On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:44:20 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:19:28 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

So, to segue back, she's less dangerous than circumnavigation?

Depends on where you're standing. I would NOT want to be too close
astern when SHE circumnavigates!

Um, weren't you circumnavigated as a child, Baldy?

None of your damned business.

Noticed you fixed the sig delimiter... Any particular reason?

Damn, forgot to futz that one up, too, I guess.

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln

Subject

She's under way.

After a week's weather delay, she eft Marina Del Rey today, escorted
by a flotilla of sailboats, headed for "The Cape" and points east.

Lew

Subject


Per her blog, she is off Guadalupe and getting settled in.

Lew

Subject

Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.

Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than she
can generate.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.

Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than she
can generate.

And she's learned an important life less. Never trust the specs on
_anything_ if anything important depends on it meeting them.

J. Clarke wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Per her 01/30/109 blog, she is headed into port at Cabo for repairs.

Looks like all those electrical toys are consuming more power than
she can generate.

And she's learned an important life less.

Arrrgh. Life less_on_.

Never trust the specs on
_anything_ if anything important depends on it meeting them.

And thinking on it--it never occurred to me that she needed all that
generating capacity just to carry the load--I assumed that she had
redundancy--that she could run on any one of her sources, not that she
needed all three in order to function. If that's the case then I'm with the
doomsayers.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

From her 05/21/2010 blog:

Good Bye Cape Town.

Details available at:

http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu

Lew

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:53:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote the following:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

From her 05/21/2010 blog:

Good Bye Cape Town.

Details available at:

http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu

She appears to have lost weight (10+ lbs) since she set sail. Looking
good. Go, Abby!

--
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:53:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote the following:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

From her 05/21/2010 blog:

Good Bye Cape Town.

Details available at:

http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu

She appears to have lost weight (10+ lbs) since she set sail. Looking
good. Go, Abby!

Must be the lack of cheeseburgers out at sea.

Looks like kids are going after all sorts of records. There is a 13 yo
attempting Mt Everest amidst clams it borders on child abuse. Climbing
Everest is a feat under any circumstance, but it is a lot easier that it
ever was. There are a couple of guide outfits that can get you there for
about $60,000 or so. The Sherpas do much of the preliminary work putting
ropes in place. There was a four part series on TV a few months back
showing how it is done. I said "easier", but still a brutal challenge to
get there.

From her 06/07/2010 blog:

"Update from the Middle of the Indian Ocean"

She is gaining on it.

Details available at:

http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu

On Jun 7, 10:30*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
From her 06/07/2010 blog:

"Update from the Middle of the Indian Ocean"

She is gaining on it.

Details available at:

http://tinyurl.com/y9kdowu

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abby-sund...ry?id=10877108

R

Han wrote:


I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
paying for the rescue efforts now?

Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
them, if they can't be used.

--

-Mike-

On 6/11/2010 7:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
paying for the rescue efforts now?

Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
them, if they can't be used.

Reimbursed, hopefully, from future book, TV and movie rights ....

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
paying for the rescue efforts now?

Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
them, if they can't be used.

Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.

At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.

On 6/11/2010 8:15 AM, Upscale wrote:

Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.

World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
Boy, subject is just more of same.

Along with this, in the same "in pursuit of ..." category:

http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_co...h-1000-pounds/

And all equally disgusting ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Upscale wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
paying for the rescue efforts now?

Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will
simply exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having
them, paying for them, if they can't be used.

Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.

Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just that purpose. We
already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why should someone pay
for utilizing a service that is already funded and exists just for that
purpose?


At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.

I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to delve
into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in defining some
basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in existence, but any
additional services such as securing the boat, or whatever, being outside of
that basic rescue provision.

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:31:05 -0500, Swingman wrote:
World is full of immature and reckless behavior in search of that
proverbial fifteen minutes of pop culture fame ... as with the Ballon
Boy, subject is just more of same.

http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_co...h-1000-pounds/
And all equally disgusting ...

Inevitable result of world wide communications as they are and the
speed in which instant fame can be achieved. I can't condone it in one
respect, but do understand the allure. Unfortunately, it's quite often
only the older generation who don't approve of this behavior. Used to
be you had to work really hard to succeed in life. Now, it's as simple
a process as pulling off some 'stunt' and often just the act of
attempting the stunt. If you survive, you often succeed.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:38:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.

Not really. Indulgent behavior is rampant in most societies. Much of
that indulgent behavior is putting great strain on systems such as the
medical system ~ everywhere around the world. Not everybody is
similarly indulgent, but there's enough evidence in the developed
societies to state categorically that it's a serious, soon to be
catastrophic problem.

It may never happen, but 'Soylent Green' is always just lurking around
the corner. We as a species sit and wait for technology to solve
everything. Suspect we will continue to wait for a long, long, time.
While we're waiting, we indulge ourselves ~ an indulgence which is
certainly an untenable habit.

On 6/11/2010 9:16 AM, Upscale wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:38:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.

Not really. Indulgent behavior is rampant in most societies. Much of
that indulgent behavior is putting great strain on systems such as the
medical system ~ everywhere around the world. Not everybody is
similarly indulgent, but there's enough evidence in the developed
societies to state categorically that it's a serious, soon to be
catastrophic problem.

It may never happen, but 'Soylent Green' is always just lurking around
the corner. We as a species sit and wait for technology to solve
everything. Suspect we will continue to wait for a long, long, time.
While we're waiting, we indulge ourselves ~ an indulgence which is
certainly an untenable habit.

Well said.

The best that can be said about this now provably foolhardy stunt is
that technology trumped immature judgment and reckless behavior.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Lobby Dosser wrote:



Now if they can just get too her in time?

But - Big YEA!

I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is paying
for the rescue efforts now?

Good question. Not like climbing Mt. Rainier.

The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.

Looks like the "rescue" is getting "paid for" after all.
--

Richard Lamb

"Mike Marlow" wrote
Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward
as a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just that purpose.
We already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why should someone
pay for utilizing a service that is already funded and exists just for
that purpose?

If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for rescue
on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or jump off a
cliff is another story. Make them pay into a mountain rescue fund or have
insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a record.




At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.

I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to delve
into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in defining
some basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in existence,
but any additional services such as securing the boat, or whatever, being
outside of that basic rescue provision.

Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting out
for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond payable to
the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should the people of
(fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of thousands of dollars
to rescue a kid from California that want to set a records?

"cavelamb" wrote

The news sites said a fishing boat was heading there to rescue her.
But she'll have to stay aboard and fish until they go back home.

Hope she can cook or clean fish.

And it is a french boat too. There could be a language problem. And she
would be a 16 year old girl on a boat of horny men. It could end up to an
interesting adventure all on its own.

On 6/11/2010 11:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote
Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would
be overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put
forward as a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a
moot point. Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just
that purpose. We already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why
should someone pay for utilizing a service that is already funded and
exists just for that purpose?

If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
jump off a cliff is another story.

You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard
or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good weather with all
the training and skill and good judgment in the world, **** still happens.

Make them pay into a mountain rescue
fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
set a record.

So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?

At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.

I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to
delve into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in
defining some basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in
existence, but any additional services such as securing the boat, or
whatever, being outside of that basic rescue provision.

Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
records?

Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have
had to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and
freighter crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out of
the ocean?

It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
it's the people who are out there every day making a living.

Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out of
the ocean every half century or so?

As for "setting out for atypical sea", what the HELL is "atypical sea"?
And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
change things?

"J. Clarke" wrote

If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
jump off a cliff is another story.

You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good weather with all the
training and skill and good judgment in the world, **** still happens.

But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible ski
trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme risk,
go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue bills.



Make them pay into a mountain rescue
fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
set a record.

So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?

When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as compared
to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest. Sure there is always a risk
walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay if
you go splat.




Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
records?

Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have had
to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and freighter
crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out of the ocean?

It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
it's the people who are out there every day making a living.

Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out of
the ocean every half century or so?

I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships take a
lot of precautions to avoid the "**** happens" moment but it still does.
When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should be
willing to pay if they get into trouble.


And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
change things?

Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore. Sport fishing
is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore. Coast Guard and state marine police
and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a trouble boat in short time in
most cases. That is different than the adventurer that is crossing the
ocean and gets into trouble 1500 miles from shore. Takes more resources to
go get him.

On 6/12/2010 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote

If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
jump off a cliff is another story.

You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a
blizzard or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good
weather with all the training and skill and good judgment in the
world, **** still happens.

But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible
ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme
risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue
bills.

Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?

And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
out of a helicopter anyway?

Make them pay into a mountain rescue
fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
set a record.

So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?

When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?

Sure there is always
a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
if you go splat.

So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?

Fishing boats, pleasure boats are one thing, but a single boat setting
out for atypical sea is a different category. Put up a surety bond
payable to the country of rescue or a big insurance policy. Why should
the people of (fill in name of foreign country) have to pay tens of
thousands of dollars to rescue a kid from California that want to set a
records?

Over the last half century, how many kids wanting to set records have
had to be fished out of the ocean and how many fishing crews and
freighter crews and cruise-ship passengers have had to be fished out
of the ocean?

It's not the teenagers trying to set records that are the big expense,
it's the people who are out there every day making a living.

Are we so poor as a society that we can't afford to pull one kid out
of the ocean every half century or so?

I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships take a
lot of precautions to avoid the "**** happens" moment but it still does.

You mean you don't have any numbers? That suggests that it's not the
cost that is bothering you, but that you just plain can't stand to see
anybody having fun unless they pay a huge tax to do it.

When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
be willing to pay if they get into trouble.

What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of
precautions to avoid the **** happens moment?

And every boat is a "single boat" so how does being a "single boat"
change things?

Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore.

So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more
than 75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue
what people do with boats.

Sport
fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.

So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged for
engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like for
example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?

Coast Guard and state
marine police and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a trouble boat
in short time in most cases. That is different than the adventurer that
is crossing the ocean and gets into trouble 1500 miles from shore. Takes
more resources to go get him.

It also takes more resources to get to any other kind of vessel. So why
do you not want to charge your huge fees to ALL vessels going more than
75 miles from shore?

I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
Not even teenaged ones.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:57:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/12/2010 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote

If people did not take risks, the funding by tax dollars would not be
needed. Having a town ambulance is one thing, having a full crew for
rescue on a mountain because some idiot wanted to ski in a blizzard or
jump off a cliff is another story.

You don't have that crew because some idiot wanted to ski in a
blizzard or jump off a cliff, you have that crew because in good
weather with all the training and skill and good judgment in the
world, **** still happens.

But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on sensible
ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down the side of a
mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to take extreme
risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and pay your rescue
bills.

Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?

Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one mountain. The
person has already paid for a pass to ski there. Part of the price of
admission goes to the ski patrol, part goes to taxes to pay for higher level
services. The idiot jumping out of the helicopter is intentionally avoiding
the areas that are covered by ski patrols AND the price of admission to those
places.

And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from someone jumping
out of a helicopter anyway?

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas. Almost all the high
cost rescues are caused by such stunts. Enough that some states *are* sending
bills to the people (or their estates). How they got there is irrelevant.

Make them pay into a mountain rescue
fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all
encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to
set a record.

So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?

When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?

Silly stupid logic.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:57:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
Not even teenaged ones.

As usual, you conveniently forget to comment on some of the more
important factors, such as why is the person or people out there.
There's a hell of a difference between a boatload of fishermen who are
out there on a regular basis earning a living and a single teenager
trying to get her five minutes of fame.

Doing what you need to do to gain a living is one thing. Frivolously
doing a round the world sale for notoriety is something else entirely.
'That seems to be a common theme with you ~ the clumping of everybody
into a common group and treating them similarly when there really is a
different reason and a different mind set motivating them. And that's
the crux of this topic isn't it? The motivation behind the action. You
like to dispense with that little fact.

"J. Clarke" wrote

Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?

Accessibility for one. The second is the chances of something happening in
the first place. Some places are easier and less risky to ski, just not as
challenging for the daredevil. They often go to places more prone to
avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc.




When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?

There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean up
the mistake than the top of Everest. They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.



Sure there is always
a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
if you go splat.

So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?

Don't know, don't care, I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.



When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
be willing to pay if they get into trouble.

What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of precautions
to avoid the **** happens moment?

Sure they do, but if things do go wrong, pay the price. Why should I have
to pay?




So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more than
75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue what
people do with boats.

No tax needed, just insurance coverage. Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should" pay
for it.




Sport
fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.

So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged for
engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like for
example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?

NO fee, just insurance. Don't want to buy insurance? No problem, just put
of a $500,000 bond that will be returned when you get back to port. If you
don't think we should pay for our own risk, why not eliminate all car
insurance. All cost will be borne by the state.





I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25 footer
or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when Poseidon
hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard. Not
even teenaged ones.

That is true, there is risk. Ships do pay for taxes, insurance, and travel
in the shipping lanes. They help with economic growth of the world economy
also. The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat though. I
don't care what kind of chances you want to take, just don't expect me to
open my wallet. Going to an amusement park entails some risk too, but the
park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket price) the crews needed
to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?

On 6/12/2010 2:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote

Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain
than off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing
in general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?

Accessibility for one. The second is the chances of something happening
in the first place. Some places are easier and less risky to ski, just
not as challenging for the daredevil. They often go to places more prone
to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc.

So how much accessiblity is there on a snow covered mountain of any kind?

And do you have any numbers on skiers having to be rescued in places
"more prone to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper
terrain, etc", or is it just that you want to charge people huge fees
for doing anything of which you do not approve?

When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?

There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean
up the mistake than the top of Everest.

What clean up is needed over the top of Everest?

By the way, John Denver wasn't doing aerobatics and they still had to
hunt for him in some pretty difficult terrain. Would you have charged
him a huge fee just to fly from Denver to wherever he was going?

They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.

So? Fishing somebody out of a river isn't expensive?

Sure there is always
a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
if you go splat.

So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?

Don't know, don't care, I just don't think I should have to pay for it.

So you're fine with paying millions to clean up an airliner crash but
not with a few hundred thousand for some guy who lost it on a ski slope?

If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.

So one should only be allowed to ski at resorts? One should be
forbidden to do so in national parks and the like? Or in one's back yard?

When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
be willing to pay if they get into trouble.

What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of
precautions to avoid the **** happens moment?

Sure they do, but if things do go wrong, pay the price. Why should I
have to pay?

Why should I pay the price for a crashed commercial airliner? You're
singling out one segment that represents a small percentage of the cost
of ocean rescue and demanding that they pay exhorbitant fees that you do
not want to charge others who are collectively far more likely to use
the service.

If you want to put a tax on all ocean capable vessels in proportion to
the estimated cost of rescue that's fine, but singling out solo sailors
as being the only ones who are going to be required to pay this
exhorbitant fee is just an attempt to ban something through the back door.

So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more
than 75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue
what people do with boats.

No tax needed, just insurance coverage.

Why such insurance for ocean racers but not for containerships?

Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should"
pay for it.

Who pays for a highway cleanup after the crash? Who "should" pay for
it? Which costs society more, highway cleanups or racetrack cleanups?

Sport
fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.

So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged
for engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like
for example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?

NO fee, just insurance. Don't want to buy insurance? No problem, just
put of a $500,000 bond that will be returned when you get back to port.
If you don't think we should pay for our own risk, why not eliminate all
car insurance. All cost will be borne by the state.

So you would require any commercial fishing vessel, like, say, a
Japanese whaling ship, to buy this insurance of yours? Or just individuals?

I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25
footer or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when
Poseidon hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard.
Not even teenaged ones.

That is true, there is risk. Ships do pay for taxes, insurance, and
travel in the shipping lanes.

Abby Sunderland pays taxes and insurance and I'm sure that she paid
exactly the same fee to "travel in the shipping lanes" as any supertanker.

They help with economic growth of the
world economy also.

Oh, so you'll pay out of pocket for that but not for an individual.
Nice guy Ed.

The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat
though.

*cough* Exxon Valdez . . .

I don't care what kind of chances you want to take, just don't
expect me to open my wallet.

She was rescued by the Australians and the French so it didn't cost YOU
a damned cent. But suppose she was rescued by the US. If you run the
numbers and assume the US funded the whole operation, it took less than
a penny out of your wallet. If the 'Strine were paying full boat list
ticket price for every seat on that plane, it was about 400,000 bucks.
They did it twice. That's 800,000 (and I'm being generous--the second
time they used a bizjet that was a lot less expensive to run). Then
there's the ship--I don't know how big it is or how much fuel it uses
but it's almost certainly less than an Airbus 330 and it only had to
shut down operations for a day or so, so call it another 400,000. Now,
a bunch of people had to rush about and make phone calls and whatnot to
put the whole thing together, so call it another 400,000. That's 1.6
million dollars. Divide that by 300 million and you get half a cent.
So you really begrudge somebody HALF A GODDAMN PENNY?

If we can't afford half a cent every now and then to bail out somebody
who took a risk then we really should just pack it up and change the
name of the country from "The United States of America" to "The Nanny
States of America".

Going to an amusement park entails some
risk too, but the park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket
price) the crews needed to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?

You might want to see who comes when somebody needs rescuing at an
amusement park. I don't think you'll like it. And I don't think you'll
like they way they get paid either.

Upscale wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
: I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
: paying for the rescue efforts now?
:
:Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will simply
:exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having them, paying for
:them, if they can't be used.

: Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
: trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
: then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
: her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
: obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.

I agree.

Here in flash flood country, we have very prominnt road signs saying
"Warning: Do Not Enter When Flooding". These are often dips in the road
under a bridge, or through natural washes that route the rainfall. Every
year some idiots think they can ignore the signs, get stuck, and then have
to be rescue (which is both expensive and dangerous for the rescue
personnel). A few years ago the city started billing the rescuees, which I
think is only fair. It's one thing to gt protcted from danger by tax-funde
services, which I heartily support; it's another to willingly put yourself
(or, in the girl's case, your child) in danger. That's stupid, and those
doing it should pay the price of rescue.

-- Andy Barss

Ed Pawlowski 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

"J. Clarke" wrote

So how much accessiblity is there on a snow covered mountain of any kind?

Quite a bit on the slopes normally used for skiing. They have lifts, they
have trails for snowmobiles. The guys looking for excitement go to places
not so easily accessed and that type of terrain is what makes the trip
exciting to start with.



And do you have any numbers on skiers having to be rescued in places "more
prone to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc",
or is it just that you want to charge people huge fees for doing anything
of which you do not approve?

Never said I did not approve. I don't care what they do, but like the rest
of us, they should take responsibility for their actions and pay the
consequences. If you want to slide down the side of a mountain, go for
it, but I don't see that others should risk their lives and spend my money
to haul your body out.




There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean
up the mistake than the top of Everest.

What clean up is needed over the top of Everest?

Much if a plane doing aerobatics would crash. Spilled fuel, bit of metal
and fabric, body parts, blood stains, etc. Over a corn filed you can sweep
it up much easier.



By the way, John Denver wasn't doing aerobatics and they still had to hunt
for him in some pretty difficult terrain. Would you have charged him a
huge fee just to fly from Denver to wherever he was going?

Don't know the details of his flight, but if he was following normal
protocols, no problem. At least he was not out over the Indian Ocean.




They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.

So? Fishing somebody out of a river isn't expensive?

Cheaper than the middle of the Indian Ocean




So you're fine with paying millions to clean up an airliner crash but not
with a few hundred thousand for some guy who lost it on a ski slope?

Much of that cost is borne by the aircraft owner. They are also using
normal flight procedures, not doing experimental work.


If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.

So one should only be allowed to ski at resorts? One should be forbidden
to do so in national parks and the like? Or in one's back yard?

Never said you could not. If, however, you are pushing the sensible limits
in an unfamiliar place, don't ask me for help. To clarify, I should add,
"just for your personal fun and excitement" as opposed to real research or
exploration such as Columbus or NASA.




Why should I pay the price for a crashed commercial airliner? You're
singling out one segment that represents a small percentage of the cost of
ocean rescue and demanding that they pay exhorbitant fees that you do not
want to charge others who are collectively far more likely to use the
service.

See the line above about personal fun and excitement.


If you want to put a tax on all ocean capable vessels in proportion to the
estimated cost of rescue that's fine, but singling out solo sailors as
being the only ones who are going to be required to pay this exhorbitant
fee is just an attempt to ban something through the back door.

Nope, not at all.


No tax needed, just insurance coverage.

Why such insurance for ocean racers but not for containerships?

See my comment about personal fun and excitement.


Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should"
pay for it.

Who pays for a highway cleanup after the crash? Who "should" pay for it?
Which costs society more, highway cleanups or racetrack cleanups?

Racetrack cleanups don't cost the taxpayer anything. The rest is covered by
our tax dollars, but , it is sometimes billed to the individual's insurance.
Race car drivers and track owners take responsibility, as they should.




So you would require any commercial fishing vessel, like, say, a Japanese
whaling ship, to buy this insurance of yours? Or just individuals?

IIRC, there are some international treaties on things like that. Fishing
boats, no matter the country, are commercial ventures that add to society.
They provide food. Individual thrill seekers don't add anything for the
rest of the population.



They help with economic growth of the
world economy also.

Oh, so you'll pay out of pocket for that but not for an individual. Nice
guy Ed.

I give to charities. The guy jumping from the top of a mountain is not a
charity, just a fun seeker. Good for him, but let him pay.



The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat
though.

*cough* Exxon Valdez . . .

I never said never.


She was rescued by the Australians and the French so it didn't cost YOU a
damned cent.

Good!


That's 1.6 million dollars. Divide that by 300 million and you get half
a cent. So you really begrudge somebody HALF A GODDAMN PENNY?

There are about 250,000 half pennies taken from my paycheck every month. I
don't want any more taken out. Ben Franklin would be proud. Half penny
saved is a half penny earned.



If we can't afford half a cent every now and then to bail out somebody who
took a risk then we really should just pack it up and change the name of
the country from "The United States of America" to "The Nanny States of
America".

I want some say in the matter, not to pay for every bozo that says, "Hey
Bubba, watch this"


Going to an amusement park entails some
risk too, but the park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket
price) the crews needed to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?

You might want to see who comes when somebody needs rescuing at an
amusement park. I don't think you'll like it. And I don't think you'll
like they way they get paid either.

Often it is the local FD. They often too, get nice donations from the park.

On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed wrote:
: I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
: but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a record.


Vey well put.

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:46:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?

You really like playing the red herring card don't you? With the
thousands (and perhaps millions) of other emergency services that
operate around the clock, each individual rescue action costs
thousands and thousands of dollars.

Your comment that it works out to a .5 cent per person charge is a
truly feeble to hide the real cost factor. These costs all add up and
don't for one second make anyone think there's only a 1/2 cent risk.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:36:53 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:
"Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
most challenging sailing task does.

Garbage! It was an attention grabbing stunt combined with the fact
that she likes sailing.

It was a stunt designed exactly to grab the attention of people like
you. Seeing as how you glommed onto her exploits immediately and
regularly posted messages in rec.woodworking about her progress shows
that she succeeded in her quest.

Throw enough money and enough technology at anything and combine it
with the knowledge that rescue is usually only a radio message away
doesn't impress me as much of an accomplishment. That makes it a stunt
in my books and not much else.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed wrote:
: I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
: but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?


Half a cent here, half a cent there, pretty soon I can buy dinner and a
movie ...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed wrote:
: I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
: but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?

I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole penny
for me.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:18:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2010 4:29 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed wrote:
: I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
: but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with that. But
come on, half a cent?

I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a whole penny
for me.

I think everyone on the planet should send me a half cent. BTW, that's only
$30M, give or take, which is hardly enough to cover a rescue after every lame
stunt ever tried.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


But far less crew and expense is needed if people would stay on
sensible ski trails rather then be lifted by helicopter to ski down
the side of a mountain that is a know very high risk. If you want to
take extreme risk, go right ahead, but don't ask me to chip in and
pay your rescue bills.

How many of those extreme folks does your tax money pay to rescue? Probably
not as many as you may think. Probably, much more goes to taking care of
the more conservative folks you describe. And Ed - you're not being asked
to chip in - you already have. Your tax money is going toward offering
these services. Now you're asking to qualify what constitutes a valid
service. That sounds logical on the surface, but in reality, you're
spending more on those acceptable services than you are on the one off
extreme services.




Make them pay into a mountain rescue
fund or have insurance. I'm willing to share in the everyday risk
we all encounter, but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil
that wants to set a record.

So who pays when that crew goes and rescues the victims of a crashed
commercial airliner?

When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

Not sure the numbers would bear that out Ed.

Sure there is
always a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all
pay for some protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want
to jump your bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just
don't expect me to pay if you go splat.


You live in CT - you wouldn't pay. That said - you might do something I
would not do, and end up getting hurt. Why should I pay? Or reverse the
roles. The thing is - rescue operations exist to provide rescue services.
I've never seen one that created a list of approved activities that they
would provide those services for.


I don't know. Get some solid numbers and we can talk. Cruse ships
take a lot of precautions to avoid the "**** happens" moment but it
still does. When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the
risk and should be willing to pay if they get into trouble.

Why??? If **** happens on cruise ships, then why should **** not happen in
stunts?


Typical pleasure boating is done within a few miles of shore. Sport
fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore. Coast Guard and
state marine police and rescue patrol that area. They can be to a
trouble boat in short time in most cases. That is different than
the adventurer that is crossing the ocean and gets into trouble 1500
miles from shore. Takes more resources to go get him.

Yeahbut, they don't seem to mind having invested those resources. Why is it
so irritating to people here? In a woodworking group?

--

-Mike-

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". Define "A *lot*"

Almost all
the high cost rescues are caused by such stunts.

Bull. Provide proof.

Enough that some
states *are* sending bills to the people (or their estates). How
they got there is irrelevant.


Big deal - you haven't figured out that states are contriving all sorts of
new ways to simply get into your pocket? The fact that states are doing
anything at all to take your money is no proof of any argument short of the
greed of the states.



--

-Mike-