Yet Another Tragic Case......

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
> HK wrote:
>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>> HK wrote:
>>>> salty.RemoveThis@dog.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>>>> <email.RemoveThis@swsports.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> <dishborealis.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
>>>>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
>>>>>>>> opinion that
>>>>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
>>>>>>>> should also
>>>>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
>>>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
>>>>>>> ejected
>>>>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>>>>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>>>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>>>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>>>>> injuries in cars
>>>>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
>>>>> you are
>>>>> simply asking for it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
>>>> in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
>>>> protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one
>>>> of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make
>>>> sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
>>> disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
>>> I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
>>> reflective of most people I have meet.
>>
>>
>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>
>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
>> righties here.
>>
>> But nice try.
>>
>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
>
> What makes someone a responsible righties?
>


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

BAR wrote:
> HK wrote:
>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>>
>>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
>>> disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
>>> I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
>>> reflective of most people I have meet.
>>
>>
>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>
>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
>> righties here.
>
> What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"
>
> Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
> same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views?
>
>> But nice try.
>>
>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

Don White wrote:
> "HK" <payer33859.TakeThisOut@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:uI2dnVnaLrOS58zanZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>
>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
>> righties here.
>>
>> But nice try.
>>
>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
>
>
> Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins.
> They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness.
> Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating,
> facilitating etc.
>
>



Don't you just love it when they play, "Who, me?"
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

HK wrote:
> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>> HK wrote:
>>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>>> HK wrote:
>>>>> salty.TakeThisOut@dog.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>>>>> <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>> <dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
>>>>>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
>>>>>>>>> opinion that
>>>>>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
>>>>>>>>> should also
>>>>>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
>>>>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of
>>>>>>>>> reasons, but
>>>>>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
>>>>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
>>>>>>>> ejected
>>>>>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
>>>>>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>>>>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>>>>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>>>>>> injuries in cars
>>>>>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
>>>>>> you are
>>>>>> simply asking for it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
>>>>> in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
>>>>> protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one
>>>>> of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make
>>>>> sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>>>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While
>>>> I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious
>>>> viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you
>>>> are not reflective of most people I have meet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>>
>>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other
>>> responsible righties here.
>>>
>>> But nice try.
>>>
>>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
>>
>> What makes someone a responsible righties?
>>
>
>
> You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
> between your knees and looking up.

Harry,
I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering
what the membership requirements are.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"HK" <payer33859 RemoveThis @mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:C_KdnXwkVbcA4szanZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast.com...
> BAR wrote:
>> HK wrote:
>>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>>>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
>>>> disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
>>>> know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
>>>> of most people I have meet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>>
>>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
>>> righties here.
>>
>> What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"
>>
>> Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
>> same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same
>> views?
>>
>>> But nice try.
>>>
>>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
>
>
> You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between
> your knees and looking up.

That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning!
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
> HK wrote:
>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>> HK wrote:
>>>> Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>>>> HK wrote:
>>>>>> salty.TakeThisOut@dog.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>>>>>> <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>> <dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:svd1l3h8dkfiqj55bulv8ck401rrpq7f7v@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
>>>>>>>>>> <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
>>>>>>>>>>> arguements about
>>>>>>>>>>> beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and
>>>>>>>>>>> increased insurance
>>>>>>>>>>> premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>>>>>> Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the
>>>>>>>>>> opinion that
>>>>>>>>>> if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>> will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets
>>>>>>>>>> should also
>>>>>>>>>> be required along with full leathers and body armor for
>>>>>>>>>> motorcycle
>>>>>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of
>>>>>>>>>> reasons, but
>>>>>>>>>> the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
>>>>>>>>>> reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
>>>>>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>>>>> Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of
>>>>>>>>> people ejected
>>>>>>>> >from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> as a motorcycle rider's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the more important question is how many major accidents
>>>>>>>> result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
>>>>>>>> motorcycle accidents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
>>>>>>> injuries in cars
>>>>>>> than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a
>>>>>>> car, you are
>>>>>>> simply asking for it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their
>>>>>> motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets
>>>>>> or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at
>>>>>> least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh.
>>>>>> And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
>>>>> rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While
>>>>> I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious
>>>>> viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you
>>>>> are not reflective of most people I have meet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, a**hole.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other
>>>> responsible righties here.
>>>>
>>>> But nice try.
>>>>
>>>> Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.
>>>
>>> What makes someone a responsible righties?
>>>
>>
>>
>> You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
>> between your knees and looking up.
>
> Harry,
> I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering
> what the membership requirements are.
>


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"Larry" <noone.TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F8E5FFAEA4Dnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Chuck Gould <chuckgould.chuck.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:0b23b105-
> d482-4504-8c14-c1620915b709.TakeThisOut@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS.
> Unfortunately,
>> society doesn't work that way.
>>
>
> It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or
> wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we
> do to CARS.
>
> We'd piss on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a
> competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to
> drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. Just having
> money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now.
>
> At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really
> stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear
> of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. I know lots of boaters who
> drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License,
> or stood a chance of losing it...
>
> Of course, if we really cared, we'd say:
> NO PFD....NO BOATING
> But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid.
>
>
> Larry


Larry, about 54% of the population is permanently stupid, and that will
never change. People in that category will never be able to tell the
difference between a day when they can keep the PFD nearby, and a day when
things are weird and they should be wearing one.

On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a PFD.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:O2f4j.21654$B25.11042@news01.roc.ny:

> On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a
PFD.
>
>

We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's
90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily
extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat
alcoholics.

It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to
the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing.

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"Larry" <noone RemoveThis @home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F97510CDB25noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:O2f4j.21654$B25.11042@news01.roc.ny:
>
>> On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a
> PFD.
>>
>>
>
> We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's
> 90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily
> extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat
> alcoholics.
>
> It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to
> the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing.
>
> Larry


Wouldn't letting them drown be more effective?
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Larry" <noone RemoveThis @home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99F97510CDB25noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:O2f4j.21654$B25.11042@news01.roc.ny:
>>
>>> On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a
>> PFD.
>>>
>> We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's
>> 90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily
>> extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat
>> alcoholics.
>>
>> It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to
>> the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing.
>>
>> Larry
>
>
> Wouldn't letting them drown be more effective?
>
>


Ahhh...another Libertarian!
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 1, 1:27�pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat....DeleteThis@myworkshop.idleplay.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould penned the
> following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
> >This time it was three guys from NJ.
>
> >Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
> >small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.
>
> Moot point, since it took all night to find them.
>
> If you want to champion something, it should be immersion suits. At 50
> degrees, they only had about 2-3 hours to live... with or without a
> PFD.
>
> I guess PFDs would make it easier to find the bodies, though.
>
> --
>
> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
>
> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Assuming that at the time of the accident you have no idea how long it
will take resuce to find you, would you rather have a 5 minute or a
2-3 hour potential lifespan.

In what way would wearing a lifejacket have *diminished* the
possibility of survival?
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 1, 5:21�pm, Wayne.B <waynebatrecdotbo....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
>
> <chuckgould.ch....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This time it was three guys from NJ.
>
> >Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
> >small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.
>
> >What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, �employers,
> >employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
> >affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
> >personal decision.
>
> >We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
> >instructional examples
>
> The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
> doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
> inevitable in my opinion. �The *real* issue is what were these guys
> thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
> There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
> inlets when things are rough. �In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
> surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. �Been there,
> done that.

The best decision, in conditions like you describe, is not to go at
all.

Once out there in a small boat, wearing a pfd is only one of the
precautions one should be taking.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case......