"rhys" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:31:34 -0400, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Unlike, say, wanting powerlessly for a bureaucrat to do his job on
land, at least you have the option of going offshore G.

You lost me on this one.

In the sense that getting on the ICW is akin to queuing up in a
government office line-up to get a licence or a permit or something:
you are dependent on some paper-pusher's whim. If you find the ICW
stressful, however, you can sail offshore. Unlike dealing with
bureaucrats, you have a choice to make a change.

That's a strange analogy.

Not to be morbid, as fewer sailors drown by far than office workers
die in car accidents,

I am pretty sure there are far fewer sailors cruising than office
workers driving.

I mean per capita. Divide number of active cruisers by number of same
drowned while cruising: I would wager it's safer to cruise than to be
an urban car commuter.

Another strange comparison. So cruising is safer than driving. What does
that
have to do with anything? Cruising is safer than alot of things.

but the lessons of the sea are far less
ambiguous than those of the shore.

I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. The lessons are different
for sure.

Again, it comes down to you and your skills dealing with the sea. Only
in the rare shi-to-ship collision, extreme gear failure or chance
mishap (ramming a submerged container or whale) is the case similar to
getting killed by some drunk yahoo behind the wheel while you are
driving safely.

Another strange comparison. Means nothing. This is just rationalization.
I don't thing any of these comparisons are useful. Activity A is more
or less safer than activity B. There is no point in even making the
comparisons.

The proximity of other people onshore can erase all your good
intentions and safe habits. The sea is less ambiguous due to the long
periods of solitude.

I give up

R.