On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:15 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug.

Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time.

For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you
claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your
wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you
still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong.
That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're
right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact.

That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating. You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat (in other words, run at idle
speed all day).

You base this warped and unrealistic expectation on the rules which
restrict wakes in certain areas, and on the irresponsible behavior of
those boaters who ignore those rules.

If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser, or from (gasp!) a
container ship, that's a part of boating, and it's just tough breaks.

You seem to be of an "all or nothing" mentality, while I adjust
according to circumstances. You are far to literal and rigid.


... Then there are documented court cases of people being
held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog.

Let's see it.

Watch Court TV, It may be shown again.


That's all I need to know.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself.

Is it ignorance, or simply your inability to consider an opposing
viewpoint because it doesn't fit within your definition of an ideal
world?

You also need to know that

1- you are responsible for your dog


And your neighbor does NOT have the right to kill it even if the dog
gets away from you once in a while.


2- you are responsible for your boat's wake.

In the open water, you are responsible to avoid my wake, or deal with
the consequences. That's just common sense.

3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and
accountable for all your actions.

And you should be accountable and responsible for your LACK of action.

Some questions for you. Do you think you should be responsible because
an idiot stumbles and falls on your sidewalk? Should a car maker be
held responsible for injuries sustained in accidents? Should a gun
maker be held responsible for unsafe usage of firearms? Should you be
held responsible for actions that were clearly not precipitated by
negligence on your part?

Dave