why don't you worry about your kids and let other peopld worry
>> about their kids?
>
> That sound about right, coming from you.
>>
>> And how would you feel if after having read the kid the riot act and
>> prevented her from doing this thing that you consider to be so
>> horribly dangerous she died in an automobile crash while being
>> kidnapped and raped by
>> her English teacher?
>>
>> You can't protect your kids from everything you know.
>
> I would not consider 16 years from infantcy "forever".... Maybe that
> is so for you.
>
>>
>>> It is only common
>>> sense, which seems to be lacking here, to try to protet your
>>> children.
>>
>> No, what is lacking is _your_ understanding that she is not _your_
>> child so
>> what she does is none of YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
>
> Ohhhhh.... let's not get our panties in a wad now.... I am entitled
> to my openion and have meerly been answering the question that "your
> have asked". I am sorry if you for some reason feel you may have been
> jilted in your up bringing.
If you hadn't been ranting about how horrible it is that these uncaring
people have let their naive stupid innocent little baby go off on this
incredibly dangerous trip there would have been no discussion.
>>> Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land
>>> because they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on
>>> land help can be given and you do have to live some where.
>>
>> Help can be given if someone is somewhere where there is help hanging
>> around. There are plenty of places even in New England where one
>> can die of
>> exposure long before some stranger happens along and finds your
>> corpse.
>
> Have you seen much help on the high seas in the middle of nowhere?
As much as I've seen in the woods a half a mile from a marked trail.
>>> You have
>>> to pick your battles. Picking one where a child is alone for months
>>> on end performing a balancing act with mother nature would not be a
>>> wise one IMHO.
>>
>> But it's not your battle to pick, Mr. Busybody.
>
> You are soooooo naive..
Actually I'm pissed off at professional do-gooders trying to tell everybody
else how to live their lives.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I can't teach you every thing....that should have "your" parents
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>>
>>
>
>
>> You don't have anything to teach a retarded bullfrog.
>
> ............. I am speechless. You actually shot your self in the
> foot.
Since you spoke in response to that one it didn't leave you speechless. I
note that an earlier post _did_ leave you speechless.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> I pity your kids.
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't have kids...
>>
>> Or maybe I just don't keep them bundled up in cotton so that when
>> they turn
>> 18 and they have to deal with the big bad drill sergeant they'll be
>> ready.
>>
>>
>
> Or maybe you don't have kids.
By your logic the Sunderlands don't have kids.
Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> What is your point?
>>
>> There is no AAA roadside service at sea.
>>
>> If you expect others to save your ass with a SAR mission, you
>> may/will have a long wait.
>>
>> It's a big ocean out there.
>>
>> Prudent seamanship is your best chance of not needing outside
>> assistance.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> ahhh.. the voice of reason.... you have restored my faith Lew. Good
> on'ya
And you might want to note that he is not whining about how thoughtless
Abby's parents are for letting her do something that they believe to be well
within her abilities.
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> I answered your question and am not going to go farther since you are
> insisting in staying this loop.
>
> See Robatoy's answer to you,, he sum's it pretty nicely.
On the odd chance that he said something worth hearing I googled that post.
My response is to quote a favorite expression of a man who served 28 years
in the Navy, several years in the Coast Guard before that, and I don't know
how long as a merchant seaman before that, and who until it got lost in a
move had in his possession a hand-carved model of the Gertrude L. Thebaud,
presented to him by the crew on the occasion of his being transferred to the
Pacific after serving aboard her on the Mid Atlantic Submarine Patrol.
"Go pee up a rope". Or, to make robatoy happy, I will amend that. _He_
should go pee up a _line_.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> If you had been paying attention for the past 50 years you would know
>> that solo circumnavigation is no longer something that "few with far
>> more experienced and knowledgeable have done"--a lot of people have
>> done it, some of whom had as their major qualifications "made a lot
>> of money".
>
> You can even climb Mt Everest today with a little experience and
> $60,000. Not at all like it was when Hillary did it.
> www.himex.com for details.
Yup.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:21:23 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible.
>>>>>> Suppose a hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a
>>>>>> ball with her....literally, that is my problem..
>>>>>
>>>>> How is that different from a young couple, an old man, or a middle
>>>>> aged woman on the high seas? Most people on the ocean believe that
>>>>> and pirates take on all comers, regardless of age or gender.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The older people should have a better understanding of the risks.
>>>
>>> How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how
>>> old
>>> do you consider to be "old enough"? Hillary Clinton has a mighty
>>> shitload
>>> of life experience but if she was in the middle of the ocean in a boat
>>> and
>>> some gang of pirates decided to rape her exactly how would she use that
>>> experience to protect herself?
>>
>>She'd cut their nuts off!
>
> That fits with a joke I received via email on Friday:
>
> --snip--
> While trying to escape through Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden found a
> bottle on the sand and picked it up.
>
> Suddenly, a female genie rose from the bottle and with a smile said,
> "Master, may I grant you one wish?"
>
> Osama responded,"You ignorant, unworthy daughter-of-a-dog! Don't you
> know who I am? I don't need any common woman giving me anything."
>
> The shocked genie said, "Please, I must grant you a wish or I will be
> returned to that bottle forever."
>
> Osama thought a moment, then grumbled about the impertinence of the
> woman and said,"Very well, I want to awaken with three American women
> in my bed in the morning. So just do it and be off with you.
>
> "The annoyed genie said, "So be it!" and disappeared.
>
> The next morning Bin Laden woke up in bed with Lorena Bobbitt, Tonya
> Harding, and Nancy Pelosi at his side.
>
> His penis was gone, his knees were broken, and he had no health
> insurance.
ROTFL!!!
dadiOH wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "dadiOH" wrote:
>>> Rather depends on the fuel supply...200 gallons of diesel will take
>>> you a fur piece :)
>> ---------------------------------------
>> 200 gallons of diesel, about 1,400 lbs, on a 7,000 lb boat with water
>> ballast?
>
>
> No, on a 14.5 ton boat with 3 tons of lead outside, maybe another
> half ton inside.
What boat is this? It certainly isn't "Wild Eyes". When Abby bought her
she had tankage for 25 gallons of fuel and she hasn't mentioned adding
additional tankage. I hope she's carrying some extra though--with a diesel
heater and 25 gallons she's likely to run out of diesel before she runs out
of cold. And Wild Eyes is not a 14.5 ton boat with 3 tons of lead outside.
Neither is Jessica Watson's "Ella's Pink Lady" nor Laura Dekker's "Guppy" so
what _are_ you on about?
On 1/17/2010 9:58 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
> into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
> would it?
Just outside the harbor at Gustavia in Saint Barts I saw a 15m catamaran
(demasted) and being decked over completely with solar panels. I've
wondered ever since how well that worked out...
...and whether the mast was replaced once the electrical work had been
completed. Interesting solar project.
Might also be able to do something interesting with fuel cells. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/17/2010 9:58 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> They know how to make nuclear powerplants small enough to shoot them
>> into orbit, it wouldn't be too big of a leap to adapt to a sailboat
>> would it?
>
> Just outside the harbor at Gustavia in Saint Barts I saw a 15m catamaran
> (demasted) and being decked over completely with solar panels. I've
> wondered ever since how well that worked out...
What would salt spray and evaporation do to the panels?
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What I was saying is that kids grow up/mature a whole lot earlier
>> today than they did when we were kids. Many are _much_ more mature.
>> You can accept that or not.
>
>So a couple of years more mature/grown up does not make them wise.
That's true, but they're potentially closer to wise at that age than
we were, and we all survived the wild shit we pulled, right?
>> Robert, had her parents not seen that she showed extraordinary
>> maturity, she wouldn't have been allowed to go. End of story.
>> <shrug>
>
>LOL... Now what parents don't think that their child is the smartest,
>prettiest, bla bla. Her parent may be idiots compared to her. She the
>child may very well rule the roost as many teenagers do.
After all I've read from you on this subject, Leon/Swingy/Naily, all I
can say is "Were your mothers 'scared by a boat' when they were
pregnant with you?" <bseg>
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
On 1/15/2010 11:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Aren't proper justifications fun? I just love 'em!
>
>
>> A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
>
> Indeed!
Well ... actually, that's not counting all the damn weight you can gain
in 19 years by quitting smoking. :(
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
> and
> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>
> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives us
> the stats.
Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give you
the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment" justifies
the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while operating motor
vehicles.
I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing at sea.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:12:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>dadiOH wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> dadiOH wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for "systems failing
>>>>> in a storm", the "systems" in question are ropes and pulleys--it's
>>>>> an effing _sailboat_ for God's sake, technology that was old when
>>>>> Alexander was leading his armies at her age.
>>>>
>>>> And winches,
>>>
>>> Pulley with a crank and a ratchec.
>>>
>>>> stays,
>>>
>>> Just ropes.
>>
>> *Wire* ropes. With turnbuckles.
>
>So what? They can be replaced in an emergency with dacron, Kevlar, or many
>other textiles, with knots.
>> ___________
>>
>>>> tangs, screws, bolts...all manner of things.
>>>
>>> Just fancy substitutes for knots.
>>
>> Fine, let's see you make a knot in 7x19 wire rope.
>
>I really should put a video of that up on Youtube just to piss you off.
>
>The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so FUCKING WHAT? You
>replace it with a spare, clamp on a patch, or replace it with something
>else. You act like replacing or repairing a goddamned piece of rope takes
>the entire resources of NASA or something.
>
When that fancy wire rope breaks, it often is accompanied by the whole
rig buckling, and coming down... In pieces.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around
>>> you, no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no
>>> need to stay behind the wheel.
>>
>> I think you forgot to add the possibility storms, and 40' waves..
>
> And how, exactly, are 40 foot waves a problem? And storms are a part of
> life at sea. So what?
>
Yawn,,,,,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:26:08 -0700, "charlie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the distractions
>to driving and the quick changing road environment simply aren't there in
>mid-ocean.
You mean because of inexperience, you can't mismanage the operation of
a sailboat and swamp it or turn it over?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:12 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Different horses for different courses.
>>>
>>> Vessels using both engine and sails are usually classified as motor
>>> sailors, a whole different can of worms.
>>>
>>> Many boats are classified as sailing auxiliaries, IOW, they have an
>>> engine which can provide auxiliary power, not as the prime mover
>>> which are the sails.
>>>
>>> The boat I was building would have had a 6 Cyl, 105HP, John Deere
>>> engine as an auxiliary; however, it was only an auxiliary, not a
>>> prime mover.
>>
>>
>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets
>> see, how would you put that,
>>
>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail
>> boat is about as useful as a set if tits
>> on a boar hog.
>>
>> Does that sound about right?
>
>Handy to get around harbors, in/out of berths, etc. Also nice on those days
>when there *is* no wind.
Not much call for getting in and out of berths on a non-stop
circumnavigation, and for long distance sailing, such as this, you
really can't motor when there is no wind. You have to just wait for
the wind. You can't carry nearly enough fuel to start up the motor
just because the wind died. The motor is of "some" use, but not much.
On 1/16/2010 12:38 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> So I was trying to understand why you quit building that boat, which
>> you mentioned above. The one that was going to have the JD engine
>> on it.
> --------------------------------------
> http://sites.google.com/site/lewssailboat/
>
> Just about covers it.
Still a poignant story, Lew ... wished I had the means to insure that
the passion lives on.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Must be the weather.
>
> Abby Sunderland, 16 year old sister of Zak, a 17 year old
> circumnavigator, departs on Saturday from Marina Del Rey, (Los
> Angeles) in her 40 ft racing sail boat,
A 16 year old has a 40' sail boat, racing or not? I must have been doing
something wrong.
> headed for the horn.
At least it is summer down there.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On 01/15/2010 12:03 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 11:35 AM, basilisk wrote:
>
>> Me and SWMBO recently got a Belgian Warmblood from a horse
>> barn that catered to young riders. This guy is 17.4 hands and 3/4's ton
>> of bad attitude, an animal like this requires constant vigilance when
>> handling, he will hurt you.(but he can also jump a 4 ft. fence without
>> blinking)
>> I can't imagine a 17 yr old of either gender being able to handle this
>> horse.
>
> My favorite horse idiocy tales revolve around the propensity of urban
> raised females, even older ones, refusing to geld their colts.
Reminds me of a stud horse in a dressage arena with a bunch of mares
lined up for ribbons, first time I'd ever seen a horse in the judging
booth.
>
>> Three day eventers "have to own a crazy horse" it's in the rules.
>
> LOL ... you got that right.!
>
>> Disclaimer: I no longer ride, I consider myself too old and fragile.
>
> I just haven't had the opportunity the past twenty years or so.
>
> That said, although it is blurry as hell, the below is my 86 year old
> Dad, just this past November (09), putting a "handle" on one of his race
> track retreads that will no longer race, but may be handy around the
> farm!!:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0tirrX1h8
>
> As blurry and brief as it is, a true horseman will appreciate the supple
> grace of his "seat" even at that age ... although I kidded him a bit
> about his feet being too far forward ... until he said "Here, show me!". :)
>
> A true horseman will also notice this horse is not all that happy with
> being trained, by his demeanor under saddle, and his tail twisting.
>
> My Dad will probably ride til the day he dies.
He looks good, I hope he has many more years to ride, for me it is
simply not my passion and therefore not worth the risk anymore.
basilisk
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:06:35 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>> and
>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>
>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and gives us
>> the stats.
>
>Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure give you
>the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature "judgment" justifies
>the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year old while operating motor
>vehicles.
>
>I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically disappearing at sea.
There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around you,
no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no need to
stay behind the wheel.
I'd still love to see the stats if anyone can dig 'em up.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>> No kidding.
>
> It amazes me that people are finding fault over this. While we want to
> believe that 16 year olds are children they are only so because we force
> them into that mold--Alexander the Great was successfully commanding
> armies
> at that age. This particular girl has a dream and the means to carry it
> out and if you read her blog you'll know that she's thought it through and
> gotten a good deal of relevant experience and made a careful choice of
> equipment and is not operating on a shoestring budget, so what is your
> _problem_?
Kids that age also totally believe that they are invincible. Suppose a
hurricane blows through.... or pirates, they would have a ball with
her....literally, that is my problem..
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You've got to be kidding me? How about a collision with a big wave?
> Boats get swamped all the time when their skippers don't or *can't*
> or
> misjudge a big wave in a storm. And, it even happens when there
> isn't
> a storm.
-----------------------------
We are not talking about stink boats here but well found blue water
boats designed for the task.
Lew
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:16:45 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>I don't really see what Larry thinks that "thick clouds" would have to do
>with the transmission of radio signals. Maybe he doesn't understand how an
>EPIRB works.
I was thinking KH-class sat "pictures", I was.
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:15:34 -0700, "charlie"
>> asking about the insurance company statistics of comparing people
>> with similar years of experience at their individual tasks. i doubt
>> that a person sailing in mid ocean is going to collide with someone
>> driving.
>
> You've got to be kidding me? How about a collision with a big wave?
> Boats get swamped all the time when their skippers don't or *can't* or
> misjudge a big wave in a storm. And, it even happens when there isn't
> a storm.
how is this different if the skipper is older?
> At this point, I have to believe you're trolling Charlie. I'm gone
> from this thread.
?
i'm simply pointing out that what you think you're arguing about isn't
consistent. you changed arguments midstream, bringing up a comparison which
isn't pertinent.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:22:05 -0700, "charlie"
> Insurance companies don't insure based on individuals. They assign you
> to a group. They don't give a crap about you on a personal level.
>
> There won't be insurance stats on circumnavigators, because 1.) There
> are so few circumnavigators, and, 2.) Ocean sailors mostly don't have
> insurance.
exactly. bringing us back to the OP question:
>>>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and
>>>>>>> gives us the stats.
my point being, as a group, the 2 aren't comparable. one, or both, as you
state, may not even be obtainable.
On 1/16/10 10:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:18:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
>> that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
>> sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
>> settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
>> stuff here.
>
> Thanks Mike. I just had myself a mighty shitload of a good laugh. :)
We call it a metric shitload here in Canada.
Just trying to keep you informed.
;-)
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:16:45 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>I don't really see what Larry thinks that "thick clouds" would have to do
>>with the transmission of radio signals. Maybe he doesn't understand how
>>an
>>EPIRB works.
>
> I was thinking KH-class sat "pictures", I was.
>
Those were some interesting birds. Gnat on a fly's ass ...
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:18:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
>that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
>sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
>settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
>stuff here.
Thanks Mike. I just had myself a mighty shitload of a good laugh. :)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:15:34 -0700, "charlie"
>asking about the insurance company statistics of comparing people with
>similar years of experience at their individual tasks. i doubt that a person
>sailing in mid ocean is going to collide with someone driving.
You've got to be kidding me? How about a collision with a big wave?
Boats get swamped all the time when their skippers don't or *can't* or
misjudge a big wave in a storm. And, it even happens when there isn't
a storm.
At this point, I have to believe you're trolling Charlie. I'm gone
from this thread.
On 1/16/2010 9:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:18:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> Hmmmmmmm... John... a "mighty shitload", huh? I kinda like that. I presume
>> that's volumetrically greater - much greater, than a simple shitload. I'm
>> sticking this one in my back pocket. To think - all these years I've been
>> settling for a simple shitload. Man - you can really pick up some cool
>> stuff here.
>
> Thanks Mike. I just had myself a mighty shitload of a good laugh. :)
Ditto ... coffee missed the laptop, but damn, what a nasal experience.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:22:05 -0700, "charlie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:39:53 -0700, "charlie"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2010 11:26 AM, charlie wrote:
>>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/15/2010 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone figured out what the differences in risks are between:
>>>>>>> A) Walking home from work in a large/medium/small/rural city.
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> B) Circumnavigating the globe at age 16?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have time for the search, but I hope someone does and
>>>>>>> gives us the stats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know about that, but the insurance industry can damn sure
>>>>>> give you the stats for how lack of "experience" and mature
>>>>>> "judgment" justifies the increased cost of insuring 18-25 year
>>>>>> old while operating motor
>>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't imagine this statistical fact somehow magically
>>>>>> disappearing at sea.
>>>>>
>>>>> apples to grapefruit comparison. the two aren't comparable. the
>>>>> distractions to driving and the quick changing road environment
>>>>> simply aren't there in mid-ocean
>>>>
>>>> Horseshit! ... lack of experience and mature judgment are factors of
>>>> age, not type of activity.
>>>
>>> then you prove your counter argument.
>>>
>>> lack of experience for a 16 y.o. isn't this case, as it is in a new
>>> driver at 16 y.o. she has been sailing for at least 10 years and has
>>> the experience.
>>>
>>> comparing her to a driver with 10 years of driving experience would
>>> be comparable.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that isn't directly comparable. The average person, once
>> they have their driver's license doesn't spend every moment they are
>> driving, trying to improve their skills and knowlege. The average
>> sailor never stops trying to learn more and improve their sailing.
>> Comes with the territory.
>
>the topic under discussion is insurance statistics and comparing general
>population individuals. they also don't know if the average driver has
>stopped learning (they wouldn't know that i have years of high speed car
>racing experience with multiple racetrack classes, for example, which may
>make me a bit safer than the average driver).
If anything, that type of background likely makes you considered more
of a risk by insurance companies. If you are smart, you won't mention
any of that when applying for insurance. I'm pretty sure it would work
against you. I also don't understand how you think that background
makes you representative of an "average driver". The average driver is
not a driving enthusiast. They drive for transportation. Most sailors,
on the other hand, do not use sailboats for simple transport. They are
virtually ALL enthusiasts.
> they would only compare
>similarly aged drivers against each other, with modifications as to years of
>driving experience, lack of prior accidents, ticket history, and perhaps
>other non-related things like credit score.
>
Insurance companies don't insure based on individuals. They assign you
to a group. They don't give a crap about you on a personal level.
There won't be insurance stats on circumnavigators, because 1.) There
are so few circumnavigators, and, 2.) Ocean sailors mostly don't have
insurance.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:59:09 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the
following:
>On Jan 14, 10:41 pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>
>> With driver training, many states allow that. consider that many girls
>> her age are also having sex and smoking for years. Kids grow up far
>> earlier these days in the constantly-connected age.
>
>Your comments make me feel really disconnected to the group society.
>I had no idea that driving with a supervising adult in the car was an
>indication of maturity.
<g>
>If you further think that screwing, smoking and texting are any sign
>of maturity, development of good judgment, I will have to confess I
>don't get that at all. Those are things monkeys can do. I never
>equated hedonistic pleasure to maturity, but it isn't up to me to set
>standards for you.
What I was saying is that kids grow up/mature a whole lot earlier
today than they did when we were kids. Many are _much_ more mature.
You can accept that or not.
>(BTW - you would think I am a genius using those parameters! Well...
>not so much any more, but 25 - 30 years ago you would have been
>impressed.)
Robert, had her parents not seen that she showed extraordinary
maturity, she wouldn't have been allowed to go. End of story.
<shrug>
>> Have you ever heard of a girl being raped, drowning, or getting
>> crushed in a car wreck in the same neighborhood you live? Live is
>> dangerous _everywhere_, Robert. Acknowledge it!
>
>Why no, Larry. I live in a city where the streets are made of
>chocolate, we grow candy canes in our front yards, no one ever ages
>past 30, and when it feels like the sun is shining, it is actually
>just a warm group feeling of good will that spreads over the
>neighborhood in a blanket of comfort and security.
>
>Your hyperbole is dismissive and stupid.
>
>I see you don't understand the difference between being in harm's way,
>or putting yourself in harm's way.
Yes, but it's an adventure the girl wanted to go on and her parents
weighed everything, talked to her, and all decided that it was OK.
Other parents let their kids ride or race motorcycles, race go-carts,
go hunting, go jetskiing, go skiing, go swimming, go mountain
climbing, play foot/base/basketball, play hockey, run woodworking
machinery ;), and all sorts of other dangerous activities. Kids have
died from each and every one of those activities, so that's putting
themselves in harm's way. Do YOU see the difference?
>Sometimes these threads have a way of sorting themselves out. And
>when I see an arrogant scolding from someone that comes off as a
>sanctimonious, proselytizing know-it-all that doesn't even know me, I
>know it is indeed time to move on.
>
>Continue the chest thumping.
[insert Tarzan yell here] Har! (Where'd my vine go?)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jeez..... It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let me ask
> you this? You you rather it be you rather than your 16 year old daghter
> that goes down with the boat? Why?
>
>
>
>
>
Jeea... :~)
It may not be any different if the boat sinks. But let me ask you this?
Would you rather it be "you" or your 16 year old daughter that goes down
with the boat? Why?
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:22:29 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:18:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How does "better understanding of the risks" remove the risks? And how old
>>do you consider to be "old enough"?
>
>A better understanding of the risks means that you often don't take
>that risk in the first place. That's something that age and experience
>can give you.
>
>Along the same lines, a better understanding of the risks might mean
>that you've had other risks similar to the one that's at hand and have
>a better chance of knowing how some risk might turn out.
>
>A better understanding of the risks might mean that you have the
>knowledge to use a different method to attenuate the risk and not
>experience injury.
What part of "Her parents have already thought it through, decided to
let her go, and she's on the high seas now." bit did you guys miss?
>Kids don't have the maturity and experience to better balance the pros
>and cons of a particular risk. Adults are generally far better
>equipped because of experience and observation than the brashness and
>inexperience that a younger person would not consider.
I've survived a few bad choices (alcoholism, smoking, driving drunk,
minor bits with minor drugs, climbing anything I could, thrill
seeking, etc.) and some of it has formed into character. Other
portions formed regrets. Risks are part of life. Children of all ages
<g> choose poorly at times. So what? Life goes on.
Are you saying that her parents forgot to consider risks?
>As an example, I used all sorts of drugs when I was a kid, because I
>just didn't understand the risks. Now that I'm older, I'd never
>consider doing some of the stuff now that I did then. Not because I
>had a particularly bad time because of drugs, but because over the
>years, I've observed other people going through hell because of them.
>My age and experience tells me what is sensible. Go ahead and refute
>my experience.
Bwahahahahahaha! I loved that "some" part. I wonder which drugs
you're still taking and what stuff you're still doin'...
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Now, I try to stay out of horse conversations, particularly with my Dad,
> who will name every progenitor in the bloodline of this one, or that one,
> going back 20 generations, along with how much they, and each and every
> one of their offspring have won on the track, and the speed and distance
> at which it took them to do so. <yawn>
;~) I cannot go anywhere without my dad remarking about every corner and
what happened there 30 years ago.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> What part of "Her parents have already thought it through, decided to
> let her go, and she's on the high seas now." bit did you guys miss?
Larry,, ;~) I think they baloon boy's parents could use you right about now
in their defense.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:11:55 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Jan 15, 1:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>> I live in a city where the streets are made of
>> chocolate, we grow candy canes in our front yards, no one ever ages
>> past 30, and when it feels like the sun is shining, it is actually
>> just a warm group feeling of good will that spreads over the
>> neighborhood in a blanket of comfort and security.
>
>*I* happen to know that South Texas is too hot for chocolate streets.
>I think you are pulling our legs.
*I* thought his hyperbole was dismissive and stupid. ;)
--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> And why would Somali pirates be operating 2500 miles from Somalia anyway.
I was totally totally unaware that there were only "Somalia" pirates, I was
under the assumption that pirates might be any where.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:06:17 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
> I'm with you, J. It shows how much the parents trust her and how
> intelligent they believe she is. It's surely a character builder. But
> that's not what the Nanny State wants. <shrug>
Exactly,,, reminds me of the "baloon boy" parents.. those that don't think
too far ahead.
>
> OTOH, if (Somali!) pirates do get her, the parents will be _crucified_
> in the media.
As if any one but she and the pirates would ever know, I highly suspect the
secrets would go down with the boat, and as if the pirates cared what any
one thought.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:24:27 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Jan 14, 6:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Imagine...
>>
>> A young girl on a 40 ft boat all alone in treacherous waters.
>>
>> http://www.modbee.com/life/buzzz/story/1006871.html
>>
>> The sheer stupidity of this is unimaginable, and since the governing
>> sailing bodies won't certify her results, why bother? (I don't
>> believe a 17 year old girl will be able to pull of the standard
>> "because it was there" horse crap.)
>>
>> I think our local newscaster with tow girls of his own said it best:
>>
>> "For Gawd's sake; doesn't this girl have parents?"
>>
>> Apparently not.
>>
>> Robert
>
>As records for 'The Youngest' keep being challenged, at some point in
>the future it will have to be a 6-year old who sets sail.
And it'll be featured on the "Who Wants To Be a Masochist?" TV show!
(Next month will mark my 3rd happy year without the boob tube and my
22nd without cigs.)
--
What helps luck is a habit of watching for opportunities, of
having a patient, but restless mind, of sacrificing one's
ease or vanity, of uniting a love of detail to foresight, and
of passing through hard times bravely and cheerfully.
-- Charles Victor Cherbuliez
On 1/15/2010 10:34 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I quit when it cost less for a carton than it does for a single pack
> today. Today's ex-smokers can purchase major power tools or truckloads
> of wood for the annual price of their habit, so they benefit even
> more than I did. (bringing the drift back on topic, just to annoy)
I quit, cold turkey, Sunday, November 17, 1991 at just after 1 AM, after
31 years of smoking.
At the time it was costing me roughly $5/day for a three pack a day
habit. And you're right, I immediately started buying tools with the +/-
$1800/year I saved thenceforth.
To this day I still use that fact/figure as all the justification
necessary to buy whatever I feel may be somewhat of an unnecessary, but
something I really want, expense in the shop, and still have not come
anywhere near the $34k in 1991 dollars saved thus far.
A damn good incentive, IMO ... and a hellavu tradeoff, healthwise.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 1/15/2010 11:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> There are far fewer distractions. No friends in the seats around you,
> no other vehicles, no trees, no boys walking by (for her), no need to
> stay behind the wheel.
>
> I'd still love to see the stats if anyone can dig 'em up.
As I stated before, lack of experience and mature judgment is a function
of AGE, not activity.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> So uh... the boat you "were" building was scuttled because, lets see,
>> how would you put that,
>>
>> Ah, would that be because as you said, An engine (motor) on a sail boat
>> is about as useful as a set if tits
>> on a boar hog.
>>
>> Does that sound about right?
> ---------------------------------------
> Sorry but I don't understand this gibberish.
I believe I quoted you. You see I mentioned a boat with out a motor, you
apparently assumed I meant using a sailboat with a motor take that boat
around the world. And then you mentioned a comparison of that scenario to
tits on a boar hog..
So I was trying to understand why you quit building that boat, which you
mentioned above. The one that was going to have the JD engine on it.
Then I took your comment,
An engine (motor) on a sail boat is about as useful as a set if tits on a
boar hog. So I would naturally assume that when you realized that your boat
was going to as useful or maybe as functional as a boar hog with tits you
stopped, quit, walked away, from that boat.
I don't want to be harsh here but you bought the tits and hogs up... I was
just trying to piece your different comments together. Many of your
comments concerning this sailing attraction that you have, do not seem to be
consistent.