On 6/13/2010 11:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"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 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.