cavelamb wrote:


The thing that has turned this into a circus is the (dramatic drum
roll) media.

Huh??? the media coverage I've seen has been far less than a circus. The
thing I see turning this into a circus is people who feel some
self-righteous privledge to determine in their own mind, what is worthwhile
and what is folly. All based on their own preferences. I get it that such
things are natural thinking, but I sure don't agree with it.

So enlighten me - how has the media turned this into a circus?

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


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.

They are not spending your money. That money has already been allocated to
support their mission. It's not up to you and I to attempt to define what
that mission should be. They are chartered with search and rescue and they
don't have the limits within their charter that you are proposing. You've
already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service should not be
rendered.




Cheaper than the middle of the Indian Ocean

What is the cost to you and I for her rescue?





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

Depends. Experimental work is not denied search and rescue simply because
it is out of the norm.





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.


You were not asked for help. The help came from organizations that were
already chartered for that sort of thing, and from others who were willing
to help. Why is that a problem?




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

I do agree with this, but I think the discussion has progressed well beyond
this point.


--

-Mike-
.

Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote

They are not spending your money. That money has already been allocated
to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to attempt to define
what that mission should be. They are chartered with search and rescue
and they don't have the limits within their charter that you are
proposing.

True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.


You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service should
not be rendered.

No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.


What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.

"Mike Marlow" wrote

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.

What is wrong with controlling costs? What is wrong with excitement
seekers paying for their failures? IIRC, Balloon Boy parents are being
billed for some of the costs of their foolishness. They should pay. If
someone is taking risk to develop a newmilitary aircraft I have no problem
as it has a potential reward for society.





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?

When stunts are done by Evil Kenevil he pays for all sort of safety
equipment and people to be on hand in the event of failure. Same with
Hollywood stuntmen. Why should individual thrill seekers not have some
responsibility?

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

--

-Mike-



Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the country
during the year.

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


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

Not a skier - does being off designated slopes mean that skiing there is
forbidden, or something else. The word forbidden implies to me something
similar to illegal.

--

-Mike-

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote

They are not spending your money. That money has already been
allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered
with search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their
charter that you are proposing.

True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.


You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
should not be rendered.

No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I
bet they have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why
not rescue?
What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay
the same as you?

I don't have a hardcore stance that there should be no cost recovery, but
neither do I have a stance that says all costs should be borne by the
individual (or their insurance). I think I'm exploring this idea real time
via these discussions, myself.

--

-Mike-

On 6/13/2010 1:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote

They are not spending your money. That money has already been
allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered with
search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their charter
that you are proposing.

True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.

How much less?

You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
should not be rendered.

No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?

So start issuing rescue policies and convincing government agencies to
start billing rescuees.

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?

On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
"designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.

On 6/13/2010 1:29 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote

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.

What is wrong with controlling costs?

If you want to "control costs" then the one time in 50 years event is
not the one you need to work on.

What is wrong with excitement
seekers paying for their failures?

As long as you also demand that everyone else who potentially uses the
service must also pay that's fine, but you are singling out people whose
activities, even if completely curtailed, would make only a very tiny
difference in the cost of providing the service.

IIRC, Balloon Boy parents are being
billed for some of the costs of their foolishness.

A bit different case, in that the kid was never in the balloon and did
not need rescue and there is reason to believe that they were aware of this.

They should pay. If
someone is taking risk to develop a newmilitary aircraft I have no
problem as it has a potential reward for society.

So taking risks to develop weapons is OK with you?

Would you be kind enough to provide an exhaustive list of activities of
which you approve?

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?

When stunts are done by Evil Kenevil he pays for all sort of safety
equipment and people to be on hand in the event of failure. Same with
Hollywood stuntmen. Why should individual thrill seekers not have some
responsibility?

For one thing, "stunt men" are doing it as a paid job and are in an
environment in which injury is _likely_. You act like the almost
inevitable result of a solo circumnavigation attempt is a rescue. Do
you have any reason to believe this, or is it just that you, having
probably never been on a boat in your life, cannot concieve of the
notion that someone can sail across an ocean singlehanded without coming
to grief?

How many singlehanded offshore sailors have needed rescue in the past
half century? Do you have a number? If they have not been a problem,
then why should they be penalized?

On 6/13/2010 12:18 AM, 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.

Oh, booh hooh.

"J. Clarke" wrote

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
their way.




Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?

Some ambulances now bill for services.

On 6/13/2010 1:17 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.


What is "it"? If the 16yo now rescued, then probably quite correct. But
there are more than enough potential stunters to go around.

Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?

On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

--

-Mike-



Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
country during the year.

Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
rescue last year?

On 6/13/2010 9:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally
disapprove who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
their way.

You have said it in just about every post on this thread. You want the
Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond that would
effectively preclude their activities, but you have not stated that you
want the same of cruise ships and airliners and all the rest that
constitute the lion's share of rescue costs. You seem to be operating
under the fantasy that they already pay for some kind of "search and
rescue insurance".

Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?

Some ambulances now bill for services.

Does car insurance pay for it?

On 6/12/2010 9:03 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Got your head where the moon doesn't shine again I see.

You are truly clueless.

Huff n' Puff ...

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:40:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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?)

To the ski patrol? Cartainly not, as that is a private enterprise run by the
ski area. There is no guarantee that the helicopter service is even from the
same area, so yes, I do know.

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*"

Do you know anything about skiing? There are marked trails. Skiing off the
trail is *forbidden*.

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

Bull. Provide proof.

Do you ever watch the news?

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.

Nonsense. This started over a decade ago. It's intended to tell people
"DON'T DO THAT".

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:02:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

s/slopes/trails/

Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:43:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

Not a skier - does being off designated slopes mean that skiing there is
forbidden, or something else. The word forbidden implies to me something
similar to illegal.

It is forbidden. It will get you tossed from the ski area and if a rescue is
required will usually get the bill (often five figures) sent to you.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:00:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


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

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

So according to you anything which is not explicitly permitted is
forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to ski are
"designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid people to
walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.

Ever hear of hiking trails? In many places, getting caught hiking off them
gets you fined, so yes.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:58:58 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote

They are not spending your money. That money has already been
allocated to support their mission. It's not up to you and I to
attempt to define what that mission should be. They are chartered with
search and rescue and they don't have the limits within their charter
that you are proposing.

True, but less money would be spent if daredevils paid their own way.

How much less?

Less public money, surely.

You've already paid - but now you're suggesting that the service
should not be rendered.

No, I never said that. I said risk taker should pay their own way. Big
difference. Put up a surety bond or get an insurance policy. I bet they
have a policy to cover a lot of other potential losses, why not rescue?

So start issuing rescue policies and convincing government agencies to
start billing rescuees.

They have. It will get more widespread. Probably too widespread because of
such stunts.

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Other already to. They pay for insurance and pay taxes for emergency
services.

Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?

Yes, it does, for perils covered under the policy. I don't think towing from
the Indian Ocean is covered under most, though.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:11:44 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally disapprove
who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
their way.




Is auto insurance more costly for a 17 year old? Why don't they pay the
same as you?

Does auto insurance pay the rescue service?

Some ambulances now bill for services.

They have for at *least* 20 years.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:13:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'm willing to share in the everyday risk we all encounter,
but I'm not willing to pay for every daredevil that wants to set a
record.


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

--

-Mike-



Not this particular one, but thee are plenty of others around the
country during the year.

Oh, how many singlehanded circumnavigators "around the country" needed
rescue last year?

Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass, but any
other stunters shouldn't. Got it.

Mike Marlow wrote:

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

There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. At least the chick is
keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...

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

What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for any
accidents. Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.

What also irritates me is some people are doing the same **** not for
fun, but for MONEY, and damned if I don't have to foot the bill for any
accidents those greedy *******s have...

And what about those dammed murdercycle people and the goofy bike riders
with the funky helmets that get run over by innocent guys like me in my
pickup, hauling wood for some bird feeders I'm making for the needy
wildlife?

--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

Why is it only people who take risks of which you personally
disapprove who must "take responsibility for their actions"?

Show me where I said that. Everyone should take responsibility for their
actions. I don't disapprove of the risk, only that others should pay
their way.

You have said it in just about every post on this thread.

Show me where I said I disapprove. Never said that. They can do as they
please, but should take responsibility.

You want the Abby Sunderlands of the world to put up some huge bond that
would effectively preclude their activities,

Why would it preclude their activities? What is the cost of the boat and
outfitting of it? Quite a tidy sum and insurance would just be another part
of the cost of doing business, just as we all pay now.

On Jun 13, 11:57*am, Jack Stein wrote:

There is absolutely no need to go flitting around on a cruise ship,
stuffing yo-self with life threatening food. *At least the chick is
keeping her mind and body in good shape so the gov'ment don't hafta
stick a stint in her blood stream to keep her alive...

Like Dick Cheney's?


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

What irritates me is some people are running dangerous table saws,
jointers, BS and so on for no reason other than pleasure, risking life
and limb for their own self-gratification, and now I have to pay for any
accidents. *

Some of them are in wheelchairs, raising the risk even more.

You have no class. Best you be careful, karma is a bitch.


What also irritates me is ...........

You're so irritable!!

Lobby Dosser wrote:

How did the media get involved to begin with? Do you know?

The were reading Lew an Rec.wood....
--
Jack
From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
http://jbstein.com

"J. Clarke" wrote

Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"? How about
ocean sailing on the same boat with a crew? Or is it the age? What is
the demarcation between "sporting activity" and "stunting"?


There are a lot of factors. Sporting is skiing down the patrolled slopes.
Stunting would be going off a cliff not patrolled and seen as risky.
Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building, stunting is
base jumping from it. Maturity and skill level are more important than
age.

I once took a small (14') boat out in the ocean on a day that I should not
have. We realized this but could not safely turn around right away. Once
past the breakwater we turned around and came back into the bay. Staying
out there would have been foolhardy, going back was prudent.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.

I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.

--

-Mike-

J. Clarke wrote:

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

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

Oh, booh hooh.

This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made the
damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs money
whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used for
practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred. Not
"much more" is of course, relative.


--
Jack
Mr. Geithner, May I Borrow Your TurboTax?
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:

What is wrong with controlling costs?

If you want to "control costs" then the one time in 50 years event is
not the one you need to work on.

Hey, Ali-Boma spent $14,500,000,000 (that's $14.5 BILLION) just to COUNT
how many people we got. That's a kool $50 a person. The dumb ****
could have paid ACORN $5 a pop to count everyone and the number would
have been distributed more to his liking...

Or, simply paid everyone to show up with some ID and pay them $50 a head
to count themselves.... Thats $200 for a family of four. I'd have
taken the government bus downtown with my families birth certificates
and SS cards for 200 bucks and I don't even live near a border....

--
Jack
A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com

Lobby Dosser 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?



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

I'd rather see my tax dollars spent rescuing a teenager attempting to
set a would record than to pay the cost of a presidential snack:

http://americanbullmoose.com/content...send-us-a-card

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

s/slopes/trails/

Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.

I don't think so. On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
That's different. Not so much on open land or land that is not owned by a
resort. There is nothing stopping or even forbidden about skiing on land
that is just open land - not related to a resort. That would be a closer
analogy to open water boating.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:03:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Ah, so you think "singlehanded circumnavigators" should get a pass,
but any other stunters shouldn't. Got it.

I don't get where the "stunter" thing comes from. She is a very capable
sailor with the proper equipment. She set out upon a quest for a record
that is very germain to her area of interest. If she were 21, or 41, or 54,
would it have still been a stunt? If she were enlisted in the US Navy,
would it have still been a stunt? Her attempt was very much an attempt that
others who sail would try. Just don't understand the use of the word stunt.

Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the *youngest* to do
something dangerous. It was a particularly dangerous time of the year to be
doing this. She couldn't wait because by the time it was safER, she would no
longer qualify for being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.

Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers. Climbers,
also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for emergency services on the
mountain.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Come on, she was out there with the express intent to be the
*youngest* to do something dangerous. It was a particularly
dangerous time of the year to be doing this. She couldn't wait
because by the time it was safER, she would no longer qualify for
being the *youngest*. You bet it's a stunt.

I guess it's all in how you define stunt. Sure she was after a record -
what's wrong with that? She's more adventurous than you, or me, or most of
us here - big deal. You just described why she went when she did - that
does not really make it a stunt to me. It was a record attempt.


Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
Climbers, also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for
emergency services on the mountain.

What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you get a
speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to pay for his
services in stopping you and administering the law since you were doing a
stunt by speeding?

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

What if you require emergency services in your shop? What is you get a
speeding ticket by the local cop? Should you be required to pay for his
services in stopping you and administering the law since you were doing a
stunt by speeding?

You can't even quote a valid example. Up here in Ontario, Canada,
doing 50km/h an hour or more over the speed limit qualifies as stunt
driving. The driver's license is taken, the car is impounded for 7
days and between fines and insurance rate increases, it will cost him
thousands of dollars if convicted. So, yes, there are consequences for
driving too fast.

wrote

Yes, and climbing Mt. Everest is still a stunt, even out of diapers.
Climbers,
also, should be required to buy insurance to pay for emergency services on
the
mountain.


Best way to climb Everest is with one of the companies that organize such a
thing. Cost is $65,000
http://www.alpineascents.com/everest.asp
While still a very tough climb, they have made it easier these days.

Note this:
Emergency: In case of emergency and at any time during the expedition,
Alpine Ascents and its staff will use all resources available to rescue and
evacuate injured climbers. From base camp, helicopter rescue is possible.
Above base camp, an emergency situation can only be handled with the
resources of the expedition and other expeditions in the area. Any
additional cost involved in an emergency will be the responsibility of the
climbing member(s) requiring immediate medical attention and/or evacuation.