"A hero is one who would question the gods and thus arouses devils to
challenge his vision."



Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
O thank you, NYC XYZ! It's been so boring around here since our last
crackpot got wrapped up in the sleeveless jacket and taken off to the
house with the rubber-walled rooms. Thanks for stepping in and filling
the vacancy! Life on r.b.p is becoming interesting again.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================


NYC XYZ wrote:
I mean, even though it's broad ****ing daylight, if you paddle and you
get capsized by a powercraft, IT'S YOUR GODDAMNED FAULT -- right, speed
bumps?


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

John Fereira wrote:


I believe on of the site I read indicated that the incident occurred between
5:45 and 6:00am. I don't live all that far from New York City and leave for
work around 7:00am and it's still quite dark.

I don't recall that morning being "quite dark." It was rainy, sure,
and thus not the broad daylight I'd originally imagined.

Certainly visibility was an issue. Just think the powercraft should be
a heck of a lot more careful. If you're behind an engine, I think it
should be AUTOMATICALLY ENCUMBENT upon you to watch out and not get
into an accident.

What's so controversial about that???

Why is it necessary to assign blame?

If you have rules, and you have an accident, you investigate who
followed the rules. Either the rules aren't good enough if they were
followed, or someone didn't follow the rules.

What's so controversial about that???

The way I remember the previous
episode was that the fellow paddlers here were not claiming that the police
patrol boat was not at fault, but that ultimately that we are all
responsible for our own safety.

You recall incorrectly, then.

"Responsibilities" imply "rights"...my responsibility to my safety on
the water thus implies the right to hug the shoreline such that I do
all I can to avoid motor-boats. Once that responsibility has been met,
it's incumbent upon the power-boaters to STAY AWAY from the shoreline.

My responsibility to my safety in the dark means having a light with
me. Once that responsibility has been met, it's incumbent upon the
power-boaters to PAY ATTENTION for lights on the water.

Legally, a motor vehicle must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and if
I'm in a cross walk and am run over by a motor vehicle the fault would be
attributed to the driver of the motor vehicle.

Exactly.

Pragmatically, when a
collision involving a 2 ton motorized vehicle and a human occurs, the human
suffers the greatest amount of damage.

Yeah, and practically speaking, none of you paddlers should be out on
the water in the first place! Why not just reduce the risk to
0%...doh!

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

Subsequently assigning blame isn't
as much an issue as who might be living the rest of their life crippled or
have their life ended right there.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

Similarly, in a collision between a
large power boat and a small paddle craft the operator of the paddlecraft is
going to suffer the greatest damage. While maritime right-of-way laws might
give the right of way to the paddle craft, those that take responsibility
for their own safety take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure their
safety rather than assume the rules of the road are going offer complete
protection.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

That means that carrying a light might meet a legal obligation
but if the light is not sufficient enough to prevent a near collision, most
rational people would conclude that having a brighter light (or maybe just
not paddling at night in certain waterways) will going further in preventing
a future incident than getting a bunch of people to support you in assigning
blame.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.



Tinkerntom wrote:
And John, if a person jumps into the crosswalk, and crashes into the
side of the truck already passing on the road, no one would hold the
truck driver responsible. Especially if it is dark such that the driver
could not reasonably be expected to see the pedestrian running in an
erratic fashion toward the crossing! A paddled boat, cannot maneuver
itself to take the right of way, and assume the right of way, by
placing itself in jeopardy.

Seems to me that a vessel turning, in the dark, without a required
forward watch, and then crashes into another larger vessel, probably
has little claim to right of way, if I read the story correctly. Yes it
is sad to lose someone, especially someone as full of life as to get up
early and go for an invigorating paddle. However it sounds like the
four paddlers took their activity for granted, and possibly became too
familiar. I read nowhere of any of these paddlers having a PFD on, or
even available. Does a sculling team need to abide by other standing
regulations, or do they just go do their thing, and the rest of us have
to stay out of their way. I doubt it!

Now I don't mean to assign blame, so much as to learn a lesson for
myself. I find it easy to get overly familar with what I am doing, and
then expose myself and others to unnecessary danger and injury. I of
course would feel really bad about someone being hurt on my accord,
especially if while doing something just for the fun and exercise. I
would feel equally bad though if a hard working boater was charged with
any wrongdoing or carelessness on my part.

Just assigning blame is not even an issue. Accepting personal
responsibility is the main concern of the responsible boating, paddling
public. This thread illustrates that there are some though who do not
accept personal responsibility, and try to solve their difficulties
with bluster and guns!

That means that carrying a light might meet a legal obligation
but if the light is not sufficient enough to prevent a near collision, most
rational people would conclude that having a brighter light (or maybe just
not paddling at night in certain waterways) will going further in preventing
a future incident than getting a bunch of people to support you in assigning
blame.

John, I think you nailed this one. Hopefully the rest of us will be
sure that our lights are on. I am concerned that one in particular may
be running with less than full charge in their Energizer." TnT

Again, this is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- not at all what I was on about.

I asked about rules, but the water-logged airheads here keep going on
about "practical" considerations...no ****ing ****, Sherlocks!



Cyli wrote:

Indeed. My rules of the road when I'm walking or paddling are to let
anything that's bigger, faster, dumber, or in more of a hurry have the
right of way. It's worked so far, with only a couple of close calls.
One of which involved the excuse, "It's been real hot out and there's
been beer." But that was in a location I found (later) was notorious
for bad power boating with beer or other beverages.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Actually I don't think Cyli was making an argument at all, she was just
stating what works for her. You see everything as an argument or a
personal attack. Personally I also abide by this set of personal
standards and find that they have kept me mostly intact while hiking,
biking, flying, walking and paddling.



NYC XYZ wrote:
Again, this is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- not at all what I was on about.

I asked about rules, but the water-logged airheads here keep going on
about "practical" considerations...no ****ing ****, Sherlocks!



Cyli wrote:

Indeed. My rules of the road when I'm walking or paddling are to let
anything that's bigger, faster, dumber, or in more of a hurry have the
right of way. It's worked so far, with only a couple of close calls.
One of which involved the excuse, "It's been real hot out and there's
been beer." But that was in a location I found (later) was notorious
for bad power boating with beer or other beverages.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

"NYC XYZ" wrote in
oups.com:


John Fereira wrote:


I believe on of the site I read indicated that the incident occurred
between 5:45 and 6:00am. I don't live all that far from New York City
and leave for work around 7:00am and it's still quite dark.

I don't recall that morning being "quite dark." It was rainy, sure,
and thus not the broad daylight I'd originally imagined.

As I said, I only live a little over 200 miles from New York City so it's
not a stretch for me to conclude that if it's still quite dark where I live
at 7:00am it's going to be darker at 6:00am, especially considering that it
was still nearly an hour before sunrise. I also live near and paddle on a
water way that is frequently used by rowing teams out practicing in the
early morning and visibility certainly is an issue. I don't recall if the
any of the articles describing the incident indicated if there was a
coxswain aboard but without one all the rowers would typically be facing the
same direction (with the backs to the direction they may moving). That
could partially explain why they didn't see the oncoming motor boat.

Certainly visibility was an issue. Just think the powercraft should be
a heck of a lot more careful. If you're behind an engine, I think it
should be AUTOMATICALLY ENCUMBENT upon you to watch out and not get
into an accident.

The way I see it, everyone using a shared waterway (or roadway/airspace)
should be exercise sufficent caution to the best of their ability to prevent
an accident. If anything, those that are in small paddlecraft should
exercise greater caution because, despite the best efforts of the pilot of a
larger vessel, the paddler is most likely going to suffer the greatest harm
should an *accident* occur.

What's so controversial about that???

It's not controversial as long as you're not suggesting that a motor boat
operator should assume all the risk simply because they're capable of
causing greater damage.

Why is it necessary to assign blame?

If you have rules, and you have an accident, you investigate who
followed the rules. Either the rules aren't good enough if they were
followed, or someone didn't follow the rules.

What's so controversial about that???

When in comes to personal safety often common sense and acquired knowledge
will have better results than following the rules. For example, the rules
only dictate that an operator of a canoe or kayak carry a PFD on board
within arms reach. Paddlers with common sense will almost always wear their
PDF (I realize that there are exceptions when it's really not absolutely
necessary) whenever they're paddling because when a capsize occurs a boat
could easily be blown away faster that any human can swim. A PFD isn't
going to do much good if it's floating away with your boat. There *are* no
rules concerning what one wears otherwise. Paddlers with common sense and
acquired knowledge regarding hypothermia will dress for the water
temperature. As one very experience paddler put it when describing the
expeditions that she takes every year along the coast of Alaska, "if you
capsized in those waters and became separated from your boat, all a PFD is
going to do is keep you afloat while you slowly die of hypothermia and will
make easier for rescuers to recover the body".

The way I remember the previous
episode was that the fellow paddlers here were not claiming that the
police patrol boat was not at fault, but that ultimately that we are
all responsible for our own safety.

You recall incorrectly, then.

I could look it up in Google but I think my memory is pretty accurate on
this one.


"Responsibilities" imply "rights"...my responsibility to my safety on
the water thus implies the right to hug the shoreline such that I do
all I can to avoid motor-boats. Once that responsibility has been met,
it's incumbent upon the power-boaters to STAY AWAY from the shoreline.

Since ever vessel you might encounter on a waterway initially started from
shore and will end up on shore at the end of the day I would suggest that
you're more likely going to encounter traffic hugging the shore than while
on open water. Hugging the shoreline also has several other distinct
disadvantages.

1. You're more likely going to encounter breaking waves closer to shore
simply due to the fact that as the depth of the water decreases the crest of
the wave will become higher and will break when the water becomes shallow
enough.

2. When hugging the shore you may encounter reflective waves. Dealing with
larger waves coming from one direction can be difficult (especially if
they're breaking waves) but becomes much more difficult if you also have to
deal with waves coming from the opposite direction (or several directions).

3. If you're hugging the shore you have less room to manoever. Similarly,
other traffic along the shoreline would have less room to manoever as well.

4. If you're hugging the shore you're more likely going to be less visible
as your silhouette might not contrast with the shoreline as much as it would
with a open water backdrop.

My responsibility to my safety in the dark means having a light with
me. Once that responsibility has been met, it's incumbent upon the
power-boaters to PAY ATTENTION for lights on the water.

Here's where the primary issue lies. Having a light merely meets the
minimum legal requirements but doesn't necessarily end your responsibility
for your own personal safety. The fact is, we don't know how much attention
the police boat operator was paying. You're quick to conclude that the
operator was not paying any attention and just won't accept the possibility
that the light you were carrying was not bright enough to distinguish it
from a backdrop of city lights.

As I may have mentioned before I also had a near collision when paddling at
night. In that case, there were several kayaks together all carrying lights
and were flashing them at an oncoming motor boat on a collision course. I
have little doubt that the boat operator wasn't paying attention and likely
wasn't expecting other boat traffic on the water because it was only when I
blew a very loud whistle did he slow and veer off. The lesson I learned was
that sometimes just having a light isn't enough.



Legally, a motor vehicle must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk,
and if I'm in a cross walk and am run over by a motor vehicle the
fault would be attributed to the driver of the motor vehicle.

Exactly.

Pragmatically, when a
collision involving a 2 ton motorized vehicle and a human occurs, the
human suffers the greatest amount of damage.

Yeah, and practically speaking, none of you paddlers should be out on
the water in the first place! Why not just reduce the risk to
0%...doh!

That's most certainly not true. Most of the experienced paddlers that I
have encountered here and elsewhere assume non-zero levels of risk all the
time. The difference between them and you is that they understand and
assess the risks, exercise what they judge to be reasonable precautions you
mitigate the risks as much as possible, and then assume the risk and accept
the consequences if their risk assessment wasn't quite up to par. What you
did was go out in a waterway in which you underestimate the amount of
traffic you'd encounter nor what the navigational rules were in the area,
went out alone in conditions with limited visibility, and did so with
limited skill in what amounted to a craft that was only slightly more
seaworthy than a pool toy.


Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

It's not a straw man argument at all. What I've discoverd while
particpating on Usenet for about 20 years is that if you ask a question
there is a good chance that you're not going to get the answer you'd like to
hear. You wanted everyone to tell you that the police boat was totally at
fault that that hugging the shore with your candle light should have
guarenteed to keep you safe and warm. When you didn't get the answer you
wanted to hear you threw a hissy fit and you're still going on about it
weeks later.

On 27 Oct 2005 07:45:26 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


Again, this is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- not at all what I was on about.

I asked about rules, but the water-logged airheads here keep going on
about "practical" considerations...no ****ing ****, Sherlocks!



Cyli wrote:

Indeed. My rules of the road when I'm walking or paddling are to let
anything that's bigger, faster, dumber, or in more of a hurry have the
right of way.

Since you weren't the person I was responding to, what I said doesn't
apply to you, does it? Nor was there any reason to yammer at me, was
there?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

And I have been in fog on SF bay, with running lights and almost run over a
single shell, white, guy in white, paddling through the fog, with no lights
or a horn.

"John Fereira" wrote in message
.. .
"NYC XYZ" wrote in
oups.com:


John Fereira wrote:


I believe on of the site I read indicated that the incident occurred
between 5:45 and 6:00am. I don't live all that far from New York City
and leave for work around 7:00am and it's still quite dark.

I don't recall that morning being "quite dark." It was rainy, sure,
and thus not the broad daylight I'd originally imagined.

As I said, I only live a little over 200 miles from New York City so it's
not a stretch for me to conclude that if it's still quite dark where I
live
at 7:00am it's going to be darker at 6:00am, especially considering that
it
was still nearly an hour before sunrise. I also live near and paddle on a
water way that is frequently used by rowing teams out practicing in the
early morning and visibility certainly is an issue. I don't recall if the
any of the articles describing the incident indicated if there was a
coxswain aboard but without one all the rowers would typically be facing
the
same direction (with the backs to the direction they may moving). That
could partially explain why they didn't see the oncoming motor boat.

Certainly visibility was an issue. Just think the powercraft should be
a heck of a lot more careful. If you're behind an engine, I think it
should be AUTOMATICALLY ENCUMBENT upon you to watch out and not get
into an accident.

The way I see it, everyone using a shared waterway (or roadway/airspace)
should be exercise sufficent caution to the best of their ability to
prevent
an accident. If anything, those that are in small paddlecraft should
exercise greater caution because, despite the best efforts of the pilot of
a
larger vessel, the paddler is most likely going to suffer the greatest
harm
should an *accident* occur.

What's so controversial about that???

It's not controversial as long as you're not suggesting that a motor boat
operator should assume all the risk simply because they're capable of
causing greater damage.

Why is it necessary to assign blame?

If you have rules, and you have an accident, you investigate who
followed the rules. Either the rules aren't good enough if they were
followed, or someone didn't follow the rules.

What's so controversial about that???

When in comes to personal safety often common sense and acquired knowledge
will have better results than following the rules. For example, the rules
only dictate that an operator of a canoe or kayak carry a PFD on board
within arms reach. Paddlers with common sense will almost always wear
their
PDF (I realize that there are exceptions when it's really not absolutely
necessary) whenever they're paddling because when a capsize occurs a boat
could easily be blown away faster that any human can swim. A PFD isn't
going to do much good if it's floating away with your boat. There *are*
no
rules concerning what one wears otherwise. Paddlers with common sense and
acquired knowledge regarding hypothermia will dress for the water
temperature. As one very experience paddler put it when describing the
expeditions that she takes every year along the coast of Alaska, "if you
capsized in those waters and became separated from your boat, all a PFD is
going to do is keep you afloat while you slowly die of hypothermia and
will
make easier for rescuers to recover the body".

The way I remember the previous
episode was that the fellow paddlers here were not claiming that the
police patrol boat was not at fault, but that ultimately that we are
all responsible for our own safety.

You recall incorrectly, then.

I could look it up in Google but I think my memory is pretty accurate on
this one.


"Responsibilities" imply "rights"...my responsibility to my safety on
the water thus implies the right to hug the shoreline such that I do
all I can to avoid motor-boats. Once that responsibility has been met,
it's incumbent upon the power-boaters to STAY AWAY from the shoreline.

Since ever vessel you might encounter on a waterway initially started from
shore and will end up on shore at the end of the day I would suggest that
you're more likely going to encounter traffic hugging the shore than while
on open water. Hugging the shoreline also has several other distinct
disadvantages.

1. You're more likely going to encounter breaking waves closer to shore
simply due to the fact that as the depth of the water decreases the crest
of
the wave will become higher and will break when the water becomes shallow
enough.

2. When hugging the shore you may encounter reflective waves. Dealing
with
larger waves coming from one direction can be difficult (especially if
they're breaking waves) but becomes much more difficult if you also have
to
deal with waves coming from the opposite direction (or several
directions).

3. If you're hugging the shore you have less room to manoever.
Similarly,
other traffic along the shoreline would have less room to manoever as
well.

4. If you're hugging the shore you're more likely going to be less visible
as your silhouette might not contrast with the shoreline as much as it
would
with a open water backdrop.

My responsibility to my safety in the dark means having a light with
me. Once that responsibility has been met, it's incumbent upon the
power-boaters to PAY ATTENTION for lights on the water.

Here's where the primary issue lies. Having a light merely meets the
minimum legal requirements but doesn't necessarily end your responsibility
for your own personal safety. The fact is, we don't know how much
attention
the police boat operator was paying. You're quick to conclude that the
operator was not paying any attention and just won't accept the
possibility
that the light you were carrying was not bright enough to distinguish it
from a backdrop of city lights.

As I may have mentioned before I also had a near collision when paddling
at
night. In that case, there were several kayaks together all carrying
lights
and were flashing them at an oncoming motor boat on a collision course. I
have little doubt that the boat operator wasn't paying attention and
likely
wasn't expecting other boat traffic on the water because it was only when
I
blew a very loud whistle did he slow and veer off. The lesson I learned
was
that sometimes just having a light isn't enough.



Legally, a motor vehicle must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk,
and if I'm in a cross walk and am run over by a motor vehicle the
fault would be attributed to the driver of the motor vehicle.

Exactly.

Pragmatically, when a
collision involving a 2 ton motorized vehicle and a human occurs, the
human suffers the greatest amount of damage.

Yeah, and practically speaking, none of you paddlers should be out on
the water in the first place! Why not just reduce the risk to
0%...doh!

That's most certainly not true. Most of the experienced paddlers that I
have encountered here and elsewhere assume non-zero levels of risk all the
time. The difference between them and you is that they understand and
assess the risks, exercise what they judge to be reasonable precautions
you
mitigate the risks as much as possible, and then assume the risk and
accept
the consequences if their risk assessment wasn't quite up to par. What
you
did was go out in a waterway in which you underestimate the amount of
traffic you'd encounter nor what the navigational rules were in the area,
went out alone in conditions with limited visibility, and did so with
limited skill in what amounted to a craft that was only slightly more
seaworthy than a pool toy.


Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

It's not a straw man argument at all. What I've discoverd while
particpating on Usenet for about 20 years is that if you ask a question
there is a good chance that you're not going to get the answer you'd like
to
hear. You wanted everyone to tell you that the police boat was totally at
fault that that hugging the shore with your candle light should have
guarenteed to keep you safe and warm. When you didn't get the answer you
wanted to hear you threw a hissy fit and you're still going on about it
weeks later.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:11:14 GMT, No Spam wrote:

Actually I don't think Cyli was making an argument at all, she was just
stating what works for her. You see everything as an argument or a
personal attack. Personally I also abide by this set of personal
standards and find that they have kept me mostly intact while hiking,
biking, flying, walking and paddling.

Thank you, No Spam. You stated it much more precisely (and nicely)
than I did.


NYC XYZ wrote:
Again, this is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- not at all what I was on about.

I asked about rules, but the water-logged airheads here keep going on
about "practical" considerations...no ****ing ****, Sherlocks!



Cyli wrote:

Indeed. My rules of the road when I'm walking or paddling are to let
anything that's bigger, faster, dumber, or in more of a hurry have the
right of way. It's worked so far, with only a couple of close calls.
One of which involved the excuse, "It's been real hot out and there's
been beer." But that was in a location I found (later) was notorious
for bad power boating with beer or other beverages.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)




Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Of course you understand Cyli, et all, that NYC ... will come back and
remember that when the harbor patrol splashed him, he was actually
wearing a glow in the dark, day-glo green, reflective neoprene suit and
was honkin his horn like a New Orleans jazz band, with his little white
lite shining at 2 million candle-power - and they still purposely tried
to run him over!

The night was clear, no fog, and in fact the sun was still shining!

And in fact the city lights had all been turned off for this notable
occasion in which the NYC Harbor Patrol had decided to go after XYZ, so
they had no excuse for splashing him except that they had planned on
getting him anyway!

Now he had heard that all the lights were going to be turned off,
though he did not realize that they were turned off on his accord. That
is why he decided to take that notable and unforgetable cruise of the
NYC Harbor, that very night, to see the stars above NYC for the very
first time, and to be able to hear the silence of the city sleeping,
which it seldom did due to all the lights normally.

But this night was different. Unlike the Harbor Patrol, he had not been
inbibing any celebratory libations on this notable occasion since he
wanted all his senses to be sharp for this great event! Little did he
know, that they knew, he would be out there, paddling his little rubber
boat! A boat given to him by his grandfather who had come all the way
across the Atlantic in it, braving storms and Great White attacks!
Never was there anywhere, such a noble, and seaworthy vessel!

Now we can understand why it was such a shock to him when that big
Harbor Patrol Boat, with loud, noisy, 500 HP. engines, came charging
out of the quiet darkness to shatter his soliloquy!

No,.... I am sorry, I am getting my stories mixed up! That was when
they tried to get him the time before! TnT


Cyli wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:11:14 GMT, No Spam wrote:

Actually I don't think Cyli was making an argument at all, she was just
stating what works for her. You see everything as an argument or a
personal attack. Personally I also abide by this set of personal
standards and find that they have kept me mostly intact while hiking,
biking, flying, walking and paddling.

Thank you, No Spam. You stated it much more precisely (and nicely)
than I did.


NYC XYZ wrote:
Again, this is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- not at all what I was on about.

I asked about rules, but the water-logged airheads here keep going on
about "practical" considerations...no ****ing ****, Sherlocks!



Cyli wrote:

Indeed. My rules of the road when I'm walking or paddling are to let
anything that's bigger, faster, dumber, or in more of a hurry have the
right of way. It's worked so far, with only a couple of close calls.
One of which involved the excuse, "It's been real hot out and there's
been beer." But that was in a location I found (later) was notorious
for bad power boating with beer or other beverages.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)




Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)