A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:


I simply maintain that Boulder Creek, through my property, is not a
"navigable waterway" and that as such, the public has no right to float
through my property. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated unequivocally
that the public has no right of recreational access upon non-navigable
rivers and streams in Colorado. That's the law. I choose to exercise my
rights under that law to exclude boaters from the creek, which is my private
property, just as you might choose to exclude me from your backyard barbecue
because your back yard is private property.


Would you be willing to allow scenic, recreational use of the section
of Boulder Creek flowing through your property in exchange for the tax
advantages and ecological good-sense of maintaining a conservation
easement?

I already have a conservation easement with the City of Boulder, which in
part precludes such use, and the answer is "no."

The reasons for not allowing access are several, not that I have to justify
my decision at all.

Chief among them is that the area through which the creek flows is a
wildlife preserve and is a state designated Natural Area, and human
intrusion disturbs the wildlife.

Most importantly, there is an active bald eagle nest within 50 yards of the
creek, and any human intrusion may cause a "take" of bald eagles under 16
USC 668, which is a felony with a one year jail sentence and a $5000 fine.

16 USC 668c says that "take" includes "molest or disturb." I have recently
been told that "disturb" includes any activity that causes the eagles to
flush from the nest. This means, for example, that right now even I cannot
go within 250 yards of the nesting tree even to fix my fences, fight a grass
fire or tend to a sick cow. If I can't even enjoy my own property because
the eagles have chosen to nest there, why should a bunch of trespassing
kayakers get to?

And then there's the New Zealand mudsnail, which has recently been
discovered on Boulder Creek just upstream a mile or two of my property, and
which may be in the creek on my property as well. The state is facing a
genuine ecological disaster if the snails get transported to other
waterways, and I'm part of an ad hoc working group with the state division
of wildlife seeking ways to stem the infestation. One of the primary
vectors for transmission is watercraft, including kayaks and innertubes, and
I've proposed that the state should enact legislation to empower the board
of parks and outdoor recreation to ban the use of watercraft on Boulder
Creek between 55th and 95th streets, just as they have banned fishing in
that reach to control one of the other important vectors: fishermen.

And, of course, I simply don't want people trespassing through my property.
It's mine, and I have a right to keep people out. If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan. I have
spent my whole adult life protecting and preserving the property and the
wildlife and I don¹t intend to sacrifice that work for the mere selfish
pleasure of some kayakers.

In fact, the only reason anyone wants to boat through is BECAUSE my late
mother and I spent our lives protecting the area and creating a beautiful
natural area. When we bought the place, it was barren, overgrazed ground
with no trees along the creek that was quite unattractive. We changed all
that with a lifetime of work, and I don¹t see why I should be compelled to
share it with johnny-come-lately's who have neither put their labor nor
their money into protecting the property.

There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott surmises:
=================
I suspect that Canada has much the same structure as the US, since
English common law is the genesis for both. Thus, there is probably
some distinction drawn between navigable and non navigable.
==============

From: http://www.lwbc.bc.ca/04community/en.../trespass.html

TREPASS ON WATERFRONT PROPERTY


++++There is no mention of "navigable"

I couldn't find one either. Evidently Canada is radically different. Oh
well, it is Canada after all.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

"Owners of shoreline property in British Columbia should be aware
that most aquatic land is owned by the province and managed by Land
and Water British Columbia Inc."

Here's something interesting to ponder with regards to US federal
rights of access:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

The first five or six paragraphs seem to recognize a pretty liberal
definition of public access (specifically with regards to "rivers",
regardless of size).




This is very instructive as well (I think Scott might really dislike
this one):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Yah, I've seen them all. Problem is, they don't know what they are talking
about. They have their political agenda and they post information that suits
that agenda. Unfortunately for them, the law is rather different,
particularly here in Colorado.

Even the mention of access laws and practice in Colorado is
interesting in the American Whitewater writeup, though there seem to
be some pretty stark contrasts/conflicts with the federal law as
stated in the National Rivers links above:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm

Yup, quite a contrast indeed. Fact is however that I've got a Colorado
Supreme Court ruling that says there is no public right to float through
private property on non navigable streams that hasn't been overturned by the
SCOTUS. So, for now, that's the ruling law in Colorado. All the debate is
about what the legislature tried to do and whether in so doing they violated
my property rights and the property rights of ever stream owner in Colorado
and how much money the state owes landowners for illegally appropriating a
right of way through their property.

The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a
federal
one,

Not in Georgia:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/GA.htm

See, I've already got people learning something...

I already knew what Georgia law was.

Well, ya gotta admit, anybody what can learn ya retroactively is some kind'a
teacher.

Wolfgang
and "interesting" is a very sly euphemism. :)

Scotts finds:
=============
I couldn't find one either. Evidently Canada is radically different. Oh
well, it is Canada after all.
==============

But, Canada's (British Columbia's, anyway) approach makes everything so
much simpler: no requirement to determine navigable or not... although
it does beg the question as to when a trickle actually becomes a creek
or a stream...

frtzw906

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

frtzw906

Whoops:
=========
A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN
============

Re-phrase: A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if
it's cold
out, I can COMPREHEND the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue
with you,
Scott? GRIN

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:


I simply maintain that Boulder Creek, through my property, is not a
"navigable waterway" and that as such, the public has no right to float
through my property. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated unequivocally
that the public has no right of recreational access upon non-navigable
rivers and streams in Colorado. That's the law. I choose to exercise my
rights under that law to exclude boaters from the creek, which is my private
property, just as you might choose to exclude me from your backyard barbecue
because your back yard is private property.


Would you be willing to allow scenic, recreational use of the section
of Boulder Creek flowing through your property in exchange for the tax
advantages and ecological good-sense of maintaining a conservation
easement?


I already have a conservation easement with the City of Boulder, which in
part precludes such use, and the answer is "no."

The reasons for not allowing access are several, not that I have to justify
my decision at all.

Chief among them is that the area through which the creek flows is a
wildlife preserve and is a state designated Natural Area, and human
intrusion disturbs the wildlife.

Most importantly, there is an active bald eagle nest within 50 yards of the
creek, and any human intrusion may cause a "take" of bald eagles under 16
USC 668, which is a felony with a one year jail sentence and a $5000 fine.

16 USC 668c says that "take" includes "molest or disturb." I have recently
been told that "disturb" includes any activity that causes the eagles to
flush from the nest. This means, for example, that right now even I cannot
go within 250 yards of the nesting tree even to fix my fences, fight a grass
fire or tend to a sick cow. If I can't even enjoy my own property because
the eagles have chosen to nest there, why should a bunch of trespassing
kayakers get to?

And then there's the New Zealand mudsnail, which has recently been
discovered on Boulder Creek just upstream a mile or two of my property, and
which may be in the creek on my property as well. The state is facing a
genuine ecological disaster if the snails get transported to other
waterways, and I'm part of an ad hoc working group with the state division
of wildlife seeking ways to stem the infestation. One of the primary
vectors for transmission is watercraft, including kayaks and innertubes, and
I've proposed that the state should enact legislation to empower the board
of parks and outdoor recreation to ban the use of watercraft on Boulder
Creek between 55th and 95th streets, just as they have banned fishing in
that reach to control one of the other important vectors: fishermen.

And, of course, I simply don't want people trespassing through my property.
It's mine, and I have a right to keep people out. If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan. I have
spent my whole adult life protecting and preserving the property and the
wildlife and I don¹t intend to sacrifice that work for the mere selfish
pleasure of some kayakers.

In fact, the only reason anyone wants to boat through is BECAUSE my late
mother and I spent our lives protecting the area and creating a beautiful
natural area. When we bought the place, it was barren, overgrazed ground
with no trees along the creek that was quite unattractive. We changed all
that with a lifetime of work, and I don¹t see why I should be compelled to
share it with johnny-come-lately's who have neither put their labor nor
their money into protecting the property.

There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.


I'll assume you pay substantially less property tax on land designated
"wildlife preserve?" Bald Eagles are indeed among nature's most
majestic birds. I see them often, almost every time I canoe on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River. I was surprised how resilient and
accommodating they are to human intrusiveness. I've seen them very
near busy public highways and residential development, not to mention
the intensive recreational use by humans (fishing, boating, swimming)
of the river where they live. The first I ever saw Bald Eagles was at
Great Falls National Park (Virginia side) on the Potomac River. They
were just upriver from the falls. This area is also a wildlife
sanctuary, but also an area of intense recreational use. I understand
the reluctance to sunbathe nude while fleets of paddlers float by.
Wouldn't want to get a reputation as the crazy, naked guy who shouts
and throws rocks at canoeists.



--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get off your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit in around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have met and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed any help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:



Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott Weiser
please stand up?

That would be me.

I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true.

They aren't.

I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

I imagine that is possible, though I'm a bit busy with business right
now.
We could meet for lunch one of these days if you like.

Give me a call and leave your number, I'm in the book.

I think it's the birth of a new political party. Scotty will seize control
of the armed forces and Tinkerntom will wow the masses as god's
representative on earth ;-)



According to his repeated refrences to how he has reformed 'K&r', he's
already begun.

-riverman

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r". I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and on.

Now in consideration, I am able again to let go of your little tirade
of passion for the RBP, and understand that I don't know squat, but I'm
learning, like you also indicated, even in an earlier post in this
thread.

I appreciate you being my Nanny, and getting after me to fit in! Sorry
I wore you out so quickly, but it was not all wasted effort. See how
quickly I overlook your recent missteps. I should be allowed a few
myself! BTW I still owe you a cup of coffee! TnT

KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:



Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my
point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott
Weiser
please stand up?

That would be me.

I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true.

They aren't.

I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to
form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

I imagine that is possible, though I'm a bit busy with business
right now.
We could meet for lunch one of these days if you like.

Give me a call and leave your number, I'm in the book.

I think it's the birth of a new political party. Scotty will seize
control
of the armed forces and Tinkerntom will wow the masses as god's
representative on earth ;-)

KMAN, It seems that we already have your attention! Our plan is
working! TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r". I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and on.


Ahhh.. Well then.......(ahem)....uh, carry on, then. Jolly good.

Righto. Yep.
..
..
Uh, Cheerio....

--riverman

(oh, and you might want to disregard a post from me to KMAN elsewhere this
morning....)

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the
limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about
what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get
off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit
in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have
met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed
any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know
squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r".
I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they
were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and
on.


Ahhh.. Well then.......(ahem)....uh, carry on, then. Jolly good.

Righto. Yep.
.
.
Uh, Cheerio....

--riverman

(oh, and you might want to disregard a post from me to KMAN elsewhere
this
morning....)

Already done, though I did respond directly to his post. I am being
accused of some sort of unholy alliance, and all I was going to do is
get together with Scott for lunch. We haven't even met yet, and KMAN
has it figured out that we are going to take over the world! Sometimes
you all just take things too serious.

But what do you mean morning, it's late here and I was just getting
ready to pull the plug. Talk to you more later. TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

"Owners of shoreline property in British Columbia should be aware
that most aquatic land is owned by the province and managed by Land
and Water British Columbia Inc."

Here's something interesting to ponder with regards to US federal
rights of access:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

The first five or six paragraphs seem to recognize a pretty liberal
definition of public access (specifically with regards to "rivers",
regardless of size).




This is very instructive as well (I think Scott might really dislike
this one):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Yah, I've seen them all. Problem is, they don't know what they are talking
about. They have their political agenda and they post information that
suits
that agenda. Unfortunately for them, the law is rather different,
particularly here in Colorado.

Even the mention of access laws and practice in Colorado is
interesting in the American Whitewater writeup, though there seem to
be some pretty stark contrasts/conflicts with the federal law as
stated in the National Rivers links above:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm

Yup, quite a contrast indeed. Fact is however that I've got a Colorado
Supreme Court ruling that says there is no public right to float through
private property on non navigable streams that hasn't been overturned by
the
SCOTUS. So, for now, that's the ruling law in Colorado. All the debate is
about what the legislature tried to do and whether in so doing they
violated
my property rights and the property rights of ever stream owner in
Colorado
and how much money the state owes landowners for illegally appropriating a
right of way through their property.

The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my
property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.


I'd rather not trust you on this, if you don't mind, because I already know
your point of view. Just what is the applicable legal definition of
'navigable', is the point that its the applicable defintion NOT in debate,
and forgive my asking, but is this truly the lynchpin of the entire debate?
Your summary to the SCOTSOC ruling is only that, a summary. We don't know
what the actual ruling states, or what its boundaries are, or even how the
precedent applied.

Its all this paraphrasing, with insistence that it is the non-debatable law,
that makes me uncomfortable.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

"Owners of shoreline property in British Columbia should be aware
that most aquatic land is owned by the province and managed by
Land
and Water British Columbia Inc."

Here's something interesting to ponder with regards to US federal
rights of access:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

The first five or six paragraphs seem to recognize a pretty
liberal
definition of public access (specifically with regards to
"rivers",
regardless of size).




This is very instructive as well (I think Scott might really
dislike
this one):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Yah, I've seen them all. Problem is, they don't know what they are
talking
about. They have their political agenda and they post information
that
suits
that agenda. Unfortunately for them, the law is rather different,
particularly here in Colorado.

Even the mention of access laws and practice in Colorado is
interesting in the American Whitewater writeup, though there seem
to
be some pretty stark contrasts/conflicts with the federal law as
stated in the National Rivers links above:


http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm

Yup, quite a contrast indeed. Fact is however that I've got a
Colorado
Supreme Court ruling that says there is no public right to float
through
private property on non navigable streams that hasn't been
overturned by
the
SCOTUS. So, for now, that's the ruling law in Colorado. All the
debate is
about what the legislature tried to do and whether in so doing they

violated
my property rights and the property rights of ever stream owner in
Colorado
and how much money the state owes landowners for illegally
appropriating a
right of way through their property.

The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my
property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.


I'd rather not trust you on this, if you don't mind, because I
already know
your point of view. Just what is the applicable legal definition of
'navigable', is the point that its the applicable defintion NOT in
debate,
and forgive my asking, but is this truly the lynchpin of the entire
debate?
Your summary to the SCOTSOC ruling is only that, a summary. We don't
know
what the actual ruling states, or what its boundaries are, or even
how the
precedent applied.

Its all this paraphrasing, with insistence that it is the
non-debatable law,
that makes me uncomfortable.

--riverman

riverman, I watch the local news here, and I haven't heard of any 4
masted schooners, or even a river steamboat paddlewheeler arrive at the
riverside wharf in Boulder recently! So what's your problem, with
understanding what Scott is saying? :-) TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Melissa, I particulary like "The federal test of navigability is not a
technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow,
or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable
as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, KAYAKS,
and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big
rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out,
walk around, then re-enter the water." (my emphasis) from
http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

Unfortunately, it's not true. Considerations such as grade, depth and
obstructions do factor in to the federal tests for navigability, as do
issues of commerce.



Also very useful: "State and local restrictions on use of navigable
rivers have to be legitimately related to ENHANCING public trust value,
not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease
adjacent landowners...." (my emphasis)

This is true, but again, the benchmark is that the river be federally
navigable or navigable under some state definition of navigability.


Also nice to know: "Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled
that "rivers that are anvigable in fact are navigable in law." If a
river is physically navigable, it is legally navigable. No court or
agency has to designate it as such."
http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Not quite correct. While it is true that a river navigable in fact is
navigable in law, it must be navigable in law to be navigable in fact.
That's the purpose of the various tests for navigability. And the burden
lies on the person who is asserting navigability to prove the navigability
in fact. Thus, it is perfectly possible for a state, or the federal
government to deem a particular waterway to be non-navigable and close it to
public use. An objector must then go to court to prove navigability.


WOW! "Fact: Even rivers that are physically navigable only by canoe,
kayak, and raft are still legally navigable. (The courts have also
ruled that commercial recreational river trips qualify as commerce).

The question is "which courts?" Some state courts have so held. Others have
not, and the federal courts are divided. The SCOTUS has not yet ruled on
recreational use as "commerce." Moreover, that a river may be physically
navigable by kayak TODAY does not mean that it was so navigable when the
particular state entered the union, which is the date applicable to the
navigation test. There is also a divide in the courts as to what types of
craft are used in the test, with most federal courts coming down on the side
of limiting the examination to the types of watercraft commonly used at the
time of statehood. Another question is whether, at that time, the river was
"susceptible" to commerce.

And then there's the general federal requirement that some proof of commerce
actually occurred or was at least possible, at the time of determination.

It's a very complex issue, and while American Rivers and AWA have their own
agenda, the fact is that rivers are not navigable for federal bed title
purposes just because kayakers can physically float on them. The test is
much more stringent than that.

Because they are legally navigable, such rivers are held in trust for
the public by the states, for navigation, recreation, and fisheries.

This only applies to "navigable waters of the United States" that qualify
under the Brewer-Holt-Utah cases where the in-fact navigability of the
waterway vests the title of the bed of the stream in the state. The "Public
Trust Doctrine" argument does not apply where the bed of the stream was
federally owned and was disposed of by land grant to private persons. While
a state has a public trust doctrine responsibility, Congress has full
authority to alienate and sever federal lands from the public domain,
including the beds of federally non-navigable streams.

The land along them is public land up to the ordinary high water mark
(which can be quite a distance from the water--it's the land where the
vegetation and soil show the effects of water.) The public can use this
land for walking, fishing, resting, camping, and other non-destructive
visits."

Hmmmm.... see you on Scott's creek soon, eh? GRIN

Not just yet. It has long been held, and upheld by a number of Colorado
cases that there are no navigable waterways in Colorado. A recent
adjudicated exception is the Navajo Reservoir. These cases preclude blanket
"declarations" of navigability in Colorado, and therefore each river, or
reach of river for which federal navigability is claimed must therefore be
adjudicated individually, because the current presumption in law is that
none are navigable. This is not to say that some rivers in Colorado might
not be declared navigable, but it's both unlikely and would be severely
limited in scope.

I've said all along that if boaters can prove that Boulder Creek meets the
federal tests for bed title navigability, then I'll just wave at people
floating by. But they haven't, and I doubt they can, and I'm quite certain
that if it comes to court, there will be a massive intervention by every
water-owner in Colorado in objection, because if a river is navigable under
the federal tests, then it is unlawful to do anything which impairs the
navigable capacity of the river, which includes removing water from the
stream. If Boulder Creek is a "navigable water of the United States," then
there is virtually no creek in Colorado which is not, and such a
determination would utterly destroy our state system of water appropriation,
along with the entire state economy, which depends upon the ability to
divert water from our streams and rivers to put it to beneficial use.

I find it highly unlikely that even the SCOTUS would choose to destroy
Colorado's economy simply to accommodate some kayakers. Congress recognized
the nature of Colorado and its climate, and recognized that the riparian
doctrines used in water-rich states back east could not be applied to the
arid western states, so both Congress and the courts have recognized, by
long tradition, the Appropriations Doctrine which allows Colorado, among
other states, to completely dewater rivers as necessary to serve
agriculture, industry and residential uses. It's not likely that the SCOTUS
will disturb this system in response to the arguments made by American
Rivers and AWA.

I guarantee you that it'll be an epic legal battle when it comes to a head,
which may be soon.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one,

Not in Georgia:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/GA.htm

See, I've already got people learning something...

I already knew what Georgia law was.

But the lurkers might not have...

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi BCITORGB,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:41 -0800, you wrote:

Hmmmm.... see you on Scott's creek soon, eh? GRIN

We'll see what Scott has to say about this, eh? :-)

Scott's mantra is "private property", yet he consistently fails to
recognize federal law (well, at least where it might disrupt his
bliss with regards to what he feels are his "absolute rights" as a
"private property" owner).

Incorrect. I merely maintain that YOUR interpretation of federal law is
incorrect. You choose to believe that the only test for federal navigability
is whether you can float a kayak, canoe or raft on it. But that's not the
test, and never has been. Rather a lot more is required, which you would
know if you'd ever actually read the SCOTUS cases on navigability.


He likes to claim that all the laws are on his side, but the Supremes
seem to hold a different opinion on various issues of law. Who's
opinion should I respect? :-)

No, they don't. The SCOTUS has never ratified the "pleasure boat" test of
navigability. The Colorado SC has explicitly denied a right of navigation on
non navigable rivers.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:21:03 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one,

Not in Georgia:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/GA.htm

See, I've already got people learning something...

I already knew what Georgia law was.

But the lurkers might not have...

Maybe the lurkers would like this, then:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Scott,

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, you wrote:

See, I've already got people learning something...

Be careful about what you wish for, as someone might just learn
something beyond what you wish for them to learn...

I don't care what they learn. All learning is good. I thrive on disagreement
and debate, so why would I object? Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things. If I wanted you to
remain ignorant, I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.


http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-menu.htm

Be careful about making snap judgments based on the proclamations of clearly
biased websites. I suggest you go read the actual SCOTUS navigability cases
first. It's rather different than what NR suggests.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scotts finds:
=============
I couldn't find one either. Evidently Canada is radically different. Oh
well, it is Canada after all.
==============

But, Canada's (British Columbia's, anyway) approach makes everything so
much simpler: no requirement to determine navigable or not... although
it does beg the question as to when a trickle actually becomes a creek
or a stream...

It seems to stem from the Monarchy approach of government, as the lands are
defined as "Crown Lands," which don't belong to the people, they belong to
the sovereign. This simple expedient says that "everything belongs to the
King except what the King chooses to grant to an individual." Thus, it
seems, the King, to whom all lands belong as his private property, has
chosen not to grant title to lands underlying waters. I suppose that's why
it's good to be the King.

The US situation is different in that we don't have a King, and the lands
belong to the people, to be disposed of by the Congress. And Congress
clearly recognizes a distinction between navigable and non navigable waters,
and uses that distinction to determine in whom the bed title rests.

The intent of the reservation of navigational rights, and indeed bed title
in navigable waterways was to preserve public access to the "important water
highway" of the nation. Congress recognized that at some point a stream was
no longer an important highway for commerce and thus could become private by
grant of Congress. That's the case in Colorado, as applied to *every*
natural river or stream under a line of cases explicitly recognizing the non
navigability of Colorado's waterways.

The "navigable in law because a kayak can float on it" "test" would entirely
erase the distinction between truly navigable "public highways" of useful,
substantial and permanent commerce (think Mississippi) and creeks like
Boulder Creek which have no actual potential for "interstate commerce of a
substantial and permanent nature, useful to some purpose of trade or
agriculture." You can factually "navigate" a kayak across a flooded parking
lot after a heavy rain. That doesn't make the parking lot a "navigable water
of the United States."

I don't see the erasing of the distinction between navigable public highways
on water and commercially useless, though recreationally attractive streams
as being something the Congress intended or intends. Certainly Congress and
the Court were aware of this distinction, which is why in one early case
(Cress, as I recall) the Justices made specific reference to "gunning canoes
or fishing skiffs" and declined to hold that the fact that one could
physically float such a craft down a stream during times of high water
constituted federal commerce clause navigability.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

So for those of you who have a problem with CCW's, that could be just
the tip of the iceberg if we were really so uncivilized down here in
the redneck states. I don't find most folks want to mess with the
inconvienence of a 44 mag. Besides, it messes up my figure! TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.


I'll assume you pay substantially less property tax on land designated
"wildlife preserve?"

Nope. I pay standard agricultural land taxes, even on the parts I can't use
for crops/livestock, including the parts I'm excluded from six months a year
because of the nesting eagles.

I'd love it if there were an "open space/wildlife preserve" tax bracket, but
there's not. In fact, unless I'm actually producing crops, the land could be
reclassified as "vacant land," in which case the property taxes would be
enormously higher. Our property tax system is antidiluvian and maintains
that vacant land is undesirable and ought to be developed, so that the
government can collect more taxes from it (think eminent domain condemnation
of perfectly good houses to give the land to Wal-Mart, which pays more in
sales taxes). They stimulate development by taxing vacant land at a
relatively high rate. Only because I'm a rancher am I able to qualify for
the agricultural rating.

Bald Eagles are indeed among nature's most
majestic birds. I see them often, almost every time I canoe on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River. I was surprised how resilient and
accommodating they are to human intrusiveness. I've seen them very
near busy public highways and residential development, not to mention
the intensive recreational use by humans (fishing, boating, swimming)
of the river where they live.

Interestingly, in discussions with some experts, it also seems that they can
be negatively impacted by the LACK of use. Evidently, change in patterns
seems to have a lot to do with it. I've actually seen one of the eagles
sitting on top of a dump truck in my equipment yard, about 20 yards from my
house. He was sitting on the truck, and about 20 bunny rabbits were hiding
under the truck waiting for him to go away.

Still, I've been told quite clearly that "flushing" the eagles is a crime,
and because it's one of only two or three eagle's nests in Boulder County,
the open space people have a program that uses volunteers to monitor the
nests on a regular basis, which means that the area is potentially under
surveillance at all times. This was brought to my attention when the ranger
called to ask about some vehicle tracks observers saw around the tree, which
evidently were from rounding up cattle for sale by my lessee.

And the fact of the matter is that kayakers DO flush these eagles. It
happened last year. Had I known of the federal law, I would have demanded
prosecution.

What ****es me off is that I've been going about my business of managing my
property for much longer than the eagles have been here. They appeared and
started nesting about 10 years ago or so, and evidently my perambulations
didn't "disturb" them enough to keep them from nesting, and I gladly
welcomed them to the property. I love having them here and I love seeing
them fly. However, prior to a couple of weeks ago, they were an asset to the
property that I was glad to have here. Now, they're a liability, and I face
prison for so much as walking around on my own property as I've been doing
for more than 40 years, if some volunteer spy claims that I "disturbed" the
eagles. This is simply not right. Unfortunately, now I'd like nothing better
than for the eagles to go somewhere else so I can use my land again. What a
mixed-up way of encouraging people to provide habitat for endangered and
protected species.

If I'm going to be excluded from my land because federally-protected
wildlife is using it, then I ought to be getting rent payments from the
government for the land I'm not allowed to use.

The first I ever saw Bald Eagles was at
Great Falls National Park (Virginia side) on the Potomac River. They
were just upriver from the falls. This area is also a wildlife
sanctuary, but also an area of intense recreational use. I understand
the reluctance to sunbathe nude while fleets of paddlers float by.

And then there's the problem of me getting arrested for "indecent exposure"
if one of the participants happens to be a child...

Wouldn't want to get a reputation as the crazy, naked guy who shouts
and throws rocks at canoeists.

I don't throw rocks, that's illegal. A lasso perhaps, but only as a last
resort to effect an arrest.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my
property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.


I'd rather not trust you on this, if you don't mind, because I already know
your point of view. Just what is the applicable legal definition of
'navigable', is the point that its the applicable defintion NOT in debate,
and forgive my asking, but is this truly the lynchpin of the entire debate?
Your summary to the SCOTSOC ruling is only that, a summary. We don't know
what the actual ruling states, or what its boundaries are, or even how the
precedent applied.

Well, I thought nobody wanted to get into this again. Evidently not...


Its all this paraphrasing, with insistence that it is the non-debatable law,
that makes me uncomfortable.

Well, the classic (but not the only) definition is: "Navigable waters of the
United States are usually defined as waters, which, at the time of the entry
of the state into the Union, were, in their natural state or ordinary
condition, or by reasonable improvements thereto, used, or are susceptible
to being used as highways for useful interstate or foreign commerce of
substantial and permanent character, over which trade and travel are or may
be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water, and such
waters are navigable in law if they are navigable in fact."

Then there's this, which tells us that the navigability of any particular
waterway requires an "ad hoc factual query" into the nature and use of the
waterway in question:

"Navigability, in the sense of actual usability for navigation, or
navigability in fact, as a legal concept embracing both public and private
interests, is not susceptible of definition or determination by a precise
formula which fits every type of stream or body of water under all
circumstances and at all times." Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164
(1979)

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser, in misunderstanding the concept of "Crown land":
===================
It seems to stem from the Monarchy approach of government, as the lands
are
defined as "Crown Lands," which don't belong to the people, they belong
to
the sovereign. This simple expedient says that "everything belongs to
the
King except what the King chooses to grant to an individual." Thus, it
seems, the King, to whom all lands belong as his private property, has
chosen not to grant title to lands underlying waters. I suppose that's
why
it's good to be the King.
===============

Whereas "Crown lands" are just that "lands belonging to the Crown" as
you state, they are in actual fact "public lands" belonging to the
"people". In Canada, when you see the appellation "Crown", just
substitute "Public" if you're looking for an American equivalent. Crown
prosecutor = Public prosecutor. Crown land = Public land. Crown
corporation = Public corporation. etc etc... No need to get hung up on
notions of Kings or Queens. The "crown" in Canada is purely ceremonial.
Personally, I find the notion of a monarchy, in 2005, insulting.
However, I calm myself by knowing that it is entirely meaningless.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

Actually, I don't know about this guy, but I do know about another guy who
did essentially the same thing, and he was convicted because Denver is a
home-rule city, and had an ordinance prohibiting the open carry of firearms
without a permit.

Colorado passed a law a year or so ago that was supposed to "preempt" all
local gun control laws stricter than state statutes. Denver, and some other
jurisdictions are currently challenging the law as an infringement on their
home rule authority. The matter is still in court.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without
having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert
my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA
took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places
such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not
carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty
much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the
Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

Actually, I don't know about this guy, but I do know about another
guy who
did essentially the same thing, and he was convicted because Denver
is a
home-rule city, and had an ordinance prohibiting the open carry of
firearms
without a permit.

Colorado passed a law a year or so ago that was supposed to "preempt"
all
local gun control laws stricter than state statutes. Denver, and some
other
jurisdictions are currently challenging the law as an infringement on
their
home rule authority. The matter is still in court.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

This alarm installer situation was a while back, so I am sure there are
those who have been trying to change things, with all the hubbub that
goes on about the topic. I was a little disappointed when Gov Owens
backed out of some of his commitments after Columbine. So much for
commitments I guess! Whichever way the wind blows, politicians can
always sail downwind! TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I don't care what they learn.

And we don't care what you think. sounds equitable to me.

All learning is good.

The Nazis learned what hydrogen cyanide is good for back in the early 40s.

I thrive on disagreement
and debate,

No you don't. It makes you look as silly as you are.

so why would I object?

Who knows? Who cares?

Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things.

And God would love you for it (as would we) if there was a word of truth to
it. In fact, the entire reason you post here......as is also true of so
many others....is that, in true fourteen year old fashion, it allows you to
pretend to be an adult......all you have to do is continue to insist.....and
insist.....and insist.....and insist.......

If I wanted you to remain ignorant,

Not to put too fine a point on it, Festus, but as you have amply
demonstrated, you don't seem to have any choice in the matter.

I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.

Ooooh! A trial! What's the date?

Wolfgang

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...

Every time I sit on the front stoop naked, somebody calls the cops.
:(

Could you please teach them the law?

Wolfgang
how long have you people been making fools of yourselves by taking this
cretin seriously? :)

A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I don't care what they learn.

And we don't care what you think. sounds equitable to me.

You have a monkey in your pocket?


All learning is good.

The Nazis learned what hydrogen cyanide is good for back in the early 40s.

And the rest of the world learned what nazis were.


I thrive on disagreement
and debate,

No you don't.

Of course I do.

It makes you look as silly as you are.

That would be your opinion, of course. Not that I care what you think
either.


so why would I object?

Who knows? Who cares?

Evidently you do, since you took the time to respond.


Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things.

And God would love you for it (as would we) if there was a word of truth to
it.

Ah, but there is. Don't lay off your ignorance on me.

In fact, the entire reason you post here......as is also true of so
many others....is that, in true fourteen year old fashion, it allows you to
pretend to be an adult......all you have to do is continue to insist.....and
insist.....and insist.....and insist.......

Pot, kettle, black.


If I wanted you to remain ignorant,

Not to put too fine a point on it, Festus, but as you have amply
demonstrated, you don't seem to have any choice in the matter.

Of course I do. I can post or not post. Whenever you respond, you engage
your fractional wit to max to come up with these brilliant rejoinders. I
consider it beneficial therapy for you to actually have to mentate once and
a while.


I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.

Ooooh! A trial! What's the date?

No date yet. I'll let you know.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...

Every time I sit on the front stoop naked, somebody calls the cops.
:(

Could you please teach them the law?

And that's WHY I worked my whole life to have enough property so that if I
choose to sunbathe nude, the cops have no say in the issue. Don't blame me
if you aren't foresighted enough to live far from snoopy neighbors.


Wolfgang
how long have you people been making fools of yourselves by taking this
cretin seriously? :)

Well, naturally that would be since you started posting, but you really
don't have to refer to yourself in the third person, unless your
schizophrenia is acting up.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

All learning is good.

Great! When do you plan to start?

Eons before you will.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I don't care what they learn.

And we don't care what you think. sounds equitable to me.

You have a monkey in your pocket?

Um.....do monkeys jingle when you sahke them?

All learning is good.

The Nazis learned what hydrogen cyanide is good for back in the early
40s.

And the rest of the world learned what nazis were.


And your point is....?

I thrive on disagreement
and debate,

No you don't.

Of course I do.

No you don't.

It makes you look as silly as you are.

That would be your opinion, of course.

An impressive bit of deductive reasonaing there. What tipped you off?

Not that I care what you think
either.

Yes you do.

so why would I object?

Who knows? Who cares?

Evidently you do, since you took the time to respond.

You don't get any brighter as you go along. I responded because I wasn't
doing anything else at the time.
For the record, I don't care in the least why you would object, and what is
evident to you has, as has been pointed out by many others, little bearing
on reality.

Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things.

And God would love you for it (as would we) if there was a word of truth
to
it.

Ah, but there is.

No there isn't.

Don't lay off your ignorance on me.

Ignorance? About what am I ignorant, teacher? Pray, enlighten me.

In fact, the entire reason you post here......as is also true of so
many others....is that, in true fourteen year old fashion, it allows you
to
pretend to be an adult......all you have to do is continue to
insist.....and
insist.....and insist.....and insist.......

Pot, kettle, black.

HAR! HAR! Good lord that is clever. Did you write that yourself?

If I wanted you to remain ignorant,

Not to put too fine a point on it, Festus, but as you have amply
demonstrated, you don't seem to have any choice in the matter.

Of course I do.

No you don't.

I can post or not post.

Nope. It's entirely beyond your control. Watch. :)

Whenever you respond, you engage
your fractional wit to max to come up with these brilliant rejoinders.

Nope. I don't even think about this juvenile crap. It flows naturally and
as easily as stupidity emanates from you.

I consider it beneficial therapy for you to actually have to mentate once
and
a while.

Nobody cares what you consider.

Mentate? hee, hee, hee.

I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.

Ooooh! A trial! What's the date?

No date yet. I'll let you know.

No you won't.

Wolfgang

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...

Every time I sit on the front stoop naked, somebody calls the cops.
:(

Could you please teach them the law?

And that's WHY I worked my whole life to have enough property so that if I
choose to sunbathe nude, the cops have no say in the issue. Don't blame me
if you aren't foresighted enough to live far from snoopy neighbors.

You didn't answer my question. Did you see it?

Wolfgang
how long have you people been making fools of yourselves by taking this
cretin seriously? :)

Well, naturally that would be since you started posting, but you really
don't have to refer to yourself in the third person, unless your
schizophrenia is acting up.

What th......oh......heh, heh.....I get it!

Well.......gosh.......it's no wonder that everyone is so impressed not only
with your acumen but also with your wit and your withering command of the
language.

Wolfgang
oh, and also by your uncanny ability to control situations. :)

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/12/05 3:33 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:



Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my
point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott
Weiser
please stand up?

That would be me.

I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true.

They aren't.

I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to
form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

I imagine that is possible, though I'm a bit busy with business
right now.
We could meet for lunch one of these days if you like.

Give me a call and leave your number, I'm in the book.

I think it's the birth of a new political party. Scotty will seize
control
of the armed forces and Tinkerntom will wow the masses as god's
representative on earth ;-)

KMAN, It seems that we already have your attention! Our plan is
working! TnT

I'm sure in your minds it is...you and Scotty together could make
Waco look
like a minor event...the problem is, which of the two of you is to be
David
Koresh?

KMAN, I wondered what happened to you today, It has been pretty quiet
here on the RBP today, though things are beginning to pick up. I
thought you maybe even went to church this AM, being Sunday and
everything. But I knew the bliss could not last, some of us actually
talking about boats, what a novel idea!

As far as SW and I getting together for lunch, I hope you are not
missing to much sleep over this, or that nasty headache you get is
coming back. Remember the cure, two Motrin, and that God Loves you.

BTW, I do not believe in reincarnation, and DK was ushered into the
afterlife to stay. So we will just have to continue what we do so well;
SW telling you about annoying the whole world, and me trying to figure
out how to tell the whole world that "God so Loved the whole world,
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him shall
not perish, but have everlasting life!"

Now that could be just a foretaste of better things to come, so be nice
to me or I will pray for you! Which I am sure will totally creep you
out knowing that I am praying for you, and looking for additional
opportunities to aim my unlimited supply of God's Love, at your heart!
Of course I will probably be praying for you anyway, so its a win/win
at least from my side of the path! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/13/05 7:33 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/12/05 3:33 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:



Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my
point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott
Weiser
please stand up?

That would be me.

I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true.

They aren't.

I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to
form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

I imagine that is possible, though I'm a bit busy with business
right now.
We could meet for lunch one of these days if you like.

Give me a call and leave your number, I'm in the book.

I think it's the birth of a new political party. Scotty will seize
control
of the armed forces and Tinkerntom will wow the masses as god's
representative on earth ;-)

KMAN, It seems that we already have your attention! Our plan is
working! TnT

I'm sure in your minds it is...you and Scotty together could make
Waco look
like a minor event...the problem is, which of the two of you is to be
David
Koresh?

KMAN, I wondered what happened to you today, It has been pretty quiet
here on the RBP today, though things are beginning to pick up. I
thought you maybe even went to church this AM, being Sunday and
everything. But I knew the bliss could not last, some of us actually
talking about boats, what a novel idea!

As far as SW and I getting together for lunch, I hope you are not
missing to much sleep over this, or that nasty headache you get is
coming back. Remember the cure, two Motrin, and that God Loves you.

BTW, I do not believe in reincarnation, and DK was ushered into the
afterlife to stay. So we will just have to continue what we do so well;
SW telling you about annoying the whole world, and me trying to figure
out how to tell the whole world that "God so Loved the whole world,
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him shall
not perish, but have everlasting life!"

Now that could be just a foretaste of better things to come, so be nice
to me or I will pray for you! Which I am sure will totally creep you
out knowing that I am praying for you, and looking for additional
opportunities to aim my unlimited supply of God's Love, at your heart!
Of course I will probably be praying for you anyway, so its a win/win
at least from my side of the path! TnT

I really and truly find it hard to believe that you are not a chronic user
of hard drugs.

KMAN wrote:
....snip...

BTW, I do not believe in reincarnation, and DK was ushered into the
afterlife to stay. So we will just have to continue what we do so
well;
SW telling you about annoying the whole world, and me trying to
figure
out how to tell the whole world that "God so Loved the whole world,
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him
shall
not perish, but have everlasting life!"

Now that could be just a foretaste of better things to come, so be
nice
to me or I will pray for you! Which I am sure will totally creep
you
out knowing that I am praying for you, and looking for additional
opportunities to aim my unlimited supply of God's Love, at your
heart!
Of course I will probably be praying for you anyway, so its a
win/win
at least from my side of the path! TnT

I really and truly find it hard to believe that you are not a chronic
user
of hard drugs.

Oh but I do, get high that is, and strongly recommend a various
assortment of the highest high inducing drugs the world has ever known.
The Love of God! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/13/05 8:34 PM:


KMAN wrote:
...snip...

BTW, I do not believe in reincarnation, and DK was ushered into the
afterlife to stay. So we will just have to continue what we do so
well;
SW telling you about annoying the whole world, and me trying to
figure
out how to tell the whole world that "God so Loved the whole world,
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him
shall
not perish, but have everlasting life!"

Now that could be just a foretaste of better things to come, so be
nice
to me or I will pray for you! Which I am sure will totally creep
you
out knowing that I am praying for you, and looking for additional
opportunities to aim my unlimited supply of God's Love, at your
heart!
Of course I will probably be praying for you anyway, so its a
win/win
at least from my side of the path! TnT

I really and truly find it hard to believe that you are not a chronic
user
of hard drugs.

Oh but I do, get high that is, and strongly recommend a various
assortment of the highest high inducing drugs the world has ever known.
The Love of God! TnT

Try embracing reality. It's harder work, but can be quite rewarding.