On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:35:18 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote:

In article s.com,
says...

This is my prediction: Within ten years states and then the federal
government will mandate the wearing of life jackets on all boats underway.

That would seem nonsensical in at least one way: If the boat isn't
underway, you wouldn't have to wear the jacket, but stepping from
your boat to your dinghy while at anchor might be when a PFD is
most needed. Ah, well, government regulations don't always make
sense. (Sometimes they do, though---like driving on the right
side of the road.)

The next question to ask, is when does a vessel transition from
"boat" to "ship". If there is no difference, I can see a
big opportunity in stylish flotation gear for the cruise ship
industry! ;-)



And, those of you who post that you wear them as a general practice when
aboard your boat and that you don't mind doing so only encourage more
infringement by government upon our personal freedoms.

It will be a cold day in hell when I wear a life jacket because it's
mandated by law.

The most effective way to get people to wear PFDs might be a simple
regulation that if you get rescued and aren't wearing one, you
pay all the costs of the rescue.

There are certain conditions when I will voluntarily wear one because I
value my own life but it is unacceptable to me to have Big Brother mandate
such wearing. **** them! Ain't none of their business.


Mark Borgerson


Hey, that seems reasonable to me! It gives you a choice. If you aren't
worried about it, then you do nothing. If you are worried, you wear
them.

On 2/22/2011 1:10 PM, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Stephen wrote in message
...
On 2/21/2011 10:26 AM, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Stephen wrote in message
...
On 2/19/2011 12:11 PM, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
This is my prediction: Within ten years states and then the federal
government will mandate the wearing of life jackets on all boats
underway.

And, those of you who post that you wear them as a general practice
when
aboard your boat and that you don't mind doing so only encourage more
infringement by government upon our personal freedoms.

It will be a cold day in hell when I wear a life jacket because it's
mandated by law.

There are certain conditions when I will voluntarily wear one because I
value my own life but it is unacceptable to me to have Big Brother
mandate
such wearing. **** them! Ain't none of their business.

Muddy thinking. What you are advocating is cutting off your nose to
spite
your face. If we feel safer and okay with wearing them all the time
we're
supposed avoid wearing them because of something the government wants?
You
are hoisting yourself on your own petard and being controlled by the
very
Big Brother you are trying to avoid.

Stephen



Good grief! but yours is warped logic. Let's look at it without the
liberal,
big brother indoctrination you so proudly display.

1) If a body feels safer wearing a life jacket then, fine, do so. Suit
yourself! Nobody's going to stop you.

2) But, if a body does not feel safer wearing a life jacket or doesn't
want
to wear one because it's unsightly and uncomfortable or any other reason
then why should THAT individual be ruled by the tyranny of the person who
does and who thinks it's his right to boss everybody else around?

WAKE THE **** UP!!!


That's the problem with liberals vs. conservatives. A liberal wants to
FORCE
his desires on everybody else while a conservative only wishes to be left
alone to take care of himself or not take care of himself as is his wont.
A
conservative is for individual freedom while a liberal is for tyranny.

You liberals are little Hitlers and you disgust me because you are too
arrogant to see what you're really all about - forcing others to think,
act
and do what you think, in your ignorant arrogance, they should do. You
strut
your jackbooted stuff and seem proud of the fact. Take a hike and leave
the
rest of alone.

Wilbur Hubbard

Now you are disagreeing with what you said above:

And, those of you who post that you wear them as a general practice
when
aboard your boat and that you don't mind doing so only encourage more
infringement by government upon our personal freedoms.

One Wilbur says wear them if you want. Another Wilbur says if you wear
them all the time as a general practice, you are encouraging Big Brother.
One or both Wilburs need to either get together or get off the sauce.

Stephen




Wrong! If you would treat with me you would be well-advised to become more
literate.

In your scrawl, you seem to have conviently overlooked the preamble to my
statement which is "those of you who post. . ." In other words publicize. I
have no problem with people wearing life jackets out of personal choice as
long as they just do so and then stfu about it. What I DO have a problem
with is people publicizing their wearing habits with the intent to get
legislation passed that forces everybody to do so.

You should say what you mean then. Don't expect people to be able to
read your mind. You never said "..with the intent to..."

If you are not able to ascertain the difference between your attempt at a
blanket statement and my very specific statement then you should use less
insolence when treating with your betters.

You are saying this into a mirror, right? If not, you should. It's perfect.

Stephen

No, Bob

Once again, you are wrong.

It isn't the republicans who are to blame for this economic situation, nore
the conservatives in Canada. It is you civil servants, teachers, union greed
and the likes. Just because the Republicans or Conservatives point out how
fiscally or prudently irresponsible your demands (by guns to the heads) are,
doesn't mean they are your enemy. Try asking yourself how a country can pay
for your greed.





"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 7:35 pm, Mark Borgerson wrote:
In article s.com,
says...


This is my prediction: Within ten years states and then the federal
government will mandate the wearing of life jackets on all boats
underway.

Here again Jessibur shows his lack of understaning of the most
fundamental maritime concepts.
There is a difference betwen UNDERWAY and MAKING WAY. Test question 1:
what conditions suggests a vessel underway and not making way? What
COLREGS cover a vessel UNDERWAY and not making way?


That would seem nonsensical in at least one way: If the boat isn't
underway, you wouldn't have to wear the jacket, but stepping from
your boat to your dinghy while at anchor might be when a PFD is
most needed.

absotlty agred This comes under the heading of personell transfers.


The next question to ask, is when does a vessel transition from
"boat" to "ship". If there is no difference, I can see a
big opportunity in stylish flotation gear for the cruise ship
industry! ;-)

USCG does not make a distinction between boat or ship. However there
are several conditions the uscg uses to regulate vessel operation:
1) area of operation,,, Ocean Near Coast Inland
2) size??? Gross Registerd Tons and/or Length.
3) Type of servise as in Coast Wise (fishing-cargo-passanger) Oil and
Mineral (OSV/DSV/etc)Then you have different sub catigories of those
ie Chapter T Passenger Vessels.


And, those of you who post that you wear them as a general practice when
aboard your boat and that you don't mind doing so only encourage more
infringement by government upon our personal freedoms.

It will be a cold day in hell when I wear a life jacket because it's
mandated by law.

Jessibur how do swallow the fact you hae to register your boat and GOD
FORBID not shhit in the bay or dump your oil in the water either? That
mut be a TERRIBLE infrigment of your personal freedoms ! ! !

You see... Republicans are nothing more than SPOILED CHILDREN.. Its
all, WAAAA WAAAA me me me dont tell me what to do ITS MY BOAT wa wa
waaaa.


The most effective way to get people to wear PFDs might be a simple
regulation that if you get rescued and aren't wearing one, you
pay all the costs of the rescue.

THis is a very good idea....! I think... hum ill have to think more
about the imlications.
bob

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:11:12 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:



This is my prediction: Within ten years states and then the federal
government will mandate the wearing of life jackets on all boats underway.

And, those of you who post that you wear them as a general practice when
aboard your boat and that you don't mind doing so only encourage more
infringement by government upon our personal freedoms.

It will be a cold day in hell when I wear a life jacket because it's
mandated by law.

There are certain conditions when I will voluntarily wear one because I
value my own life but it is unacceptable to me to have Big Brother mandate
such wearing. **** them! Ain't none of their business.

I have a merchant marine academy textbook, or did until I lost
everything in a fire. It says that while fire is rightly regarded as
the major threat, sailors do occasionally drown, too often after
falling off the gangplank drunk. I personally wouldn't have a chance
if I went in the water from any height at all. I have no body fat and
would sink like a rock to a considerable depth and most likely never
make it back to the air.

Casady

This includes the requirement that you both wear a lifejacket while at anchor, in your bunk ,making whoopee with your sweetie. Comedians can do a great spoof of this, to show how ridiculous the concept is.
Any takers? Pass this on to any comedians you know who are looking for ideas. Go for it.
In Canada ,we are under no legal obligation to open the hatch for anyone , watercops included. They have to get a search warrant to enter a boat's living accomodations.