Lew Hodgett wrote:

: The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".

: "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
: most challenging sailing task does.

Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
was young enough to set a record?

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.

-- Andy Barss

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

: Except that neither of you are paying for it.

Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.

-- Andy BArss

On 6/13/2010 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"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.

I see. So it's "stunting" if it is not done in an area that is "patrolled"?

Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building,
stunting is base jumping from it.

I see. So the risk of injury to others doesn't enter into it either.

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.

Pity there was nobody around to charge you a million dollar rescue
insurance premium before you engaged in such a stunt.

On 6/13/2010 1:19 PM, Nova wrote:
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

So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.

On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew wrote:

: The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".

: "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
: most challenging sailing task does.

Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
was young enough to set a record?

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.

Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
circumnavigator?

On 6/13/2010 11:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"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.

But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
very strong that there are certain activities that one should be allowed
to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance fee, and
others for which one should be required to pay such a fee, with the
requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing to do with
the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such activities.

So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
approve or disapprove of such and such activity.


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.

What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been
talking about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to
solo circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their
rescue should such be needed. If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out a
single group which historically has made little use of rescue services,
and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for the cost of
rescue.

"J. Clarke" wrote
She and/or her parents are fame seekers.

Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
circumnavigator?


So what? They wanted a double dose of fame maybe? They'd be not only the
youngest male, the youngest female, the most in a family, the most advance
for movie rights, etc.

"J. Clarke" wrote


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

But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
very strong that there are certain activities that one should be allowed
to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance fee, and
others for which one should be required to pay such a fee, with the
requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing to do with
the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such activities.

But that has nothing at all to do with approval or disapproval aside from
YOUR translation. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything they want to
do.


So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
approve or disapprove of such and such activity.

Nope, my personal feeling have nothing to do with it.




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.

What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been talking
about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to solo
circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their rescue
should such be needed.


I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
person/boat/voyage.
I'm talking about a lot of suspect activities that may put a strain on
resources because some thrill seeker wants to orgasm in some strange way.
I never said a fee, I said insurance or a surety bond, payable to the rescue
country. I don't want to pay for your foolishness.


If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would be
making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out a
single group which historically has made little use of rescue services,
and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for the cost of
rescue.

Even though you refuse to see the difference, there is.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

s/slopes/trails/

Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.

I don't think so.

I *know* you're wrong.

On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
That's different.

No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public agency
assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done all the time in
the NE. I'm sure the West is no 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.

Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups will send
you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone. Always. Get caught
in there and you'll be paying for more than a rescue.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


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

As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only forbidden at the
resort.

WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond is
FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.

There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it - open
skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden about either.

Absolutely clueless.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:14:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew wrote:

: The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".

: "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
: most challenging sailing task does.

Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
was young enough to set a record?

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.

Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
circumnavigator?

Exactly. He is no longer eligible for that title. She *was*.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:19:12 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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....

Hell, for $100 maybe they could have even counted us.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:13:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:19 PM, Nova wrote:
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

So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.

By implication; two wrongs make a right. Got it.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:11:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"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.

I see. So it's "stunting" if it is not done in an area that is "patrolled"?

No, it's "stunting" if it's an unusual and dangerous endeavor. Add three
points for one that is sure to get widespread press coverage.

Sporting is running down the steps in the Empire State Building,
stunting is base jumping from it.

I see. So the risk of injury to others doesn't enter into it either.

A Winter sea rescue is risking injury to others. Though I haven't seen that
as a criteria here.

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.

Pity there was nobody around to charge you a million dollar rescue
insurance premium before you engaged in such a stunt.

Who said the premium should be $1M for a day sail? This is a pretty normal
event. A teen sailing in the South Seas in the winter is not, pretty much the
reason she was there, i.e. a pretty good definition of a "stunt".

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

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.

The definition of the word is not important. The fact that she did what she
did, apparently leaving other to pay, is.

Sure she was after a record - what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Leaving others with the cleanup is.

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.

No, it was a stunt, not a lot different than Evel Knievel's jumping of the
Snake River Canyon. Whether you or I would do it is irrelevant, other than to
point out that it is "not normal" (stunt points).

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?

My taxes pay for it, and you bet my insurance company will also pay. Last
ambulance ride my wife took (15 years ago) cost over $500, for the mile. Yes,
my insurance forked over, after the deductible.

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 bet. Most such stops are a money grab.

On 6/13/2010 4:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote


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

But only the ones engaging in activities of which you approve. You may
not even be aware of what you are saying, but the implication there is
very strong that there are certain activities that one should be
allowed to engage in without paying an exhorbitant rescue insurance
fee, and others for which one should be required to pay such a fee,
with the requirement for a fee not actually having the slightest thing
to do with the historical cost of rescuing persons engaging in such
activities.

But that has nothing at all to do with approval or disapproval aside
from YOUR translation. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything they
want to do.

So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for singling
out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your rescue
insurance and not another? So far you have not given any rational
basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another is
not. Can you (a) define "stunt" in a manner which allows no room for
opinion and (b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?

So the criterion, whether you like it or not, is that you personally
approve or disapprove of such and such activity.

Nope, my personal feeling have nothing to do with it.

So give us your dispassionate rational basis.

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.

What makes you think she doesn't have insurance? You haven't been
talking about insurance, you've been talking about a fee, specific to
solo circumnavigators, to be paid up front, to cover the cost of their
rescue should such be needed.


I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
person/boat/voyage.

Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so
mightily distressed, it seems germaine.

I'm talking about a lot of suspect activities that may put a strain on
resources because some thrill seeker wants to orgasm in some strange
way. I never said a fee, I said insurance or a surety bond, payable to
the rescue country. I don't want to pay for your foolishness.

Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that
comes out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's. If instead
of quibbling over nomenclature you would address the reason that
particular activities should be required to pay it while others that
place greater strain on rescue capabilities are not required to pay it
then perhaps some progress might be made.


If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
the cost of rescue.

Even though you refuse to see the difference, there is.

So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
appeals to emotion.

Mike Marlow wrote:
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.

You know, like Amelia Earhart except in a boat. Chas Lindbergh is
another stunter... History is abounding with crazies trying to break
records, be the first, or just push themselves to the limit.

Personally, I'd much rather spend a few pennies rescuing those that fall
short than to pay 1% sales tax to build the BILLIONAIRE Rooney's a
football stadium so Big Ben can chase 20 year olds around with his dick
swinging in the breeze, or some loser $50 just to count me in the census.

Now in my town, the county swimming pool had a high dive and 4 regular
diving boards, plus a metal slide in the baby pool. The pool is still
there, but not one diving board and no slide, in fact, I don't think any
public pools having diving boards or slides anymore... way too
dangerous... Life is so much better now, eh?

--
Jack
Take risks: If you win, you will be happy; if you lose, you will be wise
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:21:14 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
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.

You know, like Amelia Earhart except in a boat. Chas Lindbergh is
another stunter... History is abounding with crazies trying to break
records, be the first, or just push themselves to the limit.

Personally, I'd much rather spend a few pennies rescuing those that fall
short than to pay 1% sales tax to build the BILLIONAIRE Rooney's a
football stadium so Big Ben can chase 20 year olds around with his dick
swinging in the breeze, or some loser $50 just to count me in the census.

So, you too agree that two wrongs make a right.

Now in my town, the county swimming pool had a high dive and 4 regular
diving boards, plus a metal slide in the baby pool. The pool is still
there, but not one diving board and no slide, in fact, I don't think any
public pools having diving boards or slides anymore... way too
dangerous... Life is so much better now, eh?

Different subject, but no, I don't much like ambulance chasers or those
get-rich-quick assholes either.

J. Clarke wrote:
Nova wrote:

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

So right there Barack Obama wasted about the same amount of the
taxpayers' money as it would have cost to rescue Abby Sunderland. But
that was "sporting" or something so I guess it's all right.

If the SAR guys make as much per hour as the SS agents, and the
operating cost of a plane, not counting the plane, is 100 g's an hour,
then I'm out, don't wanna pay for none of it...

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

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.

My point is the half cent cost figure was made up to make a point, and
suddenly thats the cost. Hell, it could be $5 for all anyone knows.
At 1/2 cent each, the cost would be about $1.5 MILLION. Possible, but
then someone is making a bundle...

Also, SAR units costs are not much more if used than if they sit around
playing checkers... Few bucks for gas and your good to go, right?


--
Jack
Living is like licking honey off a thorn!
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:03:09 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

I'm sure that Airbus A330 and crew wasn't cheap.

My point is the half cent cost figure was made up to make a point, and
suddenly thats the cost. Hell, it could be $5 for all anyone knows.
At 1/2 cent each, the cost would be about $1.5 MILLION. Possible, but
then someone is making a bundle...

1/2 cent times 6B is $30M. China and Bangladesh have to pay too.

The point is that it's not the amount of money per person. It's about taking
responsibility.

Also, SAR units costs are not much more if used than if they sit around
playing checkers... Few bucks for gas and your good to go, right?

Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...
That must be why we got the $500 tab for my wife to ride a mile in an
ambulance fifteen years ago; all the firemen were all sitting around doing
nothing anyway.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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 may well be illegal if Forest Service regs prohibit skiing in that area.
Usually it means you have a higher probability of getting lost, injured, or
killed and it will be the Last place searched for your remains.

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


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

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


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

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

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

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




Do you have a Strawman construction permit?

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
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


And people say Usenet groups are dead!

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew wrote:

: The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".

: "Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
: most challenging sailing task does.

Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in the
Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make sure she
was young enough to set a record?

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.

Uh, if it's fame they want, their other kid already had it. Or have you
missed the fact that her brother for a brief time was the youngest solo
circumnavigator?



Yeah, but what had they done lately?

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


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

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


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

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

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

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




Do you have a Strawman construction permit?

You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off designated
slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there were
officials going around designating slopes.

"J. Clarke" wrote

So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for singling
out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your rescue
insurance and not another?

My rational was explained in my first post. If you want to take risk, go
right ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your cleanup. Pretty simple eh?


So far you have not given any rational
basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another is
not.

Stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport. Many names can be
applied. They differ from normal voyages. Crossing the sea in a small boat,
skiing in risky places normally inaccessible would qualify.



(b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?

I'm not inclined to look, but feel free to report back if you do.




I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
person/boat/voyage.

Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so mightily
distressed, it seems germaine.

Never said I was distressed, that is your reading and misinterpretation. I
just stated an opinion on the cost of rescue and who should pay. If she
breaks a record or not, my life is not going to change. I'm still getting up
at 5:30 tomorrow and going to work. I'll probably have an egg and toast for
breakfast.



Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that comes
out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's.

Correct. I just don't want it to come out of my pocket. I'm happy to pay
for police and fire protection, a strong military, paved roads. I don't
want to pay for sports stadiums used commercially, or cleanup for someone's
frivolity.




If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
the cost of rescue.

In many cases others do pay. Just because they may historically use little
service, thee is still a danger and cost that is not needed. So you think
it is OK if someone picks your pocket as long as they only take a little of
your money?




So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
appeals to emotion.

I've been trying logic, but you seem to put emotion into it. It was you
that called me dispassionate.

wrote
Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...


That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and then
enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for help. They
come bring you back for free.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:08:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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


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

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


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

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

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

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




Do you have a Strawman construction permit?

You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off designated
slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before there were
officials going around designating slopes.

You wonder? There wasn't an intrusive government or a few million ambulance
chasers.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:05:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
Really? Quantas leases AirBus A330s for free? I could use a vacation...


That is not exactly that way it works. You buy a one way ticket and then
enjoy the vacation until you run out of money. Then call for help. They
come bring you back for free.

Ah! Got it. Maybe I could sport an Aussie accent and claim that my yacht
crashed here, then have American Airlines to take me over there. When I've
seen enough...

Upscale wrote:
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.

Stop it. I did not suggest there were not consequences for driving too
fast. Go back and read the thought before twisting it. I asked a question
based on the claims to charge people for things that some think are
inappropriate use of resources. I'm trying to tie that idea to more common
day to day occurrances.

--

-Mike-

Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

The last thing Abby is looking for is "her five minutes of fame".

"Fame" doesn't have squat to do with it; however, accomplishing the
most challenging sailing task does.

Then why did she leave port when very bad weather was guaranteed in
the Indian Ocean, instead of waiting till December? If not to make
sure she was young enough to set a record?

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.


DUH! All people who seek to break records are fame seekers. What does that
matter?

--

-Mike-

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

"J. Clarke" wrote

So what _is_ your completely dispassionate, rational basis for
singling out one class of voyage as being required to purchase your
rescue insurance and not another?

My rational was explained in my first post. If you want to take risk, go
right ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your cleanup. Pretty simple eh?

So you would favor the same charges being levied against tankers,
container ships, cruise ships, commercial fishing vessels, commercial
airliners, and the like as against singlehanded sailors?

So far you have not given any rational
basis, only argued that one class of voyage is a "stunt" and another
is not.

Stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport. Many names can be
applied. They differ from normal voyages. Crossing the sea in a small
boat, skiing in risky places normally inaccessible would qualify.

So define these terms in such a way that a person from another planet
can figure out what is "stunt, thrill seeking, risk taking, extreme sport".

(b) show that voyages that you consider to be "stunts" are
actuarially more costly than other types of voyages?

I'm not inclined to look, but feel free to report back if you do.

Doesn't work that way. You're the one who wants to levy the charge,
it's up to you to prove that the charge is justified.

I'm talking generalities but you are trying to tie this to one
person/boat/voyage.

Since one person/boat/voyage required the rescue that has you so
mightily distressed, it seems germaine.

Never said I was distressed,

So how many messages have you posted on this topic?

that is your reading and misinterpretation.

When someone posts messages whining about something, that is generally
an indication that they are upset about it. If you don't want to be
thought upset, then do not whine.

I just stated an opinion on the cost of rescue and who should pay. If
she breaks a record or not, my life is not going to change. I'm still
getting up at 5:30 tomorrow and going to work. I'll probably have an egg
and toast for breakfast.

So why do you need to post messages about it?

Fee, insurance, surety bond, queen of the May, it's still money that
comes out of someone's pocket and goes into someone else's.

Correct. I just don't want it to come out of my pocket. I'm happy to pay
for police and fire protection, a strong military, paved roads. I don't
want to pay for sports stadiums used commercially, or cleanup for
someone's frivolity.

Define "frivolity" in an objective way. Greenpeace would argue that
Japanese whaling ships are "frivoloties" so if "frivoloties" are to be
charged in case they need rescue, then Japanese whaling ships would need
to be charged this fee.

But just the fact that you say "frivolity" says that you have made the
judgment that you deny that you have made.

If you were talking about a fee to be
paid by EVERY SHIP IN THE OCEAN to cover the cost of rescues you would
be making a reasonable argument, but you are not, you are singling out
a single group which historically has made little use of rescue
services, and insisting that they and they alone be charged fees for
the cost of rescue.

In many cases others do pay.

Who pays, and who do they pay?

Just because they may historically use
little service, thee is still a danger and cost that is not needed. So
you think it is OK if someone picks your pocket as long as they only
take a little of your money?

Making use of a government service available to all at need is not
"picking my pocket", it is picking _everybody_'s pocket in a way that
the political process has approved.

So explain the difference in terms of logic rather than in terms of
appeals to emotion.

I've been trying logic, but you seem to put emotion into it. It was you
that called me dispassionate.

No, you have not made one single logical argument that shows that your
fee is necessary or desirable. The only thing that you have argued is
that you don't want to pay for something you consider to be a
"frivolity" but then you have denied and denied and denied and denied
that you have made a value judgment.

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

Ed and I were talking about the general case of foolhardy risk junkies
and fame seekers,, not (just) this one example.


and my response still applies. You aren't paying for that - it's already in
the funding for the SAR service.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

s/slopes/trails/

Areas where the ski patrol doesn't.

I don't think so.

I *know* you're wrong.

You know no such thing. Show me the law that prohibits skiing in areas
other than ski resorts.


On the private property of a ski resort - sure/maybe.
That's different.

No, it's not different. You ski off the trails and require public
agency assistance, chances are you *will* be sent a bill. It's done
all the time in the NE. I'm sure the West is no different.

Off the trails??? I'm talking about non-ski resort areas. There is no
requirement anywhere - in the NE or anywhere else, to ski only in ski
resorts. I live in the NE and I do know that it's pure bull to state that
the chances are you will be sent a bill for rescue efforts. Maybe in some
areas, but certainly not to the extent to say that you will most likely.
You see - I know - I have performed those services. What have you done to
make you so confident?


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.

Yes, even in non-resort areas the state or local emergency groups
will send you a bill. Many public areas are off-limits to everyone.
Always. Get caught in there and you'll be paying for more than a
rescue.

Pure bull. That is pure unadulterated bull. Maybe in some areas that is
true, but that is far from the norm. You might need to travel outside of
your own local area.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

As I stated - not a skier. However - off the trail is only
forbidden at the resort.

WRONG! The resort also marks the end of their trails. Skiing beyond
is FORBIDDEN. In many cases, you *will* be prosecuted.

Argh!!! You don't get it do you? There are no laws that prohibit skiing in
areas besides resorts. You will *not* be prosecuted for skiing in areas
besides resorts. Try harder to follow the thoughts here.


There is nothing forbidden about skiing open land. To rephrase -
nothing that requires skiing only at ski resorts. Think about it -
open skiing is just like open water boating. Nothing forbidden
about either.

Absolutely clueless.

That makes a great sig line for you.

--

-Mike-

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

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.

The definition of the word is not important. The fact that she did
what she did, apparently leaving other to pay, is.

Oh - not important. You use the words then you back out. Ok - I get it.
You are just jealous because she got something out of this that you don't
get in your life. Oh well...


Sure she was after a record - what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Leaving others with the cleanup is.

She has not at all been proven to be leaving anyone with any cleanup.


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.

No, it was a stunt, not a lot different than Evel Knievel's jumping
of the Snake River Canyon. Whether you or I would do it is
irrelevant, other than to point out that it is "not normal" (stunt
points).


Whatever...


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?

My taxes pay for it, and you bet my insurance company will also pay.
Last ambulance ride my wife took (15 years ago) cost over $500, for
the mile. Yes, my insurance forked over, after the deductible.


So - both your taxes and the contributions of the other policy holders in
your insurance company will foot the bill for your stunt. Clearly your
premiums were not enough to cover the cost of surgery (think shared risk),
so you are benefiting from someone else cleaning up your mess. But that's
different, isn't it?


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 bet. Most such stops are a money grab.

You bet? Not a doubt in my mind that you'd be at the front of the line
bitching if you got a speeding ticket and were then served with charges for
the use of the cop's car, equipment, time, etc. in observing your actions,
chasing you down, writing the ticket, etc.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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.


Then think of it as Personal Responsibility. If you go off slope and are
injured, you subject those involved in SAR to an unnecessary risk. If you
drink and drive, you subject your passengers and everyone else along your
route to an unnecessary risk.

The captain of the fishing vessel that picked up Sunderland II went into the
water. He was OK, but he was subjected to an unnecessary risk. I imagine he
has dreams and if he has children, they also have dreams. Should he have
been subjected to that risk because a 16 year old from the US had a "dream"?

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:

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

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

Oh, booh hooh.

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

They charter airliners for practice missions?