• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

scassani

Members
  • Content count

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scassani

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,798 profile views
  1. As I recall posts on Hamilton Island's decision not to pursue a challenge focus on costs to compete that turned out to be greater than Oatley anticipated. The author's allusion to "... the way (Sandy's) father's potential challenge was treated" suggests another concern led Hamilton Island to withdraw. Does anyone have insight as to what this concern was?
  2. Thanks robberzdog. My interest in the subject begins with me noticing discussions of Cup competition take a legal bent when crew composition is added to the mix. You've taken this turn. You have the history right so far as the history plays out in the setting of court review. Your mention of "having" emphasizes how little legal argument overlaps our day-to-day talk of competition, winning an losing, nation and such subjects. In the name of precision, legal argument takes the nouns and verbs of day-to-day talk and binds them through definition, first through the context of the legal document at issue, then to the intent of the author, possibly divined through the legal issues of the day, and finally to an accepted source of meaning, usually a dictionary all parties to the legal dispute are obliged by law and practice to accept as final. There is no prior reason to think a discussion of the sentence Schuyler writes to stand in the Deed as does a paragraph, has to take the turn you take us into. What do we read before nouns and verbs are made the focus of our talk about what we read? We read the sentence Schuyler wrote. It's English so there should not be the discussion of what a word means. Before the discussion is taken in a direction that plays well in court-"having"- we have such talk as asking a new acquaintance where she was born, puzzling with a friend over who might carry America to gold medals now that Phelps has retired, writing a letter to Jackie Stewart where I ask his opinion of the emphasis on commercial success in Formula One, this emphasis having replaced that given to nation some fifty years ago and so on. These are not legal discussions. My question to you is: Might a discussion of country, winning and losing a friendly competition between foreign countries and such lead us to notice what the presumption of legal necessity keeps hidden? Might we learn from watching such a discussion lead us to discover the sentence Schuyler writes, he giving first mention of the competition he would perpetuate, does not give us the sort of competitions he'd watched in the years leading up to writing the Deed? We have perpetuated competitions pitting sailors against each other. Wealthy businessman did that in Schuyler's day. To do so on the pretext, and that is what Schuyler's introductory sentence gives us, of deciding a competition between foreign countries, the practice of haring sailors from anywhere to man a country's boat works at cross purpose to what our day-to-day talk of winning and losing a competition and our talk of foreign countries has us expect we will see when we to go to an AC match. We go to see America win. We cheer our country. We take selfies with the crew. Does learning none, or perhaps, one of the Crew of our boat is American disappoint? Has the distinction Schuyler makes among countries, namely that they are foreign to each other, dropped out? To whom does a country become foreign if not the nationals of another? The reply I mean to discourage goes like this: The subject scassani would have us discuss is preempted by legal review or the potential for such review. If we are to participate in the discussion we have first to assume the technical expertise that supports discourse in the courts. Few, if any of us, have the needed skills. For what anyone says to have any consequence the discussion must be before a court. Absent a court setting what anyone says on the subjects of competition, winning and losing, foreign countries and nationality is so much intellectual fluff. It's the courts or nothing. This reply gives us what allows us to continue Cup competitions in the mold of those Schuyler watched a century and a half ago. The reply does this better than any example I might design to show we know what we are talking about when an accent leads us to ask where you are from, and to understand what we are told answers the question, The turn to legalese really is perpetuity at work.
  3. robberzdog is correct. I misquote Gladwell's comment. The error is mine and I apologize for the confusion this has encouraged among posters. I compound my error when I carry it through to my attempts to quote Schuyler. He too writes of a competition between foreign countries. I get the relevant sentence correct in the post that begins the thread, likely because I copied from the Deed. Left to my own hand I screwed up. But before I am told to step back from the conversation I mean this thread to further I have a question: Does posters' efforts to bring the conversation on point to what Schuyler actually wrote vitiate an argument I make turn on who wins and who loses a competition? I am struck by the paradox the practice of hiring sailors from the world market creates when this practice is put in service to a competition between foreign countries. Surely even the most dogged reader will grant that there is something odd to P.J. Montgomery, at the end of AC33, announcing, "The America's Cup is America's again!" The clash is created by hearing Montgomery exclaim and knowing that at most one member of the crew of AC33 is an American. I cannot remind myself of Montgomery's remark, shrug my shoulders and think So what? What should be obvious-a country wins a competition - is put in need of explanation- at most one of the sailors is American. I suspect the managers of AC33 cringed at what was an innocent but blatant exaggeration of what just happened. Montgomery's shout comes within a whisker of being false. A crew of Kiwis and an Australian did what Larry Ellison hired them to do - return the Cup for safekeeping by a yacht club whose legal status meets the requirement Schuyler prescribes in the Deed. Sure enough, the Cup changed hands. But was Montgomery right to proclaim a win for America? Shall we, knowing who brought the boat to the finish line, repeat his shout? On reading the replies on this thread I have to acknowledge posters are not given to taking issue with a practice the sailing community accepts as part of how a Cup competition goes. This acceptance predates by many years the ease of transportation and communication that is said to have dissolved the boundaries of country, or at least made designing a competition around them impractical. At it's inception the Cup competition Schuyler watched looked pretty much as do those of today and back then practicality was not the excuse posters make of it today. Schuyler wrote to perpetuate the competitions he'd watched and to this end he introduced to us "... a friendly competition between foreign countries." Sailors were hired from wherever the requisite skills were nurtured. And so it goes. Perhaps the most I should hope for is to prompt sailors and others of us attracted to Cup competitions to consider a competition that honors its country all the way to the water and, in this way, earns the accolade Montgomery offered too easily at the conclusion to AC33.
  4. Richard Gladwell tells us the phrase “… friendly competition among foreign countries” implies the competitors are of the nation whose flag flies from the boat they sail. I took several paragraphs in this thread to show Gladwell has the logic wrong. Having looked at the phrase, Gladwell concludes the connection of competition with country and both with crew is described by saying implies. Gladwell stops short of telling us how the phrase means. Implies is a verb. It is too faint in its entailment to carry the weight of winning and losing a competition among countries. A supervisor puzzles over filling a new position. He asks my opinion of a fellow employee’s work. I reply using faint praise. My answer implies I have a low opinion of the employee’s suitability for advancement. Answering as I do entails I lack a spine. I do not want the supervisor to know I believe he exaggerates the employee’s ability to contribute. Otherwise I would straightforwardly tell our supervisor what I think of the employee’s, and his, work. So, which is it? Does the sentence Schuyler writes to introduce to us a competition he would have us continue in perpetuity imply or entail sailors’ nationality and that of the country their entry represents are the same? Winning and losing give us the end to a competition among foreign countries. A country’s sailors win; another country’s sailors lose. That is definitive of the outcome of a competition among foreign countries, writ plain and simple. Writing it so leaves nothing to chance. The answer I give the supervisor is, by contrast, indirect and, perhaps, devious. Asked an employee’s qualification I answer in my own interest. There is nothing plain and simple about my reply to the supervisor. There is everything plain and simple to me, here and now, describing my reply as being in my own interest. That description, too, leaves nothing to chance. We should ask of “… friendly competition among foreign countries,” does the phrase leave to chance sailors of the same country concluding a competition Schuyler tells us pits one country against another? I do not deny a century and a half of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup reading the phrase in exactly this way. Such a reading leaves to chance the Cup passing as Schuyler means to perpetuate and the sailors whose skills decide the match being from anywhere. That describes the history of Cup competition. Schuyler had a hand in making history. So why did Schuyler not complain? Why did he not step forward and say to the skipper of a crew of hired sailors, “This is not the competition you are meant to perpetuate.” The answer is Schuyler never asked of what he wrote, as have Gladwell and I, that the competition he would perpetuate honor how the phrase “… competition among foreign countries” works. Gladwell succeeds in asking us to question what we do in the name America’s Cup. Citing implies though has him leave the door open to sailors from anywhere resolving a competition without he or us noticing such a competition could not be among foreign countries. Citing entails would give Gladwell the correct description of the logic to what Schuyler and anyone else using the phrase competition among foreign countries is stuck with. Schuyler writes, “… competition among foreign countries.” He leaves off winning and losing such a competition. This is not an oversight by Schuyler. Winning and losing are the end to most competitions. Being the end they are part of it. Schuyler has no need to write what we know from a correct use of competition, namely whom to cheer and where to look that our country might do better next time. We look inward and it is just this soul-searching that has been missing from the America’s Cup for a very long time. No doubt Schuyler, writing the phrase, thought together the competitions he’d watched and the competition he sought to perpetuate. And, as today, no one in his company thinks to ask of what he wrote, does it have meaning independently of what we do when wealthy men look anywhere for sailors to man what they and we call a friendly competition among foreign countries? Wealthy men spend money as they will. We agree to talk in service to what wealthy men do. Indeed, agreeing to say a competition among foreign nations is resolved by pitting sailors from anywhere against each other is the trophy Schuyler perpetuates without he resorting to trust law. It’s a matter of habit. This one has us repeat the devious turn wealthy men, and I count Schuyler among them, give to competition and country.
  5. The problem I mean this post to address sits motionless in the background of most discussions that take as their subject an activity that exists in law. The problem has to do with how we read the legal document that gives conveyance of the America’s Cup a place among other like trusts. If we read the Deed of Gift, anticipating the things we say about what we read being tested for legal sufficiency, our discussion of country and the Deed of Gift will begin, and likely, end, with two valid observations: Schuyler says nothing of the makeup of a crew and the history of Cup competition shows yacht clubs exploiting this vacuum. We watch yacht clubs advantage themselves on the water by crewing their nation’s boat from the world’s best sailors. The advantage on the water comes too late to save the feature Schuyler attributes to every Cup competition. Schuyler makes the feature visible in the sentence he writes that we might distinguish from any other regatta a competition he means us to perpetuate: "This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries." Writing the sentence where Schuyler does in the Deed shows him introducing to us a competition we would not have known from watching the many regattas yacht clubs hold year after year. Watching annual regattas we have no reason to ask the nationalities of the men we see sail the boat that carries a club’s burgee. But let there be something in it for us and what passes for legal sufficiency gives way to a demand that the sailors be our club mates. If a match is to test the mettle of the Golden Gate Yacht Club then by God our sailors damn well better be members of the Club. That only makes sense. Our club cannot glow in victory or shrink humbly in defeat only to discover we counted on any accomplished sailor to show the world what we are made of. Something very like this discovery comes of giving the introductory paragraph a place in our reading of the Deed. Reading the Deed Schuyler writes for us has us turning to the Deed that we might know exactly what he wants from us. Schuyler says all that need be said if we are to follow him forever. By making the sentence the first thing we read that tells of the competition to come of his work, and by structuring this part of the Deed so as to have the sentence stand as a paragraph, Schuyler leaves no possibility of him suggesting that what he writes here calls for further thought on our part if we are to complete his thinking. We reread the sentence out of its order in the Deed. The further thought we give to Schuyler’s words has us reread the sentence, looking there for mention of what we read in Schuyler’s statement of the licensing or other legal requirements that connect a yacht club with a country. We repeat this exercise when we put the introductory sentence in the context of another subject we read elsewhere in the Deed. The context we create has us make of the sentence Schuyler writes a failed counterpart to the work he succeeds in doing, he demanding that a yacht or vessel be constructed in the country of the competing club. We go looking for the connections Schuyler makes of club and country and yacht and country in the sentence he writes for us to read before he says anything of clubs and yachts. Discovering Schuyler tells us a friendly competition between foreign countries leaves a place for pitting sailors from the same country against each other amounts to discovering we fail to discern an implausibility in our restatement of what Schuyler writes entire and unto itself. The sole means to discovering a thing we say to each other is implausible so long as we persist in saying it is to broaden the conversation. Hear yourself in what others say on the subject. Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup treat the absence of any mention of sailors in the Deed as reason enough to say makeup of the crews is no part of a competition between foreign countries. Their casual demeanor when they tell us what they know betrays a fact we know: Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup believe what they tell us is unexceptional. They believe what they say fits with how we think country goes in the phrase “… friendly competition between foreign countries.” Broadening the conversation to include us allows for pointing out the phrase takes in much more than the word country. Bringing in competition and taking the time to characterize the sort of competition he means to perpetuate show Schuyler working as well as language allows to say what he wants to accomplish forever. That outcome takes in all of what Schuyler writes. It’s the competition part that gives the lie to thinking a licensed yacht club and sailors from anywhere combine on the water in such a way that a club takes possession of a cup. Taking possession of the America’s Cup calls for a competition that finds us cheering our own as they cross the finish line. We and they are one in a victory for our country’s entrant in the America’s Cup. “The America’s Cup is America’s again!” and then we discover at most one in the crew is American. Or none are. No matter. Do we want to say of this attitude it only makes sense? What does it make sense of? Certainly not winning and losing a competition between foreign countries. We know how that goes. There’s something in it for us. Nothing of what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup put in place of what we know has us closer to the subject. Indeed the near centuries old discussion that has been the purview of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup shows them losing sight of the competition altogether. They leave nothing in it for us. The purpose of this post is to leave you comfortable saying we know what we are talking about when we speak for ourselves on winning and losing a friendly competition between our country and that of another. We have no idea what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup mean to perpetuate when they tell us to watch the world’s best sailors compete in our stead.
  6. Surfsailor puts before us the sentence Schuyler writes to introduce to us a challenge no one knew until he wrote it. We would not know the same challenge today but for our successes in meeting the challenge. Some 160 years past Schuyler turning to trust law, we have shown thirty five times over we know perpetuity and trust law bind us to do what we have just done over and over and we do it without repeating ourselves. The terms of the march to come need not take their definition from those that governed its precedent. The liberty to think each match anew allows for the changes a generation of sailors looks for that they might make a competition their own. The Americas Cup is not the reenactment of a long tradition that, for example, gives definition to every baseball game. The perpetuity Schuyler writes to is unique to the America’s Cup. He counts on us knowing we rekindle a Cup competition and it is this understanding Schuyler brings to his invocation of trust law. Read the Deed the other way round and you come to read the terms of the Deed as telling us how we are to achieve perpetuity. It’s as though the word is a reader’s to coin as his own. Golden Gate Yacht Club ceded all responsibility that goes with holding the Cup to Oracle Team USA. OTUSA substituted talk of sustainability for the term Schuyler counts on leading us forever. Where Schuyler writes perpetuity Oracle Team USA reads fiscal independence. Reading perpetuity and thinking sustainability in its place imposes an interpretation over perpetuity. Schuyler writes so we see exactly the challenge he makes to us. The interpretation, and not what Schuyler writes, creates a means for OTUSA to circumscribe the very liberty that draws generations of sailors to a Cup competition. Golden Gate Yacht Club does not come to this authority from a reading of the Deed of Gift. Fitting a carbon fiber sheath to the front five feet of a hull has us read the phrase “constructed in country” in a way that does not come to mind from a reading of the language Schuyler perpetuates through trust law. To claim the sheath covers what Schuyler means for us to do in the name of the America’s Cup is to perpetrate a fraud so brazen it led me to wonder how such thinking might be sustained. I got my answer when five of the teams participating in AC35 agreed this sort of direction should carry forward to AC36 and beyond. If we lack the character to act on the challenge Schuyler imposes honesty alone should suffice to make us call what we are willing to do by a name other than the America’s Cup. Sustaining honesty does not begin with a reading of the Deed of Gift. Unlike the challenge Schuyler makes of us, dishonesty and its companion fraud are indulgences we perpetuate free of a history others make for us that we might do better.
  7. Hog, You offer two options for determining when we are to say enough sailors are of the country of the yacht club they represent for us to say the club and it’s team represent us. Should we include designers and other support staff in a counting of who makes up our team, you find in the total counted reason to say as many as forty percent could come from anywhere. On the other hand, should we count only those who sail the boat that carries our country’s flag, one of these sailors out of every five in the total crew may be from a country other than our own. A consequence of your welcoming attitude has a friendly competition among foreign nations be resolved and several of the competitors not be foreign to each other. New Zealanders are as likely to contribute to a defense of the Cup as they are its challenge. They play both sides of a coin we mint for the purpose of cheering a team of our own. For the math you would have us do to work as you want it to work we have to come away from this exercise prepared to dismiss the oddity that comes on being told most of the sailors, or over half of everyone involved in the defense of America’s Americas Cup, are Americans too. I think you are offering one thing – a new way to read “Our country, our team” – and preserving something else – “…a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries.” The challenge here is not open to resolution on the water. Anyone of any stripe or nation is welcome to add a comment to this thread. Shall we find among the native languages of commenters a reason to say a commentator writes in exactly the way he must for his contribution to anticipate the turn of logic you introduce to us? The turn has us look away from how we think and speak of nation when we are not faced with a problem that is inimical to the America’s Cup. We learn the tactician of America’s defense is a New Zealander. Having done the mathematics you recommend for us, we accept this as accurate to how things are. The boat is black and red, it carries ‘17’ and the crew is, to apply your calculus, more American than not. Each of these is another fact. We are to read them as we read facts. Facts lay noted, the note is accurate and, as part of a story written to chronicle America’s defense of it’s Cup, facts read dead. We do nothing with them and they do nothing with us. What stirs a discussion to life is what a commentator does with the fact some among the crews of foreign countries, but not so many as to invite question, are of the same country. This is how citing facts become pertinent. If talk of “not so many” sounds odd the oddity is removed by substituting ’60 percent’ ‘or ’80 percent’ for the too general ‘some.’ A language that already has the logic you introduce to us shows a speaker who is comfortable saying ‘country’ and ‘territory’ are synonymous. People wander. They come and go. There are passports and other legal necessities but none of these are brought to bear for the purpose of settling who decides America’s boat’s next move. That’s the tactician’s territory. Nation and territory do not overlap as the duties of a tactician and helmsman sometimes do. A crew roster lists a sailor’s home against the sailor’s name. We read from name to country and we read from country to country. This lets us do the math Hog recommends for us. But we do not simply take the list in hand and read it one way or another. How we read the roster has to do with why we picked it up. What question do we have such that we know the question is settled by studying the roster? Suppose the question is one that aficionados of the Americas Cup spend a lot of time trying to answer: Which countries are represented in the coming Cup competition? This would be easy but for an insistence by many of those whose decisions over decades shape the Cup competition we have today. They tell us to ignore the crew roster. The club burgee tells us all we need to know. Hog recommends we consult the roster. But the method he introduces to reading the roster falls short of answering the question that has us pick the roster for reading. We cannot tally crew names by country and in this way answer a question that persists after those who wrote the history of Cup competitions tell us our question has no place in that history. If we cannot follow the past we are not of a mind to meet it half way.
  8. Have you read Wess' contribution to this topic? Read it again....
  9. I'm repeating here my reply to a post that deals with the question What countries can field teams with 80% nationality rule? My reply fits here as well. We watched a team that really couldn't compete during most of the nine races of AC35. Whether by reason of skill or boat design, particularly the design of the hydraulics system, Golden Gate Yacht Club's representative proved itself incapable of mounting an earnest and visually rewarding defense of the Cup. With New Zealand in the lead the only question to ask was by how much will they win. I'll go out on a limb here and say no team was more heavily populated by professionals from across the world than was the team GGYC designated to defend it's stake in the Cup competition. And what came of this dilution to what might have been a comparably effective team, this time sailed by sailors from cities I know and visit without leaving home? I shouldn't have to meet marketers of an opportunity to compete for the America's Cup on their own terms. The worth or value of watching us defend the Cup is accounted for by hearing the helmsman cut his teeth off the coast of San Diego, the tactician carried the Stars and Stripes in the Olympics, the trimmer is a veteran of regattas on the east coast, the team manager has sailed out of San Francisco for nearly thirty years and so on and on and on. Each of these introductions brings me a little closer to what is being done in the name of our country. And yet the marketing advantage, the ability to sell space for a logo on a boat, is realized by telling an interested sponsor none of this matters. Australia, New Zealand, any country, doesn't matter. The crew, managers, designers, all of them, are from anywhere. How does the would-be sponsor come of his interest in supporting America's defense in the first place? And why should I acquiesce in this lie, lest critics of the competition say America's team is not of an international quality. There are better sailors elsewhere. They make their skills available to the highest bidder. That's how they earn a living from one year to the next. Buy them. Buy many of them. Then hang the Stars and Stripes from the boat. No one will know the difference. Indeed, there isn't a difference. We've been staffing crews this way for decades. Do again what we've been doing. The Cup will change hands, or not. What else is there to a friendly competition among nations?
  10. MidPack worries for a team that really can't compete. We watched this outcome during most of the nine races of AC35. Whether by reason of skill or boat design, particularly the design of the hydraulics system, Golden Gate Yacht Club's representative proved itself incapable of mounting an earnest and visually rewarding defense of the Cup. With New Zealand in the lead the only question to ask was by how much will they win. I'll go out on a limb here and say no team was more heavily populated by professionals from across the world than was the team GGYC designated to defend it's stake in the Cup competition. And what came of this dilution to what might have been a comparably effective team, this time sailed by sailors from cities I know and visit without leaving home? I shouldn't have to meet marketers of an opportunity to compete for the America's Cup on their own terms. The worth or value of watching us defend the Cup is accounted for by hearing the helmsman cut his teeth off the coast of San Diego, the tactician carried the Stars and Stripes in the Olympics, the trimmer is a veteran of regattas on the east coast, the team manager has sailed out of San Francisco for nearly thirty years and so on and on and on. Each of these introductions brings me a little closer to what is being done in the name of our country. And yet the marketing advantage, the ability to sell space for a logo on a boat, is realized by telling an interested sponsor none of this matters. Australia, New Zealand, any country, doesn't matter. The crew, managers, designers, all of them, are from anywhere. How does the would-be sponsor come of his interest in supporting America's defense in the first place? And why should I acquiesce in this lie, lest critics of the competition say America's team is not of an international quality. There are better sailors elsewhere. They make their skills available to the highest bidder. That's how they earn a living from one year to the next. Buy them. Buy many of them. Then hang the Stars and Stripes from the boat. No one will know the difference. Indeed, there isn't a difference. We've been staffing crews this way for decades. Do again what we've been doing. The Cup will change hands, or not. What else is there to a friendly competition among nations?
  11. Would deferring any challenge and defense of the America's Cup for five years encourage professional sailors to secure year-round employment by participating in regularly scheduled competitions? Would the unique history of the Cup competition be enhanced by making the competition separate from the world-wide regattas sailors count on for annual income? Would the marketing advantage that invites hyperbole - "the best sailors in the fastest boats" - by compromised by professional sailors supporting themselves and their families through means other than competing for the Cup? Suppose the answer is 'No.' A number of professional sailors do not depend on the Cup competition. Setting hyperbole aside, would requiring the nationalities of the competing sailors match that of the country the yacht club they represent visibly diminish the quality of a Cup competition? Every country represents its sailors as the best in the world. Unqualified and, perhaps, unthinking pride are manifest in a harmless appeal to nationalism. Does this representation pale in effect to the same words, stated this time as part of a marketing strategy? Who really has claim to say, "These are the best sailors in the fastest boats?" And why are we to cede to marketers all claim to an annoying misrepresentation when America's crew doesn't include any of us? What are we to say about this?
  12. My hope is that Golden Gate Yacht Club will assess their financial health in the event the obligatory Oracle-related members leave the club. If GGYC shows promise of being solvent without lending the club's name, legal status and nothing more to a pretense of a Cup competition the members should do what would be their first ethical act since they accepted Ellison's Faustian bargain.- decline any further involvement in the America's Cup. Ellison paid his way into the America's Cup. What came of his involvement is a succession of business decisions, all predicated on exploiting the history of the Cup while denying any credence to how this history differs from that of any regatta. The members of Golden Gate Yacht Club underwrote a gradual erosion of a history that, in Jimmy Spithill's words, "...gets in the way" of earning a living by calling yourself a professional sailor who, by chance, also participates in the America's Cup. The name America's Cup means more than the opportunity for profit that comes of deciding where a boat is constructed after examining the first five feet of any boats hulls. This last Cup competition is at once thrilling to watch and it is a shame that we should watch it and be left mindless of the disappointment our predecessors would look to see, not on the water, but in our eyes.
  13. Stinger, help me out. I seem to recall a poster, possibly to the Bermuda thread, telling us this sort of weather is typical of Bermuda in mid to late June. The post came hours after GGYC let us know Bermuda had prevailed in the sweepstakes of venues for AC35. The poster seemed flabbergasted anyone in charge of planning for AC35 would overlook the strong probability wind patterns would continue as usual during the very period AC35 is scheduled to be sailed. Do you recall this or some similar caution?
  14. jaysper asks and he cannot answer, "Why host cities keep buying the same old snake oil about these sporting events is beyond me." Turn to Andrew Zimbalist's fine account of the lack of accounting, post event, city leaders are willing to bring to bear on the promises promoters make to them, before the event, Circus Maximus. Zimbalist emphasizes politicians' hopes for societal improvement and a commensurate optimism for political advantage as the bases for promoter's routine success at selling costs as outlays no one can afford to miss. The event complete and visitors heading home, jaysper and the rest of we residents never demand of those who bought the sold pitch that they point to the features of the land now no longer promised but real. Or we fail to make this demand in enough numbers to provoke elected and appointed officials to validate how well they did on our behalf. When the event is no more than a proposal we are told multipliers of coefficients, themselves of a hidden origin, show us today the future no one can deny improves on what we have. They take the guess work out of deciding what should be done. And we are quick to bow to the mathematics that, after all, exemplify objectivity. jaysper mentions the harm that comes of reallocating dollars from humdrum projects that seem never to enjoy an effective constituency to an event, always clothed in superlatives, that promises improvements which, heretofore, we have been unwilling to pay for. Multipliers make this distant benefit seem an inevitable product of construction and visitors who, but for the superlatives, have every reason to travel and no reason to come here at this time. The event overcomes social and political paralysis. It is a catalyst for change, and always for the better. It is progress. Zimbalist levels a penetrating criticism of the purveyors of multipliers. He is especially taxed by their willingness to call themselves "economists" or "consultants" to this opaque science. Zimbalist sees through what they sell and he does not flinch at bearing the lazy thinking that gives their pretense of work a place to ferment. The tragedy though comes in the years following the event. jaysper and I sit back and lament concrete memorials to thinking so narrow the bridges, roads and stadiums the thinking made real serve a need that expired with the event. They are a drag on a local economy that could not afford their construction and no longer has access to outside capital to pay to maintain them. It was a one shot deal and square in the sights is a populace that could not break even before the drag trickled down to them, in roughly the magnitude the multipliers led us to expect. This side to the snake oil works to remind us that wringing oil from a snake is deadly, especially when the wringer knows what he is doing.
  15. NBCSN lists todays racing beginning at 11:00 am Mountain Daylight Time. The schedule updated only ten minutes ago to show racing in place of the Mecum Auto Auction.