"J. Clarke" 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.