Dave Hall wrote:
You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug.

Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time.

For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you
claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your
wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you
still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong.
That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're
right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact.



... Then there are documented court cases of people being
held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog.

Let's see it.

That's all I need to know.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself.

You also need to know that

1- you are responsible for your dog

2- you are responsible for your boat's wake

3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and
accountable for all your actions.

DSK

On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:15 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug.

Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time.

For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you
claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your
wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you
still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong.
That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're
right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact.

That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating. You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat (in other words, run at idle
speed all day).

You base this warped and unrealistic expectation on the rules which
restrict wakes in certain areas, and on the irresponsible behavior of
those boaters who ignore those rules.

If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser, or from (gasp!) a
container ship, that's a part of boating, and it's just tough breaks.

You seem to be of an "all or nothing" mentality, while I adjust
according to circumstances. You are far to literal and rigid.


... Then there are documented court cases of people being
held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog.

Let's see it.

Watch Court TV, It may be shown again.


That's all I need to know.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself.

Is it ignorance, or simply your inability to consider an opposing
viewpoint because it doesn't fit within your definition of an ideal
world?

You also need to know that

1- you are responsible for your dog


And your neighbor does NOT have the right to kill it even if the dog
gets away from you once in a while.


2- you are responsible for your boat's wake.

In the open water, you are responsible to avoid my wake, or deal with
the consequences. That's just common sense.

3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and
accountable for all your actions.

And you should be accountable and responsible for your LACK of action.

Some questions for you. Do you think you should be responsible because
an idiot stumbles and falls on your sidewalk? Should a car maker be
held responsible for injuries sustained in accidents? Should a gun
maker be held responsible for unsafe usage of firearms? Should you be
held responsible for actions that were clearly not precipitated by
negligence on your part?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion.

Oh? It's my "differing opinio" that you denied making a statement which
was then proven that you did indeed make?

.. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating.

Ah, good. So in other words, you refrain from making wakes close to
other boats & property that might be damaged?

... You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat

Please quote my statement to that effect. All I said was that you area
responsible for your wake, and if your wake causes damage or injury then
*you* are liable for it.


If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser

If it's because that 65' cruiser, with the whole Bay to run in, passes
very close to another boat while making a large wake, then they are
responsible, and they should be held liable. Open water is not a license
to run down others, nor is it a proxy to run them under with your wake.

DSK

On Wed, 05 May 2004 08:20:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion.

Oh? It's my "differing opinio" that you denied making a statement which
was then proven that you did indeed make?

I never made the statement in the extreme context that you presented
it.


.. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating.

Ah, good. So in other words, you refrain from making wakes close to
other boats & property that might be damaged?

That is correct.


... You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat

Please quote my statement to that effect. All I said was that you area
responsible for your wake, and if your wake causes damage or injury then
*you* are liable for it.

That's it right there. As long as you make the blanket statement that
"you are responsible for your wake" without any limits, then it allows
for absurd and unreasonable conditions such as what I have
illustrated. That is why I have a problem with absolutes. Life is
conditional. So the rules which govern us also need to be as well.


If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser

If it's because that 65' cruiser, with the whole Bay to run in, passes
very close to another boat while making a large wake, then they are
responsible, and they should be held liable. Open water is not a license
to run down others, nor is it a proxy to run them under with your wake.

I guess I really need to pin down each and every detail in order to
make my point, otherwise you will take whatever detail that isn't
nailed down specifically, and interpret it to the most extreme sense
that fits your viewpoint.

My whole reason for stating "The middle of the bay" was to illustrate
the large distances that can be involved. Had I meant to paint the
picture of two boats crossing 100' apart, I wouldn't have placed them
"in the middle of the bay". You know as well as I do that wakes can
travel a great distance. If there is a half mile or more distance
between the two boats, I can hardly hold the operator of the large
boat liable for his wake. He can't be expected to know the situation
of every other boat within the distance his wake can travel to, and in
the time that it takes for it to traverse a body of water.

I frequently boat is waters that see large ship traffic. They are
under speed restriction in certain parts of the bay, but not in
others. The Coast Guard approved nav charts actually warn of the
presence of these ships and advise recreational boats to watch for
wakes "in excess of five feet". One such warning is stated in the
approach to Baltimore Harbor.

It's clear that these warnings are intended to give a "heads up" to
the responsibility that recreational boaters assume when they operate
in these areas to avoid mishaps.

Dave