"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much happier
living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility for
everyone's actions.

Youthinks wrong!

The USA doesn't own the high seas.

True.

Why should we allow uninformed
citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other
countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they
founder on the high seas?

Oh dear! After a good start your argument immediately descends into
illogical, politically correct and dangerous waters.
Illogical because ....
You say that the USA doesn't own the high seas. If that is the case, how
could the US Coastguard be given jurisdiction over the boats that sail the
high seas?

Politically correct because ....
Poltically correct arguments depend on persuading your audience that there
is an unacceptable risk to innocent parties (the rescue services) posed by
the guilty (catamaran sailors).
There are a few problems with this line of reasoning.
1) You haven't given us any evidence that catamaran sailors have caused the
deaths of anyone in the rescue services.
2) You haven't given us any evidence that monohull sailors have caused
fewer deaths than catamaran sailors.
3) You don't seem to understand that every freedom comes with a cost. Your
right to drive a car comes with the cost that pedestrian lives are at risk.
This is the very essence of freedom.




Look what New Zealand has done. You have to pass an inspection to assure
seaworthiness in order to be cleared out of that country. Are they
socialist or just more responsible and aware of their responsibilities?

What responsibility do you think that the state has for an individual?
The state should protect a citizen from crime and foreign domination. In a
free society the state will not try to protect you from yourself. In fact,
the oppsoite is true. In a free society the state should enable you to
express your freedom.

One thing is for sure, they are tired of the expense and danger to their
citizen's lives incurred because their rescue service has to go to the
aid of way too many idiots and fools.

How much expense is justified in the defence of freedom?


Regards


Donal
--

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Donal" wrote in message
news:fa2khk$env$1$
Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"?


Don't you think that the American constitution should
defend a real man's
right to go to sea without interference from state bodies?


Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could
wage the ''war on drugs''.

....and more recently so that they could wage the "war on tourism".



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much
happier
living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility
for
everyone's actions.

Youthinks wrong!

The USA doesn't own the high seas.

True.

Why should we allow uninformed
citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other
countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they
founder on the high seas?

Oh dear! After a good start your argument immediately descends into
illogical, politically correct and dangerous waters.
Illogical because ....
You say that the USA doesn't own the high seas. If that is the case,
how
could the US Coastguard be given jurisdiction over the boats that sail
the
high seas?

Ah, but there's where you're mistaken. It so happens that the U.S. Coast
Guard has juristiction over American Flagged vessels no matter where
they sail on high seas. And furthermore, U.S. Flagged vessels must pass
through U.S. Territorial waters in order to get to the high seas. The
U.S. Coast Guard's juristiction is clear and it's accepted law.



Politically correct because ....
Poltically correct arguments depend on persuading your audience that
there
is an unacceptable risk to innocent parties (the rescue services)
posed by
the guilty (catamaran sailors).

I fear you have little understanding of what politically correct means
and where the term came from. I'd like to suggest you do an etymological
search on the term. You'll find the real meaning has nothing to do with
the way you understand and use the term.

There are a few problems with this line of reasoning.
1) You haven't given us any evidence that catamaran sailors have
caused the
deaths of anyone in the rescue services.
2) You haven't given us any evidence that monohull sailors have
caused
fewer deaths than catamaran sailors.
3) You don't seem to understand that every freedom comes with a cost.
Your
right to drive a car comes with the cost that pedestrian lives are at
risk.
This is the very essence of freedom.

It is not my job to prove any of the above. It is your job in a debate
to disprove my statements. This is the very essense of logic. Rational
debate rests firmly upon a foundation of elemenatay logic.


What responsibility do you think that the state has for an individual?

Only that which the individual confers upon the state via elections and
laws passed by legislative bodies representing the individual. (the
consent of the governed)

The state should protect a citizen from crime and foreign domination.
In a
free society the state will not try to protect you from yourself. In
fact,
the oppsoite is true. In a free society the state should enable you
to
express your freedom.

Your first statement is true if that's what the electorate has decided
it wants the state to do. Your second statement is false. It's false
because it's been abundantly demonstrated that the state often protects
people from themselves as in seat belt laws, anti-smoking laws,
anti-drug laws etc. This is all done with the consent of the governed.
Your third statement is not so in all cases or even in the majority of
cases. The state enables one to vote and legislate in what ways the
individual is allowed, without penalty, to express his freedom. The old
example that you have the right to free speech yet you cannot yell
"FIRE" in a crowded room comes to mind. I am talking about free states
here - republics and democracies. My statements do not or are not meant
to apply to dictatorships.


How much expense is justified in the defence of freedom?

You sound like a confused libertarian. For your information, the defense
of freedom comes at the price of lives. It's always been that way and it
always will be. The number of lives spent (lost) is determined by will
of those who value freedom over life itself (give me liberty or give me
death) vs. the will of those attempting to enslave.

Cheers,
Wilbur Hubbard

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/17/2007 11:54 AM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Some years ago when you started ranting about catamarans, I made a
simple claim that you would have trouble finding any cases of
catamaran capsizes that met the following criteria: It had to be a
modern production cruising cat, not of the "crossbeam" style, or
homemade, or 40 years old; it had to be at least the size of my cat
(36'3") with appropriate beam and cruising rig; it had to be being
used for cruising, not racing or delivery. I even admitted that you
might find a few, but that it would likely be in conditions that
would put any monohull at severe risk, and that generally catamaran
capsizes end up as a story of survival, not loss.
...



Good job moving the bar, Jeff. I've posted dozens times and at least
a half dozen valid links in the past year alone of how unseaworthy
catamarans are. You can nit and you can pick and you can say, "That
ain't fair, Mom, he's not being fair!" but it won't avail you. The
pictures speak for themselves. Large cruising catamarans washed up
capsized on the beach in Oregon with loss of all hands.

One case, of ill-conceived delivery. This is the only case that
involved a fatality in years of trying.

Pictures of large cruising catamarans upside down off the English
Coast.

It wasn't a modern cruising cat, and you know it.

More pictures of another upside down and being righted and pumped out
with total loss of mast and rigging.

A small racing cat.

More reports of one turning turtle on a simple trip across the Gulf
of Mexico. It goes on and on.

Close, but again a rather small cat, with an aggressive rig.

Keep moving that bar, Jeff. It just makes you look like somebody who
is incapable of seeing the obvious.

I'm not raising the bar, in fact I've made the same claim a number of
times over the years.

This was earlier this year:
"Actually I've rather obsessively searched for catamaran capsizes for
many years. There have been some, but very few. As I've posted a
number of times, there have been almost none that are cruising boats
over 35 feet, actually being cruised, not delivered. In point of
fact, none of the recent incidents fit these criteria."

In 2002, in response to a suggestion of a large airbag on the mast:
One problem with this is that there are very, very few cases of modern
cruising cats over 35 feet capsizing in any conditions. Smaller cats,
racing cats and trimarans may be able to make more use of it, but the
extra weight aloft might actually induce more capsizes!

In 2003, in response to a question about a racing tri incident:
"That was a racing trimaran, not a cruising cat; two totally different
boats. The have been only a handful of cruising cats over 35 feet
flipping while cruising"

In 2004:
"I'm real curious to know the model of the cat. 30 feet is on the
small size for catamaran safety because the general design which has
proven to be safe in sizes over 35 feet doesn't scale downward very
well."


Catamarans are too dangerous to be used for voyaging on the world's
oceans.

That's something you'll never do, so why are you so concerned?

They'll likely not survive a storm at sea intact. That's the truth
and you'd better start accepting it.

And yet, their safety record is better than monohulls. The majority
of larger cats have probably done a long ocean passage - virtually all
of the charter cats in the Carribean got there on their own bottom.


And your logic if totally flawed with respect to monohulls sinking.
You ignore the numbers. Your claim is like saying "Look how many Ford
F-150 trucks are involved in wrecks compared to Volkswagen
Microbuses?" Well, isn't that special? Never mind there are probably
ten thousand F-150s to every Microbus. When there are a hundred
catamarans voyaging and one hears six of them turning turtle one can
assume one probably doesn't hear of six more that capsized. That's
twelve out of a hundred. Pretty unsafe by the most lax standards,
IMHO!

You're ignoring the fact that there are 5000 Prouts and none have
capsized. Prouts may have more successful navigations than brand of
sailboat. A similar number of Lagoons with a safety record almost as
good.

And you still haven't given us a single example that fits my criteria.
Its simple: 36 feet, modern design, while cruising. Stop giving us
ancient homebuilt racing trimarans and claiming they're
representative.


You lose!
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...size-4446.html

And it only took two minutes to Google it. Now what have you got to say
for yourself?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Donal" wrote in message
news:fa2khk$env$1$
Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the
Free"?


Don't you think that the American constitution should
defend a real man's
right to go to sea without interference from state
bodies?


Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they
could
wage the ''war on drugs''.

...and more recently so that they could wage the "war on
tourism".


yulp, just another money making scheme/scam.

SBV

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/17/2007 8:47 PM:
....

And you still haven't given us a single example that fits my criteria.
Its simple: 36 feet, modern design, while cruising. Stop giving us
ancient homebuilt racing trimarans and claiming they're representative.


You lose!

I lose? You're the one claiming that ALL catamarans WILL capsize.
Perhaps you found one case, you still have around 20,000 to go.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...size-4446.html

And it only took two minutes to Google it. Now what have you got to say
for yourself?

You realize that the Outremer 45 is known more as a racer than a
cruiser - there's a video in UTube of one doing over 22 knots. At the
very least you'll need to show that it was used for cruising at the
time, not racing.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Willie ain't got nothing on me. I suggest that y'all should look up the race
history of MY vessel, "Pyewacket."

:-D

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:21:06 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Willie ain't got nothing on me. I suggest that y'all should look up the race
history of MY vessel, "Pyewacket."
What is the make and length?
:


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:21:06 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Willie ain't got nothing on me. I suggest that y'all should look up the
race
history of MY vessel, "Pyewacket."
What is the make and length?
:


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Why, Walker Bay, of course. 8'10" :-D