Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Keenan & Julie wrote: There would be exceptions (there are some places a paddler is not supposed to be at all) but my answer to your question would be, generally, that the shorline would normally be a good place to be to avoid getting run over by a powerboat. And what are the actual laws and regs, if any? I'm really curious, because if one can't even be safe where one's supposed to be safe, what's the point? I would assume for the same type of reasons a police car might speed along a road. Wouldn't they have sirens and horns flashing? Wouldn't they go along the middle of the river where "sailing" is best? Unless you are suggesting they deliberately tried to kill you, it's rather irrelevant, because they didn't see you. It's not irrelevant if the conversation's turning on whether I have done what I can to make myself be seen -- have THEY done what they can to see, like, open their eyes? There's no evidence the river is more dangerous. That is not to say that you were not in danger. Um, despite all the car accidents, random shootings, roller-bladers, loose dogs, and drunk investment bankers, NYC streets are still more predictable than NYC rivers, as my case attests! Why, if I had reported that I crossed the street on my green and a police vehicle not flashing sirens swiped me onto the curb, would folks still be asking me what was I doing crossing the street? Seriously, I want to know -- what is the point of their halogen lights if the onus is on me to be seen? What is the point of my sticking to the shoreline if they're still at liberty to charge up it in the dark? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Keenan & Julie wrote: Why don't you look them up? Figured folks like you who know so much would know at least this much. I don't know why they were there. So why make it an issue of why I was there, and under what circumstances? One poster in this NG even wanted to know what I was doing out at night! Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant. They didn't see you. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible. Do you not see your constant circular reasoning? Predictable is not the same as safer. You bet your accuary degree it is! What do you think the insurance industry gambles on? For that matter, how do you think casinos make their money? Your case only attests to the fact that there was one incident where you browned your shorts. No, reddened my shirt is what happened. But your mentality speaks to why you paddle in circles. They might. You seem to have an irritating quality. Sure -- you chase your own tail and blame me for your dizziness! I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in her jurisdiction, isn't it? Oh, sorry, thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.whatever. I'll continue learning this sport, no thanks to you, but my advice to you is to take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next Presidential elections. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message ups.com... Keenan & Julie wrote: Why don't you look them up? Figured folks like you who know so much would know at least this much. I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction. I don't know why they were there. So why make it an issue of why I was there, and under what circumstances? One poster in this NG even wanted to know what I was doing out at night! I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid. Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant. They didn't see you. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible. Do you not see your constant circular reasoning? My statement is not an example of circular reasoning. You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to hit you. Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt to do so. Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not see you. Predictable is not the same as safer. You bet your accuary degree it is! What do you think the insurance industry gambles on? For that matter, how do you think casinos make their money? It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical. Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help you come out a winner, knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make them safer to travel. Your case only attests to the fact that there was one incident where you browned your shorts. No, reddened my shirt is what happened. But your mentality speaks to why you paddle in circles. yawn They might. You seem to have an irritating quality. Sure -- you chase your own tail and blame me for your dizziness! yawn I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in her jurisdiction, isn't it? Oh, sorry, thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.whatever. I'll continue learning this sport, no thanks to you, but my advice to you is to take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next Presidential elections. Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Keenan & Julie wrote: I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction. Wow, funny that after all the other advice you have for me, you're so shy and humble over the one point which matters, that I'd originally asked about! I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid. I didn't say you were "everyone." Get rid of the water in your ears. My statement is not an example of circular reasoning. And here we have yet another example of your fine reasoning processes: conclusion by fiat. You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to hit you. This was never an issue. Why do you insist on making it one? Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt to do so. Never an issue. Are you going to go on about WMDs next? Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not see you. Never an issue, said issue remaining being whether it makes any sense to leave the middle of the river open for motorized traffic if said motorized traffic will still just race up the shoreline anyway. It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical. Sigh...like I said, go talk to your insurance company. Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help you come out a winner, No ****, Sherlock -- knowing the odds are against you "helps" you come out a loser! Knowing the odds are with you helps you come out a winner. You're mixing up odds for and against with what predicatability/probability means vis-a-vis safety. knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make them safer to travel. Knowing something's safer means knowing the odds FOR; knowing something's more dangerous means knowing the odds AGAINST. But knowing the odds for OR against is better -- because it makes for more informed decision-making -- and thus safer, than not knowing. Hence the relationship between safety and predicatability. Hell's bells, but you really do have a screw loose up there. And I say that not with malice, only exhaustion. yawn Sorry to have woken you up. yawn But don't forget your pills! Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature. OMG!!! It's just like straight out of the Bible: guy walks up to Jesus and asks, Teacher, why doesn't God just show Himself? And Christ looks him straight in the eye and says that even if He did, folks still wouldn't believe in Him. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Keenan & Julie wrote: Why don't you look them up? Funny that the only substantive thing you can offer, you don't. I don't know why they were there. The question is where they should be on a river. Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant. They didn't see you. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible. Do you not see your circular reasoning going round and round? Predictable is not the same as safer. Ask your insurance why you pay the premium you do. Your case only attests to the fact that there was one incident where you browned your shorts. Reddened my shirt, in fact. Your response only attests to the fact that you're upset you can't convince me I was wrong to have been paddling close to the shoreline. They might. You seem to have an irritating quality. Don't blame me for your dizziness chasing your own tail. I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in her jurisdiction, isn't it? Oh, sorry, I thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.keenan.julie.whatever. Take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next Presidential election, please. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 28 Jul 2005 07:31:04 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote:
... because if one can't even be safe where one's supposed to be safe, what's the point? .... Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there, where can you expect to be? It is almost universally stated that operators of watercraft are required to maintain a sharp lookout to avoid situations such as you experienced, and to avoid any problems with their own craft as well. It is almost as universally acknowledged that many operators neglect to do so. I've paddled among stinkpots (power boats) a bunch, and assume that they are all out to get me. While most are not, I have had far too many experiences where they simply have not seen me, and seemed to be trying their darnedest to hit me, along with a few that actually seemed to play a game of "Sink the Kayak." One thing about stinkpots, you can usually hear them coming and may have time to prepare. There is nothing "safe" about crawling into a boat and there is certainly nothing "safe" about being on the water, especially when there are larger boats about. There are many things you can do to minimize the danger, but you can never, ever be "safe." I go paddling because even with the risks involved, I get benefits that to me far outweigh the relative safety of the shore. Perhaps you should reconsider why you paddle. Having said all that, it is indeed a bummer that you experienced what you did. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Galen Hekhuis wrote: Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there, where can you expect to be? A police boat is not an act of God. It is almost universally stated that operators of watercraft are required to maintain a sharp lookout to avoid situations such as you experienced, and to avoid any problems with their own craft as well. It is almost as universally acknowledged that many operators neglect to do so. And what no one has been able to advise yet is what more I could have done! I've paddled among stinkpots (power boats) a bunch, and assume that they are all out to get me. While most are not, I have had far too many experiences where they simply have not seen me, and seemed to be trying their darnedest to hit me, along with a few that actually seemed to play a game of "Sink the Kayak." One thing about stinkpots, you can usually hear them coming and may have time to prepare. Did you even read my post, or are you just getting something off your chest here???? There is nothing "safe" about crawling into a boat and there is certainly nothing "safe" about being on the water, especially when there are larger boats about. There's nothing safe about eating meat, there's nothing safe about driving a car, there's nothing safe in living past 70...do you know what "non sequitur" means? There are many things you can do to minimize the danger, but you can never, ever be "safe." Uh, sorry, didn't realize this was alt.usage.english. Or should that be sci.semantics? I go paddling because even with the risks involved, I get benefits that to me far outweigh the relative safety of the shore. Perhaps you should reconsider why you paddle. Having said all that, it is indeed a bummer that you experienced what you did. I give now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." Ogden Nash, "The Purist" You folks actually want to advocate this sport, or do you like feeling these exclusive airs? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 28 Jul 2005 13:23:38 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote:
Galen Hekhuis wrote: Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there, where can you expect to be? A police boat is not an act of God. I didn't claim it was. I simply gave an illustration of people having a false sense of safety. It is almost universally stated that operators of watercraft are required to maintain a sharp lookout to avoid situations such as you experienced, and to avoid any problems with their own craft as well. It is almost as universally acknowledged that many operators neglect to do so. And what no one has been able to advise yet is what more I could have done! Let me spell it out for you then. Your insistence on being given advice on what more you "could have done" depends entirely on the supposition that someone else may have noticed or behaved according to some set of rules. I am pointing out that no matter what you do, people (in your case, a police boat) don't always notice nor do they always play by the rules, regardless of who they are. I've paddled among stinkpots (power boats) a bunch, and assume that they are all out to get me. While most are not, I have had far too many experiences where they simply have not seen me, and seemed to be trying their darnedest to hit me, along with a few that actually seemed to play a game of "Sink the Kayak." One thing about stinkpots, you can usually hear them coming and may have time to prepare. Did you even read my post, or are you just getting something off your chest here???? I read your post, I also read many of the responses to it. Again I say that you seem to be expecting something that is impossible to achieve. There is nothing "safe" about crawling into a boat and there is certainly nothing "safe" about being on the water, especially when there are larger boats about. There's nothing safe about eating meat, there's nothing safe about driving a car, there's nothing safe in living past 70...do you know what "non sequitur" means? Yes, and in a discussion about safety in a boat on the water I discussed your perception of safety, not how you feel about eating meat, or driving a car, or any of the things you mention. Do you know the meaning of "non sequitur"? There are many things you can do to minimize the danger, but you can never, ever be "safe." Uh, sorry, didn't realize this was alt.usage.english. Or should that be sci.semantics? Neither. Even a simpleton can see that a statement about never being safe in the water is hardly a semantic or syntactical issue. I go paddling because even with the risks involved, I get benefits that to me far outweigh the relative safety of the shore. Perhaps you should reconsider why you paddle. Having said all that, it is indeed a bummer that you experienced what you did. I give now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." Ogden Nash, "The Purist" In that particular case, the difference between an alligator and a crocodile is quite dramatic. I live where there are several many alligators, and the southern part of the state (where I also go paddling) is the only place in the entire world where alligators and crocodiles cohabitate. Alligators are generally harmless and for the most part not aggressive at all, while crocodiles are quite frequently rather aggressive. The instances of alligator attacks are minuscule when compared to crocodile attacks. It would indeed be strange for anyone to be attacked by an unprovoked alligator (although it has happened). I can understand, however, that many people think that this is a "distinction without a difference," as many consider "alligator" to be somewhat synonymous with "crocodile." You folks actually want to advocate this sport, or do you like feeling these exclusive airs? I neither advocate this sport, nor do I actively try to discourage people from taking it up. I've lived on sailboats, and have sailed from places in Hawaii to the ICW on the east coast. Whenever you leave land for a boat on the water there are things which can "get you" no matter what precautions you take. I have found quite often that safety is frequently in the hands of the sailor, not in being observed or noticed by others, and not in the "Rules of the Road," no matter how much in the right you may be. If you would rather argue (and that does seem to be the case, based on your responses to this thread) than have risks pointed out to you, you'll have to find someone else with whom to argue. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On 28 Jul 2005 13:23:38 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote: Galen Hekhuis wrote: Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there, where can you expect to be? A police boat is not an act of God. I didn't claim it was. I simply gave an illustration of people having a false sense of safety. AMAZING!!! Talk about apples and oranges -- no, apples and basketballs -- and chutzpah on top of it all! You compared the incomparable, and now say you didn't mean by that comparison that they were comparable. Astounding! And creepy, too. Let me spell it out for you then. Your insistence on being given advice on what more you "could have done" depends entirely on the supposition that someone else may have noticed or behaved according to some set of rules. THE WHOLE POINT of "what can I do" is PRECISELY BECAUSE of the assumption that the other party will not have noticed or behaved accordingly. The whole point of defensive driving is that the other party's not going to be helpful at all. I am pointing out that no matter what you do, people (in your case, a police boat) don't always notice nor do they always play by the rules, regardless of who they are. So then is the answer that I have done all I could have, after all? After all this attempt at blaming the victim, can you finally admit that I've done all I should have, had my lights and hugged the shore? I read your post, I also read many of the responses to it. Again I say that you seem to be expecting something that is impossible to achieve. Impossible to achieve safety, you mean? Safety is no accident. I guess we just have different philosophical orientations towards life. Y'all just have this very, very strange bias towards the victim of a boating mishap through no fault of his own. I noticed it right away, and I can only say that it's just like in the Book of Job.... Yes, and in a discussion about safety in a boat on the water I discussed your perception of safety, not how you feel about eating meat, or driving a car, or any of the things you mention. Do you know the meaning of "non sequitur"? Yes, and in a discussion about how safety in a boat is achieved it's TOTALLY BESIDES THE POINT -- NON SEQUITUR, DOES NOT FOLLOW -- to discuss how my expectation of safety following rules and such is like expecting to be safe from lightening in a church. NOW do you know what "non sequitur" means?? Neither. Even a simpleton can see that a statement about never being safe in the water is hardly a semantic or syntactical issue. Even less than a simpleton can see it's definitely a semantic issue because you know what I mean but since you want to blame the victim -- how dare you think you can enjoy this sport safely! -- you want to make "safety" mean "percetion OF safety." In that particular case, the difference between an alligator and a crocodile is quite dramatic. I live where there are several many alligators, and the southern part of the state (where I also go paddling) is the only place in the entire world where alligators and crocodiles cohabitate. Alligators are generally harmless and for the most part not aggressive at all, while crocodiles are quite frequently rather aggressive. The instances of alligator attacks are minuscule when compared to crocodile attacks. It would indeed be strange for anyone to be attacked by an unprovoked alligator (although it has happened). I can understand, however, that many people think that this is a "distinction without a difference," as many consider "alligator" to be somewhat synonymous with "crocodile." LOL -- but for the purposes of "missing his bride," it doesn't matter what she was eaten by, was she? It's like the old Buddhist parable of Man as being struck by an arrow but refusing treatment until first establishing the make of the weapon, the identity of its bearer, the reason for its employment, the velocity of its attack.... I neither advocate this sport, nor do I actively try to discourage people from taking it up. I've lived on sailboats, and have sailed from places in Hawaii to the ICW on the east coast. Whenever you leave land for a boat on the water there are things which can "get you" no matter what precautions you take. Fine, but that's hardly the topic I was raising. Again, I only inquired this much, really: 1) Was there anything more I could have done? 2) Were the cops in the wrong lane? Very simple questions, truly. If y'all don't know, don't pretend to, and get in a huff over my bewilderment, please? For your own sakes, since you guys sound irritated, though by an itch indigenous to your own characters. I have found quite often that safety is frequently in the hands of the sailor, not in being observed or noticed by others, and not in the "Rules of the Road," no matter how much in the right you may be. SOOOOOOOOOOOO what more could/should I have done??? God, it's like pulling teeth! It's like a manipulative little kid! It's like separating a leopard from his spots! If you would rather argue (and that does seem to be the case, based on your responses to this thread) than have risks pointed out to you, you'll have to find someone else with whom to argue. The amazing thing is that you people want to blame me for this incident, while not responding to the simple questions I'd asked, and then claim I'm the one being argumentative! And it's all recorded in black and white, right in front of your eyes, but your need to find fault with me is so great that your own contradictions and logical fallcies all spelled out still remains invisible to you! By Neptune's Beard, no wonder paddlers get no respect on the water! Y'all are a bunch of push-overs! I'm glad bicyclists got more pride and sense of rights, or else NYC wouldn't be the mildly bike-friendly town it is! I **** you not, this is one sport full of ****ed-up folks, from the 'yak salesman that pooh-poohs Prijon boats to y'all here blaming one of your own for what is clearly something that at least not his fault, if not the police's for not exercising caution as the more powerful party! I'm here being accused of almost provoking the whole affair, while only the kops are presumed innocent?? Truly you are a sad and disgusting lot. Honestly, this is one sad sport when its enthusiasts so easily assume obsequiousness. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Eagle Depth Finder Transducer Problems | General | |||
sea eagle SR 12.6 mini-review | General |