WaIIy wrote:

Well Chief, please point out the url's or ANY credible story to back up
your assertion.

jeezus WaIIy the url has been posted a dozen times
read the damn proclamation
and thenjust get over it
you and Armond can't act like the thing doesn't say what it says
you're big boys, you're smart enough
you can understand it

you Americans have got to get over this Cuba thing
you lay like a whore with Putin and the Chinese because there's $$ in it
but tiny little Cuba?
naw, you'll still recycle the same tired old horse**** about Communism
you guys are still just ****ed that Fidel took a pair of bricks to your
balls 50 years ago and told you to f*** off

when are you Americans _ever_ going to learn that you'll make more
allies by feeding them, than starving or bombing them?

prodigal1 wrote:

... [rant snipped] ...

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but it occurs to me that the level of
discourse hereabouts is tending toward Paris Sewer levels. One possible
reason is that there are quite a few folks posting under anonymous monikers.
As many long-time readers know, this occurs here from time to time,
characterized by a frequency on par with sun spots and US general elections.
Though rare, it's still a bit unnerving.

If I didn't know better I'd suspect these nameless wonders do this because
they are not quite forthcoming enough to post their sentiments under a name
that other readers could associate with a real live human being. (BTW, the
"spam avoidance" excuse doesn't work here, or haven't you heard about
"munging" and Mailwasher?) There are any number of possible reasons for
this character-less activity, but none of them pass muster as evidence of
responsible behavior.

There are many of us who've been writing to this group over the years who
have always signed our names. There's also a large group of anonymous
posters whose behavior is impeccable. We've all said and done stupid things
and made mistakes, but this missive is not intended for them. It's
directed at the "others."

The "others" contingent hides behind some "nom-de-Usenet" and never crawls
out from under the rock they currently inhabit. They and their ilk have
origins that can usually be traced to other newsgroups where their behavior
is the norm rather than the exception. They seem to be prone toward
political rants and broad generalizations, and quite often show little
evidence of schooling beyond fourth grade (on a good day). They are quite
certain that "grammar" is an actor in a TV sitcom

These are _not_ the folks one wants to share an anchorage with, although
it's unlikely that they will wander far in their 18 foot runabouts..

Hey, I'm just an old-fashioned guy, I guess, but would these "phantoms" give
some though to backing up their rants with their real names? As the song
goes, "let the sun shine.".

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Beautiful Armond, simply beautiful, but those that live under a rock
hate sunshine.
JR

Armond Perretta wrote:
prodigal1 wrote:

... [rant snipped] ...


Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but it occurs to me that the level of
discourse hereabouts is tending toward Paris Sewer levels. One possible
reason is that there are quite a few folks posting under anonymous monikers.
As many long-time readers know, this occurs here from time to time,
characterized by a frequency on par with sun spots and US general elections.
Though rare, it's still a bit unnerving.

If I didn't know better I'd suspect these nameless wonders do this because
they are not quite forthcoming enough to post their sentiments under a name
that other readers could associate with a real live human being. (BTW, the
"spam avoidance" excuse doesn't work here, or haven't you heard about
"munging" and Mailwasher?) There are any number of possible reasons for
this character-less activity, but none of them pass muster as evidence of
responsible behavior.

There are many of us who've been writing to this group over the years who
have always signed our names. There's also a large group of anonymous
posters whose behavior is impeccable. We've all said and done stupid things
and made mistakes, but this missive is not intended for them. It's
directed at the "others."

The "others" contingent hides behind some "nom-de-Usenet" and never crawls
out from under the rock they currently inhabit. They and their ilk have
origins that can usually be traced to other newsgroups where their behavior
is the norm rather than the exception. They seem to be prone toward
political rants and broad generalizations, and quite often show little
evidence of schooling beyond fourth grade (on a good day). They are quite
certain that "grammar" is an actor in a TV sitcom

These are _not_ the folks one wants to share an anchorage with, although
it's unlikely that they will wander far in their 18 foot runabouts..

Hey, I'm just an old-fashioned guy, I guess, but would these "phantoms" give
some though to backing up their rants with their real names? As the song
goes, "let the sun shine.".

Armond Perretta wrote:
ad hominem snipped

To paraphrase Dr. Lector, if you don't understand the words, it's best
not to enter the conversation at all. But since several of us are being
kind enough to try to explain the words to you, I'll continue. Your job
will be to shut up and learn.

Whether I choose to post under a pseudonym or not is of no concern to
you. What is a "name" on usenet anyway? What is of concern to you are
the _ideas_ being presented by those words. Some of the words and ideas
that have been presented for your edification have been both difficult
for you to comprehend and apparently even more difficult for you to
swallow. You have to set aside all your long years of propagandization
by your political system and that's a _very_very_ difficult thing for
many of you Americans to do. By the words you post here it seems that
people like you, your pal WaIIy and your cheerleader JR would all like
to shove your heads deeply into......the sand and ignore the fact that
the imperialist politics of the USA are relevant to topics of discussion
in rec.boats.cruising. If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the Canary
Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government whether I
choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to
rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully who
thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes proclamations like
the one in question which impinge on my freedom as a citizen of another
country.

So let's summarize.
1. address the ideas 'cause the names don't matter
2. imperialist American politics is relevant to rec.boats.cruising
3. when in doubt, refer back to #2 and #1

"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
........................snip....................
If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the Canary
Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government whether I
choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to
rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully who
thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes proclamations like
the one in question which impinge on my freedom as a citizen of another
country.
..................snip again...............

I write and have always written under my real name and I also would like to
say that I completely agree with what "prodigal 1" has stated about the
rights of travelers to sail to wherever they want without the intervention
of the US Authorities. If I am sailing from Haiti to Cuba, what right does
the United States have to stop me from doing so? If they stop my boat on
the high seas it, to me, amounts to piracy! It is no wonder that the
Americans are so hated in most parts of the world when their government
issues such ridiculous laws pertaining to Cuba. It was bad enough that the
US Forces attacked Grenada for no reason other than there were Cubans there
who were there by the Grenadian Government invitation and now they would
stop citizens from other countries who want to travel to Cuba.
James D. Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

prodigal1 wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
ad hominem snipped

To paraphrase Dr. Lector, if you don't understand the words, it's
best not to enter the conversation at all. But since several of us
are being kind enough to try to explain the words to you, I'll
continue. Your job will be to shut up and learn.

Whether I choose to post under a pseudonym or not is of no concern
to you. What is a "name" on usenet anyway? What is of concern to
you are the _ideas_ being presented by those words. Some of the
words and ideas that have been presented for your edification have
been both difficult for you to comprehend and apparently even more
difficult for you to swallow. You have to set aside all your long
years of propagandization by your political system and that's a
_very_very_ difficult thing for many of you Americans to do. By
the words you post here it seems that people like you, your pal
WaIIy and your cheerleader JR would all like to shove your heads
deeply into......the sand and ignore the fact that the imperialist
politics of the USA are relevant to topics of discussion in
rec.boats.cruising. If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the
Canary Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government
whether I choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to
rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully
who thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes
proclamations like the one in question which impinge on my freedom
as a citizen of another country.
So let's summarize.
1. address the ideas 'cause the names don't matter
2. imperialist American politics is relevant to rec.boats.cruising
3. when in doubt, refer back to #2 and #1



--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Garuda wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
oups.com...

A brief civics lesson:

The White House proclamation is a policy document which gives the
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to make and enforce
regulations within certain guidelines.

Armed Coasties can't wave this policy document as they storm the boats
of innocent cigar smokers sailing ominously near to Cuba.

What they DO have to comply with and enforce is this document:
http://www.uscg.mil/d7/d7o/mic/regulations.pdf

It took me 2 minutes on Google to find the actual regulations the CG
has to follow. I am not even going to pretend to interpret them for
you; please read it for yourself.

Civics disclaimer: The Secretary can change these regulations at any
time as long as he does so within the President's proclamation.

Jim


Regardless of content, some will interpret the proclamation as a profound threat
to even those with cigars, charts or cruising guides of Cuba. A certain
canadian with a propensity for waxing political, ad nauseam, coupled with
wishing to be a fly on the wall, hopefully will meet up with a common fly
swatter and thus spare us further BS.





You know Garuda,

ALL I have done is suggest that you READ THE PROCLAMATION carefully. YOU
are the one who keeps insisting it isn't so. And THAT is not my
problem...it's YOURS.

Franklly, your efforts at denial are nothing short of spectacular. Hey,
who am I to argue? If shooting the messenger somehow helps you enforce
your rampant denial, far be it for me to take that away from you.

It would be nice though if you could speak up. Hard to hear you with
your head so far up your ass.

Now feel free to post some useless (and embarassing to you) "response".
I'll take the high road and simply filter your rampant ignorance right
after I hit send. In other words, I won't see it.

Yank your head outa your ass and FLAME AWAY.

M

Again, I have first hand experience. Prior to Bush's first order to
the treasury department, anyone going to Cuba who didn't act like a
fool would have been fine. As long as they weren't smuggling cigars,
no problem. Further, prior to this, the Treasury department actually
stated that going to Cuba via boat was a good way to avoid paying any
money.

Fast forward to 2002, after the first presidential treasury department
directive. This isn't hypothetical, it's fact. The treasury
department sent us an automatic fine for 10,000 even after we produced
pictures of our provisions, our boat and a notarized letter from our
friends from canada stating that they had paid for everything.
Fortunately, we were able to prove it, but we still recieved the letter
and were processed under the assumption that until we proved our
innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, we were guilty.

Fast forward to last year, 2004, next presidential order for any boat
susceptible of travelling to cuban water can be siezed in US
territorial waters. US territorial waters extend 200 miles from our
coast (an act of Reagon, who I actually admired). Almost all of Cuba's
northern coast actually falls into our territorial waters.

Truely I wouldn't chance travelling to Cuba now. I'm a conservative,
I'm not trying to scare people, but you will be fined. It happens to
everyone, and you will have to prove you didn't spend money. If you
buy a ticket to Cuba, with your own money, and go via plane, you will
have no defense as part of that ticket is an airport fee. A US woman
travelling to and from Cuba from Canada was detained and fined at the
border for just such a violation two years ago, and it's just getting
worse.

Again, don't go.

Doug

boatgeek wrote:

... US territorial waters extend 200 miles from
our coast (an act of Reagon, who I actually admired). Almost all
of Cuba's northern coast actually falls into our territorial waters.


I am sure you did not mean this to be taken literally. Cuba enforces its 12
mile territorial waters as many people (and _some_ airplanes) have learned
to their chagrin. I was in Havana in 1996 when Fidel's meager air force
took out a few of the "Brothers to the Rescue" crowd, Take my word for it:
it was a scary time.

Where you wrote "territorial waters" I suspect you were referring
to "exclusive economic zones" which may extend out 200 nautical miles (for a
definition see http://www.answers.com/topic/exclusive-economic-zone. , and
for specifics on a country-by-country basis see
http://www.exxun.com/enmp/wr_maritime_claims_ee_1.html). As you can see,
the US is not unique in trying to enforce an "exclusive economic zone."
Almost every country with a seacoast has been at it for some time, and every
so often there's a gunfight between fishermen and some government agency
regarding this matter.

For example, in a case that may be surprising to some, one of the earliest
instances of so-called "high seas piracy" occurred in 1995 (see
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N10/canada.10w.html ) when Canada attacked and
seized a Spanish vessel in international waters. The European Union, which
oversees fishing issues for its member nations and is not normally known for
name-calling, condemned Canada, calling the high seas dispute over turbot
fishing an act of "organized piracy." Gee, that sounds familiar to r.b.c
readers, doesn't it? A religious person might opine: "Let he who is without
sin cast the first stone."

For more information on the current definition of "territorial waters" see
(I've copied the relevant parts of the referenced URLs):

http://www.answers.com/topic/territorial-waters

quoted

"The UN-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994,
codified territorial waters of 12 nautical mi (13.8 mi/22.2 km) and an
exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical mi (230 mi/370 km). In 1999, U.S.
agencies were empowered by presidential proclamation to enforce American law
up to 24 miles (39 km) offshore, doubling the previous limit."

/quoted

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/