On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:48 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:32:02 -0600, the infamous Swingman
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 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:07:43 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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

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" wrote in message
...
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:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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:
"Leon" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:22:29 -0500, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:18:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:33 -0600, the infamous Swingman
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

Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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?

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:06:35 -0600, the infamous Swingman
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

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)

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 **** you off.

The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so ****ING 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?

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)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

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..

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:59:09 -0800 (PST), the infamous
" scrawled the
following:

On Jan 14, 10:41 pm, Larry Jaques
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

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:11:55 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Jan 15, 1:59 pm, "
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" wrote in message
...
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 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:54:25 -0500, the infamous "Lee Michaels"
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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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.

Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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.

Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

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:

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.

Lew

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.

Leon wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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.

Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

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,,,,,

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"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?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"charlie" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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 in message
...

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...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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..

wrote in message
news
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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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 **** you off.

The point is that if your fancy wire rope breaks, so ****ING 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" 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

Leon wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"charlie" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

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 ****load more about teenaged circumnavigation than you are
ever going to know, disagree with you.