On Aug 16, 3:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
....
Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath
through it all by himself.

All by himself? Maybe Davis had something to do with it too... The
Constitution is far better with the 14th and the country is infinitely
better for 13 and 15. But what does this have to do with cruising?

-- Tom.

They sure do make great party platforms in the Carib.

On Aug 16, 11:50 pm, ":
On Aug 16, 3:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
...

Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath
through it all by himself.


" wrote
All by himself? Maybe Davis had something to do with it too...

Nah, the Constitution did not (and still does not) say a word about
forbidding states to withdraw from the union. Nor does it grant the
President authority to order military action against any states
(hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term
for the U.S. Civil War).

Stanton did more to help Lincoln get over the Constitution than
Davis... not that I'm a big fan of ol' Jeff Davis... in fact I think
the Confederacy was one of the most selfish & retarded gambits that a
dying aristocracy has ever foisted upon it's host society.



The
Constitution is far better with the 14th and the country is infinitely
better for 13 and 15. But what does this have to do with cruising?


umm... equal rights for sailors & cruisers?

Actually, I dunno what it has to do with sailing... but I think that
sooner or later, *everything* is related to sailing & cruising
somehow.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"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
...

"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

"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. 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?

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?
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.

Wilbur Hubbard

"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
--

"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

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.

And what have you come up with? You've scoured the web for years and
posted every story you could find, but as predicted the pickings have
been slim indeed. In fact, not a single incident you've reported fit
the criteria. Several have been 30 feet, which is generally
considered too small for serious weather. One of those was a racing
cat, and another was an very old design with a beam so narrow that it
could hardly be called a cat nowadays. Another was a crossbeam
design, with a known structural flaw. One was at anchor in a Category
5 hurricane, where many of the monohulls sank. You've even posted
links to Hobie capsizes! The Fountain Pajot Tobago 35 was close but
small and with a SA/Disp of almost 30 its rig is quite aggressive for
a cruising cat.

Further, with one exception, there was no loss of life in any of these
incidents. In that exception, a delivery crew left port and sailed
into one of the worst storms in Pacific Northwest history. Even so,
it appears everyone was on deck at the time of the capsize, and anyone
below would have survived. In fact, its possible that had someone
below activated the EPIRB (or had it been rig to automatically
activate) someone on deck might have been rescued.

And you completely ignore the fact that every year there are a number
of monohulls that sink or go missing, and that monohulls sink every
day in inland situations, even at the dock. Also, monohull sailors
are at risk every time they go forward; not so on cats. Almost all
monohulls are at great risk from collisions with logs, containers, and
whales; multihulls generally survive such episode long enough for
rescue. Incidents such as the loss of "Morning Dew" in Charleston
would be very unlikely in a modern catamaran.

On top of this, the vast majority of sailors, whether mono- or
multihull never, or very infrequently, actually go offshore, and of
those that do, most avoid the worst weather. For instance, for all of
your talk, you've never been more than 50 miles away from land; you've
never encountered conditions that could potentially overwhelm a larger
cat.

So you can rant about how you'd never sail a cat; that's fine by me.
Personally, nothing could make me spend more than a week on a 26
footer, let alone live on it for years. Why don't you explain to us
how you lost that boat?




* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/16/2007 9:24 AM:
Yes, cruising catamarans have something extra. As a simple Google and
YouTube search using capsize and catamaran will reveal, the something
extra is the remarkable ease with which catamarans turn turtle.

With this in mind, any potential catamaran buyer must ask himself if the
paltry advantages of a catamaran - things such as small heel angles,
slightly faster speeds downwind, more elbow room below (but not load
carrying capacity), shallow draft and largish cockpit - outweigh the
fact that sooner or later the whole shebang is going to end up
upside-down and swamped. Don't even think about what happens if you get
trapped under the thing and drown. Just think about upside-down. In
other words, everything is ruined.

Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable
upside-down than rightside-up? Is the trade-off between a platform that
doesn't heel quite as much and an upside-down platform worth it? Only
you can answer that question. It depends upon how much you love your
life and the lives of your loved ones.

I wonder when the Coast Guard is going to get some balls and declare any
and all cruising catamaran ocean voyages "manifestly unsafe voyages"
and put a stop to them?

Wilbur Hubbard

Jeff wrote:
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.

And what have you come up with? You've scoured the web for years and
posted every story you could find, but as predicted the pickings have
been slim indeed. In fact, not a single incident you've reported fit
the criteria.

Yep... and you expected... what, exactly?
Remember who you're talking to


And you completely ignore the fact that every year there are a number
of monohulls that sink or go missing, and that monohulls sink every
day in inland situations, even at the dock.

The most common reason for monohulls to sink at the dock is because of
a failure in the potable water system, and city water pressure floods
them.

.... Also, monohull sailors
are at risk every time they go forward; not so on cats. Almost all
monohulls are at great risk from collisions with logs, containers, and
whales;

Nah, most monohulls are too slow for such things to present much risk.
Might as well worry about icebergs.

Aside from that, it's quite easy to reduce the risk by adding
bulkheads, flotation, a layer of kevlar (or better yet, choose a
kevlar boat to start with), etc etc.


.... multihulls generally survive such episode long enough for
rescue. Incidents such as the loss of "Morning Dew" in Charleston
would be very unlikely in a modern catamaran.

Well, IMHO if that guy had bought a catamaran (unlikely, the reason he
bought 'Morning Dew' is that it was a bargain-basement kludge) he
would have made some major goof-up and wrecked that, too. What he did
was the sailing equivalent of taking a '75 Buick with bald tires out
on the interstate and driving past a series of warning signs then off
a bridge construction site. The saddest part is that he took the kids
with him.


So you can rant about how you'd never sail a cat; that's fine by me.

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??

Fresh Breezes- Doug King