BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko begs:
===============
Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum,
you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.
==============

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I'll check the archives and have that
discussion with Scott vicariously.

Thanks for the ti.

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906

Hey Scott, in light of this post, and preceding, I was wondering if it
would be possible for us to meet sometime. I have always wanted to meet
a fire breathing dragon, though I also always thought they were just a
figment of vivid imaginations. And to hear that there is one so close
up in Boulder. I am up that way every once in awhile, and I have heard
that all kinds of strange things live in Boulder, but a dragon I would
really like to see.

However, I would be sure and contact you first, so I don't stumble into
your line of fire with all those guns you keep strapped on you and
probably mounted on fire platforms with fields of fire all scoped in. I
hate getting shot at, or worse yet shot. Especially when I just wanted
to say hi!

Of course I would also like to check out this mighty river running
through their. Now I am familiar with the area a bit, and for the life
of me I can not figure where this hot kayaking spot known as the Grand
Canyon of Boulder is located. If you could send me a map, and also a
visa to visit the Liberal Republic of Boulder, that would be great, and
much appreciated.

It seems strange to me that with all I hear, that you have been able to
even survive in that Liberal bastion. Probably your CCW that has kept
them at bay. Maybe you have also learned to talk to them to keep them
off balance. Seems that you have been doing alright, whatever you had
to learn to survive.

Would you mind if I brought my camera, I would love to take a few
pictures to show some of my friends. They will not believe unless I
show them pictures that I actually saw a fire-breathing, gun-toting,
right-wing nut, survivalist, that lives in Boulder. :-) TnT


ROFLMAO

Tom, you're getting the hang of it.

--riverman

"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.



Seconded. You could use this as an object lesson in personal restraint, and
nobody....I repeat NOBODY here will think the less of you for it. You could
be Barbara Walters wrapped up in Oprah and Larry King, and you will not make
any headway against his well-rehearsed position.

--riverman

"John Kuthe" wrote in message
...
Scott Weiser wrote:

As for driving in the left lane, that's true, though the speed was "the
legal speed limit," not necessarily 55 mph. I still do it, though there
are
now some legal hoops to jump through to do it legally in Colorado.

I'm a left lane driver too Scott! Because as I understand it, the left
lane is
for faster traffic, and I *am* faster traffic! If I drive in the right
lane, I
have to keep changing lanes into the left lane to pass the person driving
slower
than I am in the right lane, then changing lanes back again, thereby
increasing
the miles I must drive to go the same linear distance, plus all the
hazards
associated with changing lanes!

Of couse, one responsibility of any left lane driver is they must always
be
mindful of their rear view, because if someone is driving faster that they
are
and coming up behind them in the left lane, they *must* get over to the
right
lane to allow them to pass, as passing on the right is very unsafe!! ;-)


You, of course, know where this is headed, don't you? If you are driving the
maximum legal speed limit in the left lane, then there is not legal reason
that anyone should be passing you. If someone is approaching at a rate of
speed high enough to force you to move over, then you are within the legal
rights to follow them and identify them so that they can be apprehended. If
someone passes you on the right, they are violating two laws: speed limits
and passing-on-the-left. Basically, driving at the maximum legal speed limit
in the left lane is a perfect 'Weiser' type of thing...legally unassailable,
and discourteous and irritating as hell. But who cares about being
irritating or discourteous, as they are not legally relevant.

Let my quote Weiser on Weiser: this is from an old usenet post on another
group that I found on google. Gotta give him credit for being consistent!

"In most cases, and this thread in
particular, I am debating a point with a statement of the law, and my
opinion about
a particular group of people (speeders) about whom participants here are
speaking.
I *always* assume that a participant here is, like me, taking a particular,
though
unsavory position for the sake of argument, *not* that they are, have, or
will
indulge in unsafe, illegal conduct. I try to be careful to separate the
two, and
if I inadvertently respond to self-professed statements of conduct with a
personal
attribution, I apologize, but it's hard to avoid sometimes, although I try
to, or
at least *intend* to use "you" in the context of the debate, not as a
statement of
the true personality of the debator.

I choose to argue the law and order viewpoint, since, in this case, as in
the
smoking ordinance debate, it is fairly easy to refute baseless arguments
about
"speeders/smokers rights" with statements of fact and law. I inject my
opinions
about speeders partly because I find them to be as I have characterized them
and
partly because it stimulates debate. If a participant wishes to wear a
particular
shoe I have place before them, that is their prerogative, but no *personal*
offense
in intended by me.

You may perceive a common thread of support of law, order and our present
system of
government in my various arguments, but you should not assume, based upon my
participation here, that it is the defining characteristic of my
personality.
Mostly, I argue such viewpoints in opposition to the large number of
liberal-type
arguments made here. I feel that it is useful, educational and entertaining
to
have an equally polar opposite opinion which balances the argument,
stimulates
thought, hones the wit and challenges assumptions, which is the essence of
debate.
Without me, and people like me, this forum would be a bland, boring
peroration (my
new word for the week) and mutual backslapping club.

I also choose to argue, by and large, without anger or emotion, with humor,
including sarcasm and satire, and I don't usually take offense at the
counter
arguments because I choose to give the participants the benefit of the
doubt, and
assume they are, again, like me, simply engaging in a philosophical
argument. The
primary weakness of this group seems to be the inability to engage in a
lively and
even heated debate without rancor and without inappropriately attributing
overall
moral stands or negative character traits to other participants because of
provocative or disagreeable statements made here.

When someone goes too far, as Evan did, and others have done, and attack me
*personally*, I am quite willing and perfectly capable of defending myself
and can
flame at least as well as some people and better than most. If I have a
fault, it
is that I am sometimes too subtle for some of the people here, and they take
offense where none should be taken. I tend to go for the slow-roast,
hoist-on-their-own-petard method of flamage rather than dangerously libelous
emotional outbursts.

Generally, I don't respond to criticisim with personal threats, (except as
humor,
however obscure, obtuse and lame, or in response to a personal threat from
someone
else) and I don't assume that just because someone disagrees with me, or
espouses a
position that I find objectionable, that they are "out to get me", or even
that
they are a "bad" person. I recognize the debate for what it is, just a
debate."

--riverman

Melissa:
===============
I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning" a
piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are anything
but nuanced.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'", which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

Cheers,
Wilf

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'", which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

It varies by state. In Georgia, for example, it is true only of 'navigable'
waters - defined as capable of carrying commercial barge traffic. A lot of
good boating and fishing water is private.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

BCITORGB wrote:
Melissa:
===============
I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning" a
piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are anything
but nuanced.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?


In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty indicates:
============
In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."
===============

BC Land Act
R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 214 (as amended)

....In British Columbia, all foreshore is vested in the Crown in right
of the Province... The foreshore is the intertidal area defined by the
high water mark which delineates the natural boundary and that of the
low water mark which delineates the seabed....

frtzw906

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

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 07:16:42 -0800, you wrote:

Wilko:

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go
there... Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for
about a decade, and while he's probably more than happy to repeat
them ad infinitum, you won't gain anything from getting a
monologue like that from him.

Wilf:

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I'll check the archives and have that
discussion with Scott vicariously.

Indeed, that particular issue seems to be Scott's number one "pet
issue", and it's truly pointless to engage him in any sort of
discussion concerning it, as his ideas on the matter are absolutely
set in stone; even for the sake of discussion. Only those who
actually enjoy endlessly banging their heads against a brick wall
will find anything interesting about discussing "private property"
issues with Scott.

Once Scott "owns" a piece of the earth, you'd best not even try to
breathe the air anywhere near that bit of real estate. If Scott were
to "own" a bit of oceanfront real estate, any boat passing by better
be sure to be out of range of Scott's firepower, and beach combers
best take the inland detour before reaching the "No Tresspassing"
signs on the beach, then only return to the beach after the last "No
Tresspassing" sign is safely behind them.

I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning" a
piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are anything
but nuanced. I almost wouldn't be surprised if when he dies, he'll
want to have every speck of dirt, rock, and drop of water stuffed
into his coffin with him, because after all, he paid "good ole US
Cash Money" for it! :-)

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQjHGADEYqNTZBqoEAQNhtAQAtESt1tG7fGND0RPtQU LxPtXh6VoXX/bX
I80MzRGRaQrvXEZy0J5v7l+RPROAe0Sq3JIs9Eop61dTtRosFe 3H7fbDkrGQYvqx
AeVVMM7/QAxzB5E78cHRkAfubbRoPQGZP/2HOoNt/6T8rAfOB605ZmSpNgERjJtE
GABodg3U2Iw=
=btbA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Is this the Melissa I have heard from in the past, maybe there are two
of you? Are you on the East or West coast? This sound so vitrolic, and
unlike you, what happened to set you off? TnT