Hey Timmy,

Will a pair of your sponsons wrapped around my Windows box prevent capsizing
in the event of a protection fault? If so, please let me know.

Please don't!

John Kuthe...

Hi All,

NEWBIE INQUIRY

I've been lurking here lately (just bought a canoe) and although I have no intentions of putting sponsons on it, I am
curious what all of the negativity is toward them and their use?

Thanks,

Malcontent



On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:01:42 -0500, "Wandering Hiker" wrote:

Hey Timmy,

Will a pair of your sponsons wrapped around my Windows box prevent capsizing
in the event of a protection fault? If so, please let me know.

Sponsons on any kayak or canoe will prevent deaths wearing PFDS or
not. BARD statistics reveal most victims struggle on the surface for
variable lengths of time. They die because of the instructor lobby,
who kill for the lowest amount of money in US history, while also
creating the highest user/death ratio in US or canadian history. This
makes Enron look good. At least they didn't kill while stealing.
Instructor lobby groups murder for very little money. Contract killers
hold them in contenpt.

See:

http://bconnex.net/~timkayak/canoe.html

Sponsons enable the victim to get out of the water. Do you wonder why
35%, 26%, 32%, and 28% of the dead are wearing PFDS, in the last
recorded USCG BARD Stats for 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999 respectively?
(Download from the USCG website.) PFDs cannot get people of of the
water. Only a Canoe/Kayak Rescue/Life Raft can. These BARD stats show
more dead wearing PFDs and fewer dead not wearing them!

Now why would anyone trying to promote the sport be against a sponson
life raft? Decent people in a court are not. Any judge and jury using
your ideas of rescue would be inflamed to know that over 300 dead
Americans exist since the lttle girls in the pictures demonstrated the
open canoe rescue craft!

This is all well documented in many other studies regarding the darker
side of humamity. BUT HERE, There are people who wish to see
instruction for a few dollars, that they know are unreliable enough to
kill. They blame the victims for their deaths.

http://www.bconnex.net~timkayak/canoe.html

Tim




"Wandering Hiker" wrote in message om...
Hey Timmy,

Will a pair of your sponsons wrapped around my Windows box prevent capsizing
in the event of a protection fault? If so, please let me know.

There's nothing wrong with sponsoons if you want to use them. One draw
back is they will create some additional drag.


wrote:

Hi All,

NEWBIE INQUIRY

I've been lurking here lately (just bought a canoe) and although I have no intentions of putting sponsons on it, I am
curious what all of the negativity is toward them and their use?

Thanks,

Malcontent



On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:01:42 -0500, "Wandering Hiker" wrote:



Hey Timmy,

Will a pair of your sponsons wrapped around my Windows box prevent capsizing
in the event of a protection fault? If so, please let me know.

wrote in message
...

Hi All,

NEWBIE INQUIRY

I've been lurking here lately (just bought a canoe) and although I have no
intentions of putting sponsons on it, I am
curious what all of the negativity is toward them and their use?

Thanks,

Malcontent


Mal,

It isn't the sponsons that are the problem, it is their advocate. Tim has a
long history of polluting this group with the same garbage and diatribes ad
infinitum. He does not respond honestly, nor truthfully, on the topic. If
you suggest that learning to paddle safely is more important than capsizing
and having to resort to some last ditch device to save your life, Tim calls
you a murderer. Nobody on this group has ever said, "no" to sponsons, or
other safety devices, they've just said a resounding "NO" to Tim. Sadly, he
doesn't understand this and posts the same garbage, makes the same claims,
and raves that we are responsible for the deaths of morons who go paddling
in conditions that are well beyond their skills.

It is more pathetic than funny, sadly.

Rick

Rick and others make money and massage a macho ego by blaming victims
below:
"raves that we are responsible for the deaths of morons who go
paddling
in conditions that are well beyond their skills."

"Conditions" are not predictable. Sickness, fast-moving weather,
quickly changing winds have killed the most expert. Canoes and kayaks
are very vulnerable.

Since capsize is inevitable sometime in such craft, rescue should be
as foolproof as possible.

This is the history of lifesaving, medicine, civilized society. Why
cruelly blame people for their own deaths. Or work to keep canoes and
kayaks as deadly as possible.

Our society is based on police who try to keep roads safe. NASA's
shuttle is grounded by safety concerns. Cars have better brakes, and
air-bags. Why would you kill your neighbour instead of saving your
neighbour?

Lifesaving Scandal

There is simply no equivalent in the 20th century or the 19th century
regarding this extremely high death rate. Death Rates one could only
expect through deliberate anti-safety and anti-social policies.
Compa 11,000 British sailors dead in overloaded and heavily insured
ships 1879-1899, in the largest merchant marine in the world. This is
1 sailor in 60 dying violently in water; in mining, same period, 1
dead miner in 315, both over a lifetime of exposure. Good thing that
canoes and kayaks are a small and declining US industry! And that
people don't canoe and kayak very often, since drowning deaths,
despite PFDs are far, far greater than for any other boat type!

I shall keep this short. The reality is that these carefully
constructed pieces of documentation will save lives, and also shed
light on the power of tiny and poor lobby groups (that are totally
unrepresentative of users, but make money by killing them, as in the
above Paddler quote); through tricking organizations as large as the
USCG, who legislate lifesaving measures in the US.

I am grateful for your help in saving lives. It is absurdly simple!
Give people a means to get out of the water and they don't die!
City waterfronts have buoyant, lifesaving objects available to save
anyone. (Most people don't stroll wearing a PFD!) For a thousand years
buoyant objects have saved human lives. But canoes and kayaks are
denied a simple, inexpensive, and obvious means to get out of the
water in 2004! Why have ambulances or even Coast Guards, if the
simplest form of watercraft is allowed to murder children and their
parents at a rate never before seen in history! This death rate is so
simply remedied that eventually, criminal charges are certain.

In Canada, the death rate is much higher than the US, thanks to the
Canadian Coast Guard covering up a study by a Canadian Search and
Rescue Officer who found exactly the same sponson safety reported by
the US Military Special Forces Kayaking Study (10th Airborne) in 1994.
Result: About 500 Canadian canoe and kayak deaths.

This study and others will stand with "Hitler's Willing Executioners"
and Milgram's studies at Yale, regarding the darker aspects of
humanity. You simply have no other instances of such a high death
rate, easily remedied, by such a small "murder cult". I repeat what I
stated above: "There is plenty of "macho" ego, regarding instruction
that no judge or jury can accomplish. There are however, plentiful
arguments that the victims deserved to die, as a Darwinian
perspective."

from:

http://www.bconnex.net/~timkayak/canoe.html

Tim


"Rick" wrote in message link.net...
wrote in message
...

Hi All,

NEWBIE INQUIRY

I've been lurking here lately (just bought a canoe) and although I have no
intentions of putting sponsons on it, I am
curious what all of the negativity is toward them and their use?

Thanks,

Malcontent


Mal,

It isn't the sponsons that are the problem, it is their advocate. Tim has a
long history of polluting this group with the same garbage and diatribes ad
infinitum. He does not respond honestly, nor truthfully, on the topic. If
you suggest that learning to paddle safely is more important than capsizing
and having to resort to some last ditch device to save your life, Tim calls
you a murderer. Nobody on this group has ever said, "no" to sponsons, or
other safety devices, they've just said a resounding "NO" to Tim. Sadly, he
doesn't understand this and posts the same garbage, makes the same claims,
and raves that we are responsible for the deaths of morons who go paddling
in conditions that are well beyond their skills.

It is more pathetic than funny, sadly.

Rick

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:16:03 GMT, "Rick" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Hi All,

NEWBIE INQUIRY

I've been lurking here lately (just bought a canoe) and although I have no
intentions of putting sponsons on it, I am
curious what all of the negativity is toward them and their use?

Thanks,

Malcontent


Mal,

It isn't the sponsons that are the problem, it is their advocate. Tim has a
long history of polluting this group with the same garbage and diatribes ad
infinitum. He does not respond honestly, nor truthfully, on the topic. If
you suggest that learning to paddle safely is more important than capsizing
and having to resort to some last ditch device to save your life, Tim calls
you a murderer. Nobody on this group has ever said, "no" to sponsons, or
other safety devices, they've just said a resounding "NO" to Tim. Sadly, he
doesn't understand this and posts the same garbage, makes the same claims,
and raves that we are responsible for the deaths of morons who go paddling
in conditions that are well beyond their skills.

It is more pathetic than funny, sadly.

Rick


Gotcha,

I guess every Usenet news group has to have at least 1 "cut 'n paste" nut case.

When I was a kid many moons ago, I was fortunate enough to go to a camp that had canoes. We all had to pass the Red
Cross canoeing exam before we were permitted to go on long distance camp outs. None of those canoes had any sort of
lifesaving equipment on board. We didn't even have PFD's in those days. I managed to survive the capsizing and re-entry
part of the exam back then. Now, 40 years later and a little wiser, I think as long as I wear a PFD I'll be just fine.

Malcontent

Tim Ingram ) writes:
Sponsons on any kayak or canoe will prevent deaths wearing PFDS or
not. BARD statistics reveal most victims struggle on the surface for
variable lengths of time. They die because of the instructor lobby,
who kill for the lowest amount of money in US history, while also
creating the highest user/death ratio in US or canadian history. This
makes Enron look good. At least they didn't kill while stealing.
Instructor lobby groups murder for very little money. Contract killers
hold them in contenpt.

I certainly agree on the over-hyped instruction scam. Also the "bullet
proof" kevlar scam. My money is on knowing local conditions as the most
important issue in paddling safety. Well, okay, a low-risk conservative
approach is important too. You can know the risk and go anyway which is
stupid, or you can not know the risk and go, which is ignorant.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Tim Ingram ) writes:

the problem is this guy wants to make sponsons manditory by law, like
those stupid air bags on cars. I'm comfortable with sponons as an option,
but certainly not manditory. If TI can create enough anxiety through
advertising, like so many others do for their products, so he can sell
lots of them let him go ahead. But not manditory.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned