For issuing, not for 'not revoking.' I'm sure to get around the liability
they have some sort of escape clause otherwise the states would have been
sued out of existence long ago. Come to think of it not a bad idea they
serve no useful purpose anyway.

M.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:06:32 -0600, "Michael"
said:

Safe boating certificate is the legal way to go. If they state
'licenses' a
boater they assume a measure of responsibility having said the individual
is
capable of a certain level of activity. By calling it a safe boating
certificate they only show the boater has been exposed to a 'level' of
knowledge, the state therefore assumes no legal responsibility.

Nonsense. If you know of a case in which a state has been held liable for
not revoking a licensed driver's license, I'd like to know about it.

In article , OzOne wrote:
In Oz, power boat operators require a boating licence.
The funds fro this go toward providing better services, charting,
marking and bouyage as well as many other facilities which we sailors
benefit from without requiring such licence.

That would never happen here. The funds would go to church-based
anti-abortion organizations.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Michael wrote:
The way it works in the real world is this. Refer to the original posters
statement. Read Same. The part you snipped out for whatever reason. If you
have trouble understanding it ask the original poster. That would be
Knobspit. After you have thoroughly read and then understand the question
then join in the discussion. . . . .
Are we going to go by weight, quantity, quality, or weight as a ratio
of boat weight?

Answer the question you imbecile. Or, don't. It was a joke, which I
now know is beyond a fool such as yourself.

By the way, when I typed in imbecile in Google, I got as the first
line, and I'm not making this up...

Also try: george bush imbecile

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

I never doubted that Michael... I stated that in Canada he would still be
required to pay the $20 for a Boat Operators Certificate.... inspite of
qualifications well beyond what the card calls for...... it's a tax grab up
here.


CM

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Neal speaks the truth in this case. I checked it out myself after many
years of giving him a hard time about having a license for a boat that
never
left the dock. Checked with USCG Portland REC office. Even know the
original license was issued in New Orleans. However they should have,
Portland would have anyway, raised the 25GT for inspected to a higher
level.
Not all USCG REC offices are equal and they often do things differently.
Yep
he's a real licensed Captain with a renewed license.

M.

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Well, here you would still have to fork out an extra $20 on top of
that....
for a card that proves nothing but the fact you paid $20.

CM

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Correction. Above and beyond my six-pak license I hold
a Master's license, Near Coastal 25GT.

CN


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Fight it Tooth and Nail if it comes your way Cappy!
It's a tax grab.... imagine a government that would require you to
have
this card despite your current 6-pak licence!! Lunacy!

CM



"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
It's just another liberal scheme to collect a tax disguised as
a license. Like when you register a boat. It costs more by the
foot yet it costs the same in time and paperwork to register a
dinghy that is six feet LOA as it does to register a motor yacht
that is two hundred feet LOA. Democrats seem to love any
scheme that penalizes those who have money. Liberalism is
all about taking money and rights away from those who have
it and giving it to those to lazy or inept to earn their own.

CN


"Gordon" wrote in message
...
Washington state wants to institute a revamped law to require
boating
drivers licenses. To those in states who have such laws, what are
the
pros
and cons of your system and does it prevent accidents etc or is it
just
another red tape gizmo to collect money for the state?
Thanks in advance
Gordon

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 17 Nov 2004 13:42:31 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

It was a SOFT rock!!!

Bob, I sailed out of City Island for about 6 years before moving my
boat to
CT. You gotta be really careless to hit that rock.

Careless and stupid.

and lazy.

and a lubber.

and a ******.

and an idiot.

and stupid.

SV

"Bob**** the big fat LOSER" wrote ...

In 10 years of day sailing and short cruises bla bla bla
. I carry more safety gear than anyone


paranoia, the destroyia.

Ray

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Bull****... I've hit charted rocks at 100 meters, 250 meters 500
meters and
1000 meters from my dock.

2 Kinds of Sailors.... those that have hit rocks...and ****in'
Liars!

I've yet to hit a rock, and that's no lie.

Scotty

advance control courses? tee hee hee. Never took a driving course.

35 years,
1,700,000 miles, accident free.
Your turn.

Scotty



"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
I have no less than 6 certified advance vehicle control courses...
all
stated I would get a discount on insurance premiums... I don't... I
have no
tickets, no record and no accidents for over 30 years.

CM

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:
advance control courses? tee hee hee. Never took a driving course.

35 years,
1,700,000 miles, accident free.
Your turn.

Scotty

He was talking about a motor vehicle not a Barcalounger.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

You keep hitting yourself your never gonna git rid of that black eye or
those sour grapes.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael wrote:
The way it works in the real world is this. Refer to the original
posters
statement. Read Same. The part you snipped out for whatever reason. If
you
have trouble understanding it ask the original poster. That would be
Knobspit. After you have thoroughly read and then understand the
question
then join in the discussion. . . . .
Are we going to go by weight, quantity, quality, or weight as a ratio
of boat weight?

Answer the question you imbecile. Or, don't. It was a joke, which I
now know is beyond a fool such as yourself.

By the way, when I typed in imbecile in Google, I got as the first
line, and I'm not making this up...

Also try: george bush imbecile

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."