"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article , åke says...


(Snip)

Good Grief, another fake circumnavigation. A circumnavigation
is defined as transiting the three great capes. Using the Panama
Canal is cheating. Using the Suez Canal is cheating.

Who decreed that? Seems to me a true circumnavigation should take place
at the earth's waist not its poles. So going via the canals is the true
circumnavigation.




"Can someone clarify the term for this feat that I once read? An official
Circumnavigation claim can only be made by passing South of all the 5
capes on the globe and also crossing the antopidal point whereby you
will have crossed the equator once?

"I think I saw this at about the time Jesse Martin completed his
Circumnavigation? I don't wish to take the feat away from anyone who
attempts it as I can only imagine how tough it would be based on my
commercial fishing experiences at those latitudes - well done."

Source:

http://forum.sailingscuttlebutt.com/...similar_P9593/

Being a traditionalist, I agree with the above definition of a *sailing*
circumnavigation.

Motoring through canals isn't sailing, IMO. That's cheating. What if one
was going to circumnavigate around the world in an airplane. What if
he landed the airplane somewhere and had it placed on a railroad car
and shipped through some mountain pass and resumed the flight on
the other side? I bet even you would agree that's not a real circumnavigation
in an airplane.

Dragging a sailboat through the Panama Canal is NOT SAILING.

Since the above route south of the Capes can be navigated the entire
way under sail and the canal way may not, how presumptuous for anybody
in a sailboat to claim he circumnavigated under sail?

--
Sir Gregory

Hate to point out the glaringly obvious here but you can be a complete
****ing idiot at times.

Anybody remember Transactional Analysis, way back when?
The book was titled, "I'm ok - You're ok".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_OK,_You%27re_OK

Thomas Harris MD developed this into a useful tool for deciphering
people with problems.

Four life positions:

The phrase I'm OK, You're OK is one of four "life positions" that each
of us may take. The four positions a

I'm Not OK, You're OK
I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
I'm OK, You're Not OK
I'm OK, You're OK

The most common position is I'm Not OK, You're OK. As children we see
that adults are large, strong and competent and that we are little, weak
and often make mistakes, so we conclude I'm Not OK, You're OK.

Children who are abused may conclude I'm Not OK, You're Not OK or I'm
OK, You're Not OK, but this is much less common.

The emphasis of the book is helping people understand how their life
position affects their communications (transactions) and relationships
with practical examples.

I’m OK, You’re OK continues by providing practical advice to begin
decoding the physical and verbal clues required to analyze transactions.

For example, Harris suggests signs that a person is in a Parent ego
state can include the use of evaluative words that imply judgment based
on an automatic, axiomatic and archaic value system: words like ‘stupid,
naughty, ridiculous, disgusting, should or ought’ (though the latter can
also be used in the Adult ego state).

The Parent, Adult, Child (P-A-C) Model

Harris describes the mental state called the Parent by analogy, as a
collection of "tape recordings" of external influences that a child
observed adults doing and saying. The recording is a long list of rules
and admonitions about the way the world is that the child was expected
to believe unquestioningly. Many of these rules (for example: "Never run
out in front of traffic") are useful and valid all through life; others
("Premarital sex is wrong", or "You can never trust a cop") are opinions
that may be less helpful.

In parallel with those Parent recordings, the Child is a simultaneous
recording of internal events — how life felt as a child. Harris equates
these with the vivid recordings that Wilder Penfield was able to cause
his patients to re-live by stimulating their brains.

Harris proposes that, as adults, when we feel discouraged, it is as if
we are re-living those Child memories yet the stimulus for re-living
them may no longer be relevant or helpful in our lives.

According to Harris, humans start developing a third mental state, the
Adult, about the time children start to walk and begin to achieve some
measure of control over their environment.

Instead of learning ideas directly from parents into the Parent, or
experiencing simple emotion as the Child, children begin to be able to
explore and examine the world and form their own opinions. They test the
assertions of the Parent and Child and either update them or learn to
suppress them.

Thus the Adult inside us all develops over time, but it is very fragile
and can be readily overwhelmed by stressful situations. Its strength is
also tested through conflict between the simplistic ideas of the Parent
and reality. Sometimes, Harris asserts, it is safer for a person to
believe a lie than to acknowledge the evidence in front of them. This is
called Contamination of the Adult.



I believe what we have here is a VERY contaminated adult, with an
I'm not ok, You're not ok Child, and an abusive self-parent.


And it's really sad to see...

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:52:46 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article , åke says...


(Snip)

Good Grief, another fake circumnavigation. A circumnavigation
is defined as transiting the three great capes. Using the Panama
Canal is cheating. Using the Suez Canal is cheating.

Who decreed that? Seems to me a true circumnavigation should take place
at the earth's waist not its poles. So going via the canals is the true
circumnavigation.




"Can someone clarify the term for this feat that I once read? An official
Circumnavigation claim can only be made by passing South of all the 5
capes on the globe and also crossing the antopidal point whereby you
will have crossed the equator once?

"I think I saw this at about the time Jesse Martin completed his
Circumnavigation? I don't wish to take the feat away from anyone who
attempts it as I can only imagine how tough it would be based on my
commercial fishing experiences at those latitudes - well done."

Source:

http://forum.sailingscuttlebutt.com/...similar_P9593/

Being a traditionalist, I agree with the above definition of a *sailing*
circumnavigation.

Motoring through canals isn't sailing, IMO. That's cheating. What if one
was going to circumnavigate around the world in an airplane. What if
he landed the airplane somewhere and had it placed on a railroad car
and shipped through some mountain pass and resumed the flight on
the other side? I bet even you would agree that's not a real circumnavigation
in an airplane.

Dragging a sailboat through the Panama Canal is NOT SAILING.

Since the above route south of the Capes can be navigated the entire
way under sail and the canal way may not, how presumptuous for anybody
in a sailboat to claim he circumnavigated under sail?


I see. You read it on the Internet which apparently proves it true.
But additionally makes it easy for you sitting in your permanently
moored boat to disparage someone who is out voyaging.

Something that you are apparently either too inapt or too terrified to
attempt.

--
Cheers,

Bruce