Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


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-

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-

On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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".

On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 **** 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 3:49 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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-



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 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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?

On 6/15/2010 3:42 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz 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.

J. Clarke wrote:
: On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
: Lew 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...doomed-voyage/

It's fame they wanted. And their lil' darlin' up there on the telly.

-- Andy Barss

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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!

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett 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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 8:19 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett 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?

On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:19 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:44 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett 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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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?

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" 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-

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" 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!

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 2:29 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz 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.

On 6/16/2010 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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 2:31 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:37 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:21 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:52 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 1:55 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski 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.