wrote in message
...
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.

Precisely! And that attitude carries over to the rest of life. The
Sunderland children are getting a great education on saying 'screw everyone
else, If I want to drive drunk, I will'.

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.


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

Do you consider singlehanded ocean sailing to be "stunting"?

When it's been done, yes. When the first thing you do is hire PR and
'technical spokespersons', yes. When you're lining up the book tours, yes.
When you advertise your blog, yes. When you do all that **** Before you even
leave port, then EMPHATICALLY yes.

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

See above.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 7:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

--

-Mike-



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

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


You got this Strawman thing down pat!

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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.

He just did.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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.

So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

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


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

Including the charter of an aircraft?

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


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

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


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

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

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

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




Do you have a Strawman construction permit?

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


When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the woods?
Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good reasons.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
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.

Northwest.

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

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

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

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

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


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

Absolutely clueless.

That makes a great sig line for you.

Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness area, No
Problem! Wide open spaces!

Have Fun!!

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

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

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

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

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.


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


Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
Family comes to mind.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??

But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the comments
have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions like this, and
that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.

--

-Mike-

Lobby Dosser wrote:

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.

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't do
anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided? That would indeed represent personal responsibility,
wouldn't it? But many would still have their undies in a wad over the 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"?

Ok - he went into the water. People that lead that kind of life lead a life
full of risk that would seem foreign to most in a group like this. Why is
this group so wadded up over this when I have not heard these same concerns
from those who were actually involved in the SAR effort.


--

-Mike-

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

He just did.

Not at all.

--

-Mike-

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

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

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

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

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.


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


Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
Family comes to mind.

Not so evident. They planned on taking advantage of currently available
resources and capabilities, should they need to - just as any sailor would.
What we have no knowledge of at this point, is whether they will be
presented with a bill, and whether they will pay that bill. Yeah - they
walked on a thinner line than most of us would, but that does not define a
lack of personal responsibility.

--

-Mike-

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

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


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

Including the charter of an aircraft?

May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to do
just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself, but I
would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their operational
plan all along. But back to the comments that have appeared here - that
charter airplane did not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny - or
even a half a penny.

--

-Mike-

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

Northwest.

Don't get what you're trying to say here Lobby. I know the north west does
not ban the use of open land for activities. There is wide open
snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, swimming, and all sorts of activities. They
are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted within the
confines of an established buisiness.

--

-Mike-

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely clueless.

That makes a great sig line for you.

Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!

Have Fun!!

I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored areas I've
never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In fact - it
happens every day.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:52:15 -0500, "
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.

He's **** disturbing. It's his nature

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
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.

Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.

Just because someone may not be fined for going into those outside
areas does not mean there's no control or law affecting that area.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't do
anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided?

So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.

Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
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.

Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.


There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a red
herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been about
trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not realize the amount
of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc. that takes place.
To suggest that the only lawful and proper manner of participating is within
the confines of an established business is... well, foolish.

Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski slopes, etc.
There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land under the control of
parks, that allow free range type activities. Not at all restricted to a
ski slope.

As it relates to the conversation at hand - Abby was well within the
"designated" areas on her little jaunt. Not trespassing at all. So - what
is your point?

Man - this thing is getting dragged in all sorts of rediculous directions...


Just because someone may not be fined for going into those outside
areas does not mean there's no control or law affecting that area.

Oye...

--

-Mike-

On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
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 ...


Like I said:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...-rss&FEEDNAME=


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

Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has
positioned personal responsibility as don't do anything that I
wouldn't do, or don't do anything with any risk. Once this plays
out, what if we discover that the Sunderland family reimburses the
French vessel and the Aussies for all services provided?

So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.

No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting back at
your computer terminals whining about someone doing something outside of
your own personal scope of interest, and coming up with all sorts of off the
wall requirements for the world to live by.

--

-Mike-

On Jun 14, 10:25*am, Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't do
anything with any risk. *Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided?

So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.

That'd be 300 grand they won't be paying.

http://tinyurl.com/25pvnfv

On Jun 14, 11:00*am, Swingman wrote:
On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:





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...on-wants-to-we...

And all equally disgusting ...

Like I said:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...set_cour_for_t...

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

Sortakinda has a BalloonBoyDad-ish feel to it, eh?

Follow the money, or the pursuit thereof.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"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!

Well, since not many used them anyway, and now the major carriers
(comcast and verison) have stopped providing them for no [valid] reason,
they are not dead, but, certainly an endangered species.

--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video..._051410_B.html

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Not particularly. I don't think its wrong to provide SAR services to
anyone that needs it, nor do I think its wrong for my insurance provider
(now the government I guess) to provide some clown that wants to risk
cutting his hand off with a table saw when he is not earning a living
with the saw, or is in a wheelchair making the risk even higher. I
certainly understand those that think everyone should pay their own way
based on risk, like, why should I pay for those stupid enough to live 12
feet below sea level, or in a fire/earth quake/mud slide zone. At any
rate, I don't mind the very small amount it costs me to rescue the likes
of Abby or Ameila as opposed to spending 1% of everything I buy on the
freaking Pittsburgh Steelers.

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.

It's not the exact same subject, but removing all danger from society is
really, really a boring idea. I saw guys in wheelchairs flying around
on skateboard ramps, doing somersaults, landing on their heads and doing
the dumbest, craziest **** I've seen. I could barely watch it was so
nasty, but, if they want to do it and break an arm, or neck, I don't
want some flipping government hack saying they won't pay for their
medical care because their activity was "too risky" and not something
normal people would participate in. Same with Upscale using a table saw
in a wheelchair. If he gets hurt, I want his government to pay, and same
with Abby floating around the ocean like a fool, or a pack of fat ass
senior citizens floating around on a cruise ship stuffing their face
with shrimp cocktail for no damned reason other than they want to.

--
Jack
What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving.
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:59:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski slopes, etc.
There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land under the control of
parks, that allow free range type activities. Not at all restricted to a
ski slope.

Let me ask you Mike. You've heard warnings about avalanches. But you
decide to go into those off areas anyway. Something happens and you
need rescue to get out. Do you bear any responsibility at all for
venturing into an area that you were warned could be dangerous?

You did something stupid. No law against that. Does anybody ever bear
any responsibility for being stupid?

Sunderland went sailing in the worst part of the season. Enough
experienced sailors advised against it to make her choice a rash
decision, but she went anyway. Does she bear any responsibility for
it?

What she was doing was not a necessary part of living life. It was a
choice she make to get a thrill at the very least, and make herself
famous at best. And yet, here you are trying to convince me she
doesn't bear a shred of responsibility??? You'd have a better chance
of convincing me that Gates is my long lost brother and he wants to
give me several billion dollars.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:01:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting back at
your computer terminals whining about someone doing something outside of
your own personal scope of interest, and coming up with all sorts of off the
wall requirements for the world to live by.

You don't comprehend too well do you? I and the rest of my behind the
monitor computer cadres don't give a rat's ass what stupid ass things
people like to do. What we do care about is that all those stupid ass
things cost public money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort
of costly rescue or medical service is required to bail them out.

Is that so hard to understand?

Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:59:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski
slopes, etc. There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land
under the control of parks, that allow free range type activities.
Not at all restricted to a ski slope.

Let me ask you Mike. You've heard warnings about avalanches. But you
decide to go into those off areas anyway. Something happens and you
need rescue to get out. Do you bear any responsibility at all for
venturing into an area that you were warned could be dangerous?

You did something stupid. No law against that. Does anybody ever bear
any responsibility for being stupid?


Ahhh - you ask a completely different question here. I've said that I'm big
on personal responsibility, so my answer to your question is yes, I do
believe she bears responsibility. That said, what I've been saying is that
there are services in place that are already funded to aid in situations,
and because they exist for this reason, I don't fall into lock step with the
clamor that she should bear all of the costs - regardless of whether there
has even been a request issued for reimbursement. I would not argue that
she should have no responsibility to the cost, and in fact, I never have
argued that. What I've said is that there are organizations that are
already funded to provide SAR, and simply using those services does not
automatically constitute a requirement for compensation. There have been
voices here that have clamored for cost coverage, even in advance of any
such request from the providers. Most of those have been based on the
writer's belief in what is acceptable by their definition, and what is not.
I have been involved in SAR with organizations that never expected
compensation. For those who are uniformed to insist that this should be
paid for at all costs, clearly do not understand the world of SAR. There is
not always a cost associated with an effort.

Sunderland went sailing in the worst part of the season. Enough
experienced sailors advised against it to make her choice a rash
decision, but she went anyway. Does she bear any responsibility for
it?

We are not in disagreement on this point.


What she was doing was not a necessary part of living life. It was a
choice she make to get a thrill at the very least, and make herself
famous at best. And yet, here you are trying to convince me she
doesn't bear a shred of responsibility??? You'd have a better chance
of convincing me that Gates is my long lost brother and he wants to
give me several billion dollars.

Most SAR efforts are associated with non life essential endeavors. It's the
nature of things. I don't want you to misinterpret my arguments in such a
way as to believe I see no responsibility on her part. But then again -
almost all SAR has personal responsibility associated with it. If we draw
the line at life essential activities, then the vast majority of SARs will
bill individuals. That may not be a bad thing in the end, but it is a very
different thing than what exists now. It may not be the best thing either,
since these organizations are funded by tax money already paid by those who
receive the service. I just do not believe this kind of thing is a clear
cut issue.

--

-Mike-

Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:01:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

No - I'm trying to prove how foolish you guys look that are sitting
back at your computer terminals whining about someone doing
something outside of your own personal scope of interest, and coming
up with all sorts of off the wall requirements for the world to live
by.

You don't comprehend too well do you? I and the rest of my behind the
monitor computer cadres don't give a rat's ass what stupid ass things
people like to do. What we do care about is that all those stupid ass
things cost public money when the perpetrators screw up and some sort
of costly rescue or medical service is required to bail them out.

Is that so hard to understand?

Not at all, but what is hard to understand is insistance on individuals
attempting to define what constitutes unacceptable activities others may or
may not participate in. Most of this is based on a lack of understanding of
the real nature of the events under discussion, which in itself is based on
their own personal preferences. Most people who comment on the things
others do that "costs them money", are quite comfortable overlooking things
they do that cost the rest of us money, or other activities which cost us
money that happen to fall within their definition of acceptable.

--

-Mike-

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

Northwest.

Don't get what you're trying to say here Lobby. I know the north west
does not ban the use of open land for activities. There is wide open
snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, swimming, and all sorts of activities.

You are flat out Wrong. There are numerous areas where activity is
restricted or outright prohibited. Thjis is not the Open Range.

They are not outright illegal simply because they are not conducted within
the confines of an established buisiness.

Don't know whether or not you've noticed, but there's just not a whole lot
of free range downhill skiing opportunities below the treeline.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:36:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely clueless.

That makes a great sig line for you.

Come on out west Mikey. Just drive anywhere you please. Wilderness
area, No Problem! Wide open spaces!

Have Fun!!

I have been out west. I have hunted, fished, hiked and explored areas
I've never seen before. There was nothing illegal about it. In fact - it
happens every day.

You have a fishing license? Your boat registered? etc. etc.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:06:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
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.

Guess you never heard of trespassing eh? Resorts, parks, recreation
areas, however you want to define them, all have designated areas for
use by the public. Anything else is either trespassing or going
outside a designated area and usually subject to some kind of law.


There are plenty of open areas around the country where it is not
trespassing to engage in outdoor activites. That's something of a red
herring and you know it. This entire discussion has not been about
trespassing. It would take a very secluded person to not realize the
amount of activity - hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc. that
takes place. To suggest that the only lawful and proper manner of
participating is within the confines of an established business is...
well, foolish.

And a Strawman erected by You.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

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

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

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

She and/or her parents are fame seekers.


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


Many of them lack any sense of Personal Responsibility. The Sunderland
Family comes to mind.

Not so evident. They planned on taking advantage of currently available
resources and capabilities, should they need to - just as any sailor
would. What we have no knowledge of at this point, is whether they will be
presented with a bill, and whether they will pay that bill. Yeah - they
walked on a thinner line than most of us would, but that does not define a
lack of personal responsibility.


You either have it, or you don't. Their actions suggest the don't.

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

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.

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't
do anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that
the Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided? That would indeed represent personal responsibility,
wouldn't it? But many would still have their undies in a wad over the
risk.

Yes, it would. But I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

I'm quite big on personal responsibility, but this thread has positioned
personal responsibility as don't do anything that I wouldn't do, or don't
do
anything with any risk. Once this plays out, what if we discover that the
Sunderland family reimburses the French vessel and the Aussies for all
services provided?

So now you're trying to support your argument with a "what if"
scenario? You're truly deluded if you think the Sutherland family is
going to voluntarily offer to pay those thousands of dollars in rescue
expenses. They may be billed and forced to pay, but the chances of
them actually paying of their own accord are right up there with the
real Elvis who I saw walking in downtown Toronto last week.


Just read recently that Elvis and Tom Jones were quite good friends for many
years. Wonder if Tom knows he's in Toronto. ;-)

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

So the fishing vessel that picked her up was just passing by??

But that is not a cost that folks here are paying. Most of the comments
have been about people not wanting to pay costs for actions like this, and
that fishing vessel has not cost anyone here anything.

It cost the owners of the vessel something. Could well have cost the captain
his life. Really responsible folk these Sunderlands!

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


Vey well put.

-- Andy Barss

Except that neither of you are paying for it.

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


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

Including the charter of an aircraft?

May well be. It is common for organizations like this to have plans to do
just that - it saves on the cost of ownership. I don't know myself, but I
would not be at all surprised if a charter was part of their operational
plan all along. But back to the comments that have appeared here - that
charter airplane did not cost the people doing the commenting, a penny -
or even a half a penny.

Do you think they charter aircraft for TRAINING?

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
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 ...


Like I said:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...-rss&FEEDNAME=

GOOD GRIEF! He's got three more kids to support him!!