Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

re-psycled

3 dead in N2E

Recommended Posts

I'm not fully up to speed on the Marina Sailing model or their contracts ...

 

I think it's a lease-back thing, lots of tax advantages and Theo's company was/is called Aegean Consulting, hence the boat's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Are you saying Marina Sailing owned the boat? I thought Aegean was owned by the skipper but leased to Marina for charters, but I don't really know. Anyway, I'm sure Marina had the boat fully insured.

I'm not fully up to speed on the Marina Sailing model or their contracts but it works something along the lines of this:

 

An owner or consortium of owners [Owner] buys the boat, owns the boat, holds the boat's title and all the equity.

Marina Sailing provides a slip free of charge to the Owner and performs [some? all?] maintenance in exchange for their usage of the boat for some ratio [50% of the time? more?]

The Owner needs to arrange in advance with Marina Sailing when the Owner is going to use the boat.

 

Marina Sailing uses the boat to:

  • Give sailing lessons;
  • Rent to Marina Sailing members who have been qualified either through Marina Sailing's school or some via sort of recognized sailing resume.

 

Your post caught my attention, so I Googled Marine Sailing.

 

"Simply put, buy a yacht, put it in Marina Sailing's Charter Yacht Management Program, then use income tax savings and charter income to help pay for your Dream Yacht! That combination can literally cut the cost of your new boat in HALF!

 

The 'Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2011' increases the amount a taxpayer can write-off up to $500,000 of qualified capital expenditures, such as a boat for business for tax years 2011. It also extends the additional, first-year 50% depreciation for qualifying property purchased and placed in service during the 2011 tax year."

 

WTF?

 

This gives new meaning to yet another governemnt fuck-up. So we, the taxpayers, are underwriting Joe Shithead's 4 knot sb? A guy gets a $125K wrie-off for a $250K boat and gets to use it half the time?

 

And BHO is looking to close loop holes and he did this? And BHO is after the 1% for more taxes and he allows this?

 

WTF? This whole thing with Aegean gets more and more bizaare as the story unfolds.

 

I am outraged! Storm the castle! Free DoRag! Unleash his venom. He will save the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. A bigot complaining on a sailboat racing site about the 1%. A fucking sailing site! And the poor dude he's bitching about is probably still in the morgue minus his hair and face. Un-fucking-real. The brotherhood of sailing. Gawd what a horrible reflection on a great sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not by accident that when stomping over MEXICO to make Kaliaforniaxico they stopped where they did

 

and said - You Vatos can keep everything from here on South to the next America wink.gif

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

 

This is just my opinion but I don't think they were hit by another ship. I think they ran smack into that rock, either because they didn't see it or they weren't paying attention.

 

 

[ UNQUOTE ]

 

 

 

until the answers to:

 

why attention was not / could not be given ( to course / what was ahead on that particular course )

 

how the three below suffered fatal head trauma in a boat travelling at around 6 K

 

when this happened ? was it well before the island ?

 

and --- did something sudden and unexpected happen to cause the owner to leave the boat before the others ---

 

 

are found

 

this thread will wander aimlessly in circles

 

 

there seems to be too much assumption surrounding use of auto pilot

 

e.g. did plotter / pilot / main gps need to be shut down when starting a newly installed motor ?

 

did an electrical spike cause problems in this area ? --- were there wiring problems that followed the new motor installation ? --- LP solenoid ?

 

was the plotter directing the pilot with gps input ?

 

was the pilot operating alone ? ( no gps assistance ?)

 

was pilot operating correctly without any steering bias ?

 

 

spot indicates a steady course, but what if pilot alone meant no correction for cross track current / drift ?

 

 

we may never know ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Parrot Sketch

 

OMG -- Monty Pythons Parrot sketch -- my absolutely favorite Monty Python sketch EVER -- and I liked a lot of them.

 

But the Twit race was pretty good too -- I can see all the characters in this thread lining up and doing the Twit Race -- seems appropriate ;)

 

 

My Name is GUMBY !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

until the answers to:

 

why attention was not / could not be given ( to course / what was ahead on that particular course )

 

how the three below suffered fatal head trauma in a boat travelling at around 6 K

 

when this happened ? was it well before the island ?

 

and --- did something sudden and unexpected happen to cause the owner to leave the boat before the others ---

 

 

are found

 

this thread will wander aimlessly in circles

 

 

there seems to be too much assumption surrounding use of auto pilot

 

e.g. did plotter / pilot / main gps need to be shut down when starting a newly installed motor ?

 

did an electrical spike cause problems in this area ? --- were there wiring problems that followed the new motor installation ? --- LP solenoid ?

 

was the plotter directing the pilot with gps input ?

 

was the pilot operating alone ? ( no gps assistance ?)

 

was pilot operating correctly without any steering bias ?

 

spot indicates a steady course, but what if pilot alone meant no correction for cross track current / drift ?

 

we may never know ....

  1. There is no shred of evidence to suggest that any trauma occurred "well before" N. Coronado I. Not even a paper cut can be shown by any known evidence to have arisen before N. Coronado. On the other hand, the Spot data and the blunt trauma are evidence that strongly suggests that the trauma arose in a collision with the island. The Spot data also strongly suggest when the trauma occurred within a range of about eleven minutes.
  2. All your autopilot queries are interesting but they are relevant to the "why" of the collision, not "what," not "where," not "when," not "how, and not "who." In this case, the only sources of facts about the "why" queries are sadly gone, leaving the question imponderable yesterday, today and tomorrow. It's not, as you say, that "we may never know." It is, in fact, that we shall never know. Much as we (some of us, at least) want answers to those and so many other queries about these events, and as instructive such answers would be for all of us, we have a fully sufficient understanding of the essential facts of the loss of the Aegean.
  3. Does the foregoing suggest that the issues posed in your queries have no importance for us? Not at all. We all need to be alert to the factors that affect our equipment and threaten the effectiveness of our navigation and take care in the maintenance and use of our gear. But it is not important to know whether any of them affected the navigation of Aegean. It is sufficient to know that - somehow - the autopilot steered the boat under power into the island and the four died.
  4. And you have missed other autopilot related queries in the same vein, discussed above by many. Included are "who set the autopilot," "how on earth could anyone set a course that went through an island," and "how could the crew not see the mistake." These too are imponderables, and all the possible answers are warnings to us all to be vigilant and careful with our navigation. But we can never know which of these factors was the critical piece of causal nexus.
  5. With a strong probability, based on all the evidence we have, we know what, where, when, how and who. We are never likely to know more.
  6. There is only a weak possibility of any alternate explanation, with no supporting evidence and only fanciful speculation as a basis.
  7. These events have posed a great struggle for a number of Anarchists. Some of the struggle has been in an effort to formulate an explanation of the event that does not entail blame for the lost sailors. Some has been from and unwillingness in this day of CSI mentality to accept any resolution without 100% absolute certainty - which certainly does not hold in this or any other event. Some has been out of orneriness, posted by trolls for their own amusement. The thrashing about has gone on so long - and may yet continue - for all these reasons.

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

 

and its the WHY we will never know :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

 

and its the WHY we will never know :(

An amazing display of deductive reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

 

and its the WHY we will never know :(

An amazing display of deductive reasoning.

 

Duhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

 

and its the WHY we will never know :(

An amazing display of deductive reasoning.

 

Duhhh

and a quick wit to boot. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT

The boat collided with the face of a cliff.

WHERE

The collision was on the north end of North Coronado Island.

WHEN

As discussed in several posts above, anywhere from about 1 or 1 and 1/2 minutes before the last position report and 9 minutes, 59 seconds after the last position report on the SPOT.

HOW

Steered into the collision by the autopilot under power at speed.

WHO

The owner and three other crew of the s/v Aegean.

 

and its the WHY we will never know :(

An amazing display of deductive reasoning.

 

Duhhh

and a quick wit to boot. biggrin.gif

 

Hey grey haired pussy -- I am so sorry I have to spell it out for you - but I guess your neurons aren't firing so great or its that time of the month and the psycho monster has hit your brain, so I'll make it easy for you......

 

I wrote "its the WHY we will never know" as a to a 'dig' and a "statement to the obvious" from the post above, because all the conjecture in the world means nothing, because "why" is the reason people are reading....

 

Boy - some slow dumb people on here... :blink:

 

And I gotta say - it was so nice when you had me on ignore -- and you were so proud of yourself at the time --- too bad you are the kind of person that can't keep their word .... no wonder a few people used the "c" word on you -- in just a few days it makes so much sense --- I suggest you put me on ignore again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the crew memeber that stated they "kicked ass" in the Ensenada Race?

 

A quick reminder, the crew of the Aegean won their class sailing in the fastest N2E race in its 65 year history.

 

That year, 2009, of 260 starters, there were 257 finishers, and all finished by 4 p.m. Saturday, 19 hours ahead of the usual 11 a.m. Sunday cutoff time. They did indeed kick ass.

If, say, a third or less of the fleet had finished in record time while the other two-thirds made it in the "usual" time frame, THAT would be worthy of a "kicked ass" claim IMO. But the entire fleet finishing in record time? Sounds like it was a kick-ass race for everyone due to some kick-ass conditions. Sailing down the MexiCali coast in nine to twelve offwind provides a pretty high level of racing experience, sounds like there was no motoring that year (note sarcasm right there).

 

A speaker's opinion of someone else's level of experience is relative to the amount that the speaker has; keep that in mind when reading the news/etc. Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy - some slow dumb people on here... :blink:

 

And I gotta say - it was so nice when you had me on ignore -- and you were so proud of yourself at the time --- too bad you are the kind of person that can't keep their word .... no wonder a few people used the "c" word on you -- in just a few days it makes so much sense --- I suggest you put me on ignore again

Yes, it's mildly disappointing.

 

Here I have saved myself a lot of time with a carefully-selected Ignore list: FoilerMan, The Brain of Australia, The Australian Ass, the Brain Trust (three AC forum sea-lawyers), J/Boats KoolAid Drinker, and Eye'm An Idiot.) But so far as I know, although I've encouraged several who've complained about my posts that they should put me on Ignore, so far as I know no one ever has. Though of course that doesn't mean no one has, it just makes it an unknown.

 

Then Gray-haired Pussy puts in her sig line that she has me on Ignore. Finally, some balance! And more importantly, it should save space, and time for many people, as her responses to my posts are inane. Very good all around.

 

But no...

 

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy - some slow dumb people on here... :blink:

 

And I gotta say - it was so nice when you had me on ignore -- and you were so proud of yourself at the time --- too bad you are the kind of person that can't keep their word .... no wonder a few people used the "c" word on you -- in just a few days it makes so much sense --- I suggest you put me on ignore again

Yes, it's mildly disappointing.

 

Here I have saved myself a lot of time with a carefully-selected Ignore list: FoilerMan, The Brain of Australia, The Australian Ass, the Brain Trust (three AC forum sea-lawyers), J/Boats KoolAid Drinker, and Eye'm An Idiot.) But so far as I know, although I've encouraged several who've complained about my posts that they should put me on Ignore, so far as I know no one ever has. Though of course that doesn't mean no one has, it just makes it an unknown.

 

Then Gray-haired Pussy puts in her sig line that she has me on Ignore. Finally, some balance! And more importantly, it should save space, and time for many people, as her responses to my posts are inane. Very good all around.

 

But no...

 

Oh well.

 

One mark of a man is the extent and the quality (inverse relationship) of their "ignore" list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A speaker's opinion of someone else's level of experience is relative to the amount that the speaker has; keep that in mind when reading the news/etc. Just sayin'...

 

True --

 

I've always said that the definition of an expert was someone that knew ~this~ much (holding my thumb and index finger 1 cm apart) more than you do on a subject....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the crew memeber that stated they "kicked ass" in the Ensenada Race?

 

A quick reminder, the crew of the Aegean won their class sailing in the fastest N2E race in its 65 year history.

 

That year, 2009, of 260 starters, there were 257 finishers, and all finished by 4 p.m. Saturday, 19 hours ahead of the usual 11 a.m. Sunday cutoff time. They did indeed kick ass.

If, say, a third or less of the fleet had finished in record time while the other two-thirds made it in the "usual" time frame, THAT would be worthy of a "kicked ass" claim IMO. But the entire fleet finishing in record time? Sounds like it was a kick-ass race for everyone due to some kick-ass conditions. Sailing down the MexiCali coast in nine to twelve offwind provides a pretty high level of racing experience, sounds like there was no motoring that year (note sarcasm right there).

 

A speaker's opinion of someone else's level of experience is relative to the amount that the speaker has; keep that in mind when reading the news/etc. Just sayin'...

 

The facts are that Aegean won their cruising class in 2009. The "kick ass" comment refered to that in and their relative finish to DC in his Stars and Stripes. Aegean finished in a corrected time of 16:04. What was not pointed out in the "kick ass" comment was that the overall "winner," Sojurn, finished in 14:01, corrected - or two hours before Aegean. Sojurn had indeed, "kicked ass."

 

The second point is that '09 was a fast race and the wind and weather favored the smaller, slower boats. For example, Sojurn was a PH K boat. Many boats corrected on DC (and all the other larger faster boats)simply due to the wind pattern.

 

So, yes, Aegean did well to win their class. Their cruising class. The rest doesn't matter as anyone experienced with the Ensenada Race, or any longer distance race, will very well know. The conditions will determine the winner on a longer, strung out race. Each set of boats is racing in a different breeze. Now, shouldn't an experienced and knowledgeable crew understand that?

 

Note: this post is not intended to disparage Aegean, rather, it is intended solely to address the now infamous, "kick ass" reference. They won their class. Great! They did not "kick ass." Soujurn, two hours ahead of them "kicked ass." You cannot possibly "kick ass" when another boat corrects over two hours on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that - a whole page of the thread without any drivel from Eyeneversono!

 

Well done, lads.

 

Well done, indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy - some slow dumb people on here... :blink:

 

And I gotta say - it was so nice when you had me on ignore -- and you were so proud of yourself at the time --- too bad you are the kind of person that can't keep their word .... no wonder a few people used the "c" word on you -- in just a few days it makes so much sense --- I suggest you put me on ignore again

Yes, it's mildly disappointing.

 

Here I have saved myself a lot of time with a carefully-selected Ignore list: FoilerMan, The Brain of Australia, The Australian Ass, the Brain Trust (three AC forum sea-lawyers), J/Boats KoolAid Drinker, and Eye'm An Idiot.) But so far as I know, although I've encouraged several who've complained about my posts that they should put me on Ignore, so far as I know no one ever has. Though of course that doesn't mean no one has, it just makes it an unknown.

 

Then Gray-haired Pussy puts in her sig line that she has me on Ignore. Finally, some balance! And more importantly, it should save space, and time for many people, as her responses to my posts are inane. Very good all around.

 

But no...

 

Oh well.

 

One mark of a man is the extent and the quality (inverse relationship) of their "ignore" list.

Tom, hint hint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy - some slow dumb people on here... :blink:

 

And I gotta say - it was so nice when you had me on ignore -- and you were so proud of yourself at the time --- too bad you are the kind of person that can't keep their word .... no wonder a few people used the "c" word on you -- in just a few days it makes so much sense --- I suggest you put me on ignore again

Yes, it's mildly disappointing.

 

Here I have saved myself a lot of time with a carefully-selected Ignore list: FoilerMan, The Brain of Australia, The Australian Ass, the Brain Trust (three AC forum sea-lawyers), J/Boats KoolAid Drinker, and Eye'm An Idiot.) But so far as I know, although I've encouraged several who've complained about my posts that they should put me on Ignore, so far as I know no one ever has. Though of course that doesn't mean no one has, it just makes it an unknown.

 

Then Gray-haired Pussy puts in her sig line that she has me on Ignore. Finally, some balance! And more importantly, it should save space, and time for many people, as her responses to my posts are inane. Very good all around.

 

But no...

 

Oh well.

 

One mark of a man is the extent and the quality (inverse relationship) of their "ignore" list.

Tom, hint hint...

 

 

Good - so please put me on yours..... Its the adult version of "Nah, Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah....... I can't hear you"

 

And with all do respect to Do Rag -- a catchy cute phrase on a sailing Bulletin Board about an "Ignore list" is happy fodder for the mindless ... and anyone who really puts any weight into it is suspect and a lemming

 

Once again do what you promised a few days ago, but couldn't keep -- put me on your "ignore list"......and KEEP ME THERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can start an Ignore List sticky, where everyone can post who their Ignore list is. Wouldn't that be exciting? Almost as fine as hearing the latest 5-word misspelled missive from NtY about how many days till some high school event or other.

 

Gray-haired Pussy can be the leadoff poster.

 

But problem is, she'd have to be posting her updates all the time, as she just can't help but read the posts of those she says she ignores.

 

Oh well, great (?) idea for the 3 seconds that it lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can start an Ignore List sticky, where everyone can post who their Ignore list is. Wouldn't that be exciting?

 

Gray-haired Pussy can be the leadoff poster.

 

But problem is, she'd have to be posting her updates all the time, as she just can't help but read the posts of those she says she ignores.

 

Oh well, great (?) idea for the 3 seconds that it lasted.

 

Yeah, I have the entire country of Australia on mine.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, say, a third or less of the fleet had finished in record time while the other two-thirds made it in the "usual" time frame, THAT would be worthy of a "kicked ass" claim IMO. But the entire fleet finishing in record time? Sounds like it was a kick-ass race for everyone due to some kick-ass conditions. Sailing down the MexiCali coast in nine to twelve offwind provides a pretty high level of racing experience, sounds like there was no motoring that year (note sarcasm right there).

Yep. You have to take that observation with a dump-truck full of salt.

 

 

A speaker's opinion of someone else's level of experience is relative to the amount that the speaker has; keep that in mind when reading the news/etc. Just sayin'...

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Saying his view is "mistaken" is being kind.

 

I think that whole discusssion is off point in the sense that it is far more likely that NOSA will be sued or sue, not the rock, not the boat, or not another competitor.

 

So, perhaps we should be addressing the standard of duty for the race organizer, promoter, and beneficiary of the revenue. That is: NOSA, the officers, the Board, all joint and several.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Tom S, May 11, 2012 - didn't want my response
Hidden by Tom S, May 11, 2012 - didn't want my response

 

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

LOL! Oh My God -- that is so wrong....lol

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps we can start an Ignore List sticky, where everyone can post who their Ignore list is. Wouldn't that be exciting? Almost as fine as hearing the latest 5-word misspelled missive from NtY about how many days till some high school event or other.

 

Gray-haired Pussy can be the leadoff poster.

 

But problem is, she'd have to be posting her updates all the time, as she just can't help but read the posts of those she says she ignores.

 

Oh well, great (?) idea for the 3 seconds that it lasted.

Don't believe everything you read! :-D

GHP... the one, the only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Saying his view is "mistaken" is being kind.

 

I think that whole discusssion is off point in the sense that it is far more likely that NOSA will be sued or sue, not the rock, not the boat, or not another competitor.

 

So, perhaps we should be addressing the standard of duty for the race organizer, promoter, and beneficiary of the revenue. That is: NOSA, the officers, the Board, all joint and several.

Someone really wants to see NOSA go down, why?

GHP, the one, the only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can start an Ignore List sticky, where everyone can post who their Ignore list is. Wouldn't that be exciting? Almost as fine as hearing the latest 5-word misspelled missive from NtY about how many days till some high school event or other.

 

Gray-haired Pussy can be the leadoff poster.

 

But problem is, she'd have to be posting her updates all the time, as she just can't help but read the posts of those she says she ignores.

 

Oh well, great (?) idea for the 3 seconds that it lasted.

Don't believe everything you read! :-D

GHP... the one, the only

 

Well, you do have a good sense of humor, and that's a major plus that so many lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can start an Ignore List sticky, where everyone can post who their Ignore list is. Wouldn't that be exciting? Almost as fine as hearing the latest 5-word misspelled missive from NtY about how many days till some high school event or other.

 

Gray-haired Pussy can be the leadoff poster.

 

But problem is, she'd have to be posting her updates all the time, as she just can't help but read the posts of those she says she ignores.

 

Oh well, great (?) idea for the 3 seconds that it lasted.

Don't believe everything you read! :-D

GHP... the one, the only

 

Well, you do have a good sense of humor, and that's a major plus that so many lack.

Thanks, I get a kick out of this and do try to keep my PMS to a minimum. I'm still LMAO at the Norwegian blue, made my day.

GHP, off to the boatyard she goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

815919.1131742469560.internet_arguing.jpg

SAILING IN THE NASBOAT CLASS:

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

 

So I take it neither of you two pricks have been around here long enough to have seen the previous beat-downs others have received for using the mentally retarded to crack a "joke".....shame on you assholes......and that goes for you too, Tom S.

 

On edit - no excuse for you, Silent Bob, given that you've been here since March '04.....if memory serves me right, I think that you've even managed to use the same picture that BJ Porter did years ago, and he rightfully got a lot of shit for that....as you should too. Prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

815919.1131742469560.internet_arguing.jpg

SAILING IN THE NASBOAT CLASS:

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

 

So I take it neither of you two pricks have been around here long enough to have seen the previous beat-downs others have received for using the mentally retarded to crack a "joke".....shame on you assholes......and that goes for you too, Tom S.

 

On edit - no excuse for you, Silent Bob, given that you've been here since March '04.....if memory serves me right, I think that you've even managed to use the same picture that BJ Porter did years ago, and he rightfully got a lot of shit for that....as you should too. Prick.

 

 

You know you are right - I did write -- "OMG -- that is so wrong" -- but I did "lol" so with that I'll delete my response

 

I apologize --

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

815919.1131742469560.internet_arguing.jpg

SAILING IN THE NASBOAT CLASS:

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

 

So I take it neither of you two pricks have been around here long enough to have seen the previous beat-downs others have received for using the mentally retarded to crack a "joke".....shame on you assholes......and that goes for you too, Tom S.

 

On edit - no excuse for you, Silent Bob, given that you've been here since March '04.....if memory serves me right, I think that you've even managed to use the same picture that BJ Porter did years ago, and he rightfully got a lot of shit for that....as you should too. Prick.

 

 

You know you are right - I did write -- "OMG -- that is so wrong" -- but I did "lol" so with that I'll delete my response

 

I apologize --

 

YES that should be gone w/o a trace wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum

post-1861-081423200 1336768762_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running into an island that's not a mark of the course is perfectly permissible within the RRS -- just so long as you recover your crew before continuing to race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running into an island that's not a mark of the course is perfectly permissible within the RRS -- just so long as you recover your crew before continuing to race.

I get it. So hitting NorCor at 6+ knots under power was a tactical decision based on the "experience" of the "kick-ass" Aegean skipper and crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running into an island that's not a mark of the course is perfectly permissible within the RRS -- just so long as you recover your crew before continuing to race.

I get it. So hitting NorCor at 6+ knots under power was a tactical decision based on the "experience" of the "kick-ass" Aegean skipper and crew.

 

I hope he was joking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the RRS had been cited as being deciding with regards to negligence law. Somehow, the RRS were going to protect the organizers in or from any potential lawsuit.

 

A peculiar legal theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Saying his view is "mistaken" is being kind.

 

I think that whole discusssion is off point in the sense that it is far more likely that NOSA will be sued or sue, not the rock, not the boat, or not another competitor.

 

So, perhaps we should be addressing the standard of duty for the race organizer, promoter, and beneficiary of the revenue. That is: NOSA, the officers, the Board, all joint and several.

Someone really wants to see NOSA go down, why?

GHP, the one, the only

 

If you are referring to me, I just think that everyone should be held accontable for their own actions.

 

My specific issue with the recent NOSA suits relates to the way they they have destroyed the Ensenada Race - in fact mismanaged it so poorly that some guys formed a competitive race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think that everyone should be held accontable for their own actions.

 

My specific issue with the recent NOSA suits relates to the way they they have destroyed the Ensenada Race - in fact mismanaged it so poorly that some guys formed a competitive race.

Ugh!

Write better!

 

That last sentence can be interpreted at least four significantly different ways. If you read the slang not as slang, but literally and if you keep the incorrect final adjective, the sentence means something entirely different from what I think DoRag meant.

___________

 

But, yeah, NOSA has most definitely been fiddling while Rome has been burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Saying his view is "mistaken" is being kind.

 

I think that whole discusssion is off point in the sense that it is far more likely that NOSA will be sued or sue, not the rock, not the boat, or not another competitor.

 

So, perhaps we should be addressing the standard of duty for the race organizer, promoter, and beneficiary of the revenue. That is: NOSA, the officers, the Board, all joint and several.

 

I find myself agreeing with Dorag which is scary. In addition, looking at this as an insurance underwriter and not giving horseback legal opinions, I find NOSA's situation different from all the cases sited. All the cases sited have involved premises liability. The Pacific Ocean ain't no premises. Therefore we are dealing since a different hazard - operations. Whether that by itself makes a legal difference is the sort of things that appellate courts deal with. All the cases sited are in state court. While NOSA's actions or failure to act, should they be the focus of litigation, happened (or didn't) in Newport Beach, CA. The last time I looked the island in the case was in the high seas off Mexico. This might put this in admiralty court but I think more likely in Federal Court. Betting a case of beer on anything the 9th Circuit is likely to do is really risky. They would apply California law but sometimes they seem to add their own spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think that everyone should be held accontable for their own actions.

 

My specific issue with the recent NOSA suits relates to the way they they have destroyed the Ensenada Race - in fact mismanaged it so poorly that some guys formed a competitive race.

Ugh!

Write better!

 

That last sentence can be interpreted at least four significantly different ways. If you read the slang not as slang, but literally and if you keep the incorrect final adjective, the sentence means something entirely different from what I think DoRag meant.

___________

 

But, yeah, NOSA has most definitely been fiddling while Rome has been burning.

 

Suits = blazers.

 

And yes, that did suck. My bad. My dog was growling at me and that distracted me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Saying his view is "mistaken" is being kind.

 

I think that whole discusssion is off point in the sense that it is far more likely that NOSA will be sued or sue, not the rock, not the boat, or not another competitor.

 

So, perhaps we should be addressing the standard of duty for the race organizer, promoter, and beneficiary of the revenue. That is: NOSA, the officers, the Board, all joint and several.

 

I find myself agreeing with Dorag which is scary. In addition, looking at this as an insurance underwriter and not giving horseback legal opinions, I find NOSA's situation different from all the cases sited. All the cases sited have involved premises liability. The Pacific Ocean ain't no premises. Therefore we are dealing since a different hazard - operations. Whether that by itself makes a legal difference is the sort of things that appellate courts deal with. All the cases sited are in state court. While NOSA's actions or failure to act, should they be the focus of litigation, happened (or didn't) in Newport Beach, CA. The last time I looked the island in the case was in the high seas off Mexico. This might put this in admiralty court but I think more likely in Federal Court. Betting a case of beer on anything the 9th Circuit is likely to do is really risky. They would apply California law but sometimes they seem to add their own spin.

 

That is scary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

Your point was made two days ago; sadly, the troll doesn't wish to bend to reason. Not bad for a first post, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Last point first, because it's the heart of the matter. All four were amateurs engaged in a voluntary contest with which they have previous experience. All four can easily be presumed to have understood that a navigational error could cause the loss of the vessel and injury and/or death.

 

Funny that you cited Allan v. Snow Summit, quoting Kinight. You do realize that this argument did not work, right? In Allan, a paid professional ski instructor made a big mistake, a human error, in taking a beginner up to the top of the mountain, where the beginner fell and was seriously injured. The Appellate court issued a summary judgment in the instructor's favor. Certainly an argument can (and was) made that the instructor increased the risk for the beginner above that which is inherent for someone at that level, and yet under the no-duty and primary assumption of risk found in Knight, the issue of the instructor's negligence never went before a jury.

 

Another, more recent case similar to Allan is Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc.. This one expaned the scope of Knight even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

815919.1131742469560.internet_arguing.jpg

SAILING IN THE NASBOAT CLASS:

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

 

So I take it neither of you two pricks have been around here long enough to have seen the previous beat-downs others have received for using the mentally retarded to crack a "joke".....shame on you assholes......and that goes for you too, Tom S.

 

On edit - no excuse for you, Silent Bob, given that you've been here since March '04.....if memory serves me right, I think that you've even managed to use the same picture that BJ Porter did years ago, and he rightfully got a lot of shit for that....as you should too. Prick.

 

So answer me this, Somebody Else, do you think it's ok to make fun of mentally retarded people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1336801607[/url]' post='3710354']
1336763633[/url]' post='3709696']
1336758330[/url]' post='3709554']
1336754739[/url]' post='3709458']

815919.1131742469560.internet_arguing.jpg

SAILING IN THE NASBOAT CLASS:

 

motivation_you_beat_trees.jpg

 

 

So I take it neither of you two pricks have been around here long enough to have seen the previous beat-downs others have received for using the mentally retarded to crack a "joke".....shame on you assholes......and that goes for you too, Tom S.

 

On edit - no excuse for you, Silent Bob, given that you've been here since March '04.....if memory serves me right, I think that you've even managed to use the same picture that so to theBJ Porter did years ago, and he rightfully got a lot of shit for that....as you should too. Prick.

 

So answer me this, Somebody Else, do you think it's ok to make fun of mentally retarded people?

 

Just about anything is fair game from what I have found... But making fun of the mentally handy caped is about the lowest hit hat I have seen..They were born with this..so to the one that posted this..What is your excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the RRS had been cited as being deciding with regards to negligence law. Somehow, the RRS were going to protect the organizers in or from any potential lawsuit.

 

A peculiar legal theory.

 

I know a yacht club in Southern California where the bridge thinks that Rule 4 of the RRS and the waiver they make skippers sign completely insulates them from liability. They will not let the race director fly the y flag (everyone in PFDs) when it is windy or cancel a race due to high wind because they want to shift all risk to the skippers. I tell them they are living in a fools paradise and they tell me to go get stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Last point first, because it's the heart of the matter. All four were amateurs engaged in a voluntary contest with which they have previous experience. All four can easily be presumed to have understood that a navigational error could cause the loss of the vessel and injury and/or death.

 

Funny that you cited Allan v. Snow Summit, quoting Kinight. You do realize that this argument did not work, right? In Allan, a paid professional ski instructor made a big mistake, a human error, in taking a beginner up to the top of the mountain, where the beginner fell and was seriously injured. The Appellate court issued a summary judgment in the instructor's favor. Certainly an argument can (and was) made that the instructor increased the risk for the beginner above that which is inherent for someone at that level, and yet under the no-duty and primary assumption of risk found in Knight, the issue of the instructor's negligence never went before a jury.

 

Another, more recent case similar to Allan is Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc.. This one expaned the scope of Knight even further.

 

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

And your reading of Allan is all wrong. The court did not find any error on the instructor's part. To the contrary, it said "In view of the evidence presented, it is not reasonably disputable that Oldt [the ski instructor] simply instructed, encouraged and challenged [plaintiff] Allan; the instrumentalities of his [Allan's] injury consisted only of his [Allan's] inability to meet the instructor's challenge (inherent in learning a sport), falling (inherent in skiing), and icy conditions (inherent in skiing)." Allan, 51 Cal.App.4th at 1372. In any event, the court upheld the dismissal of Allan's claims because he signed an express release and failed to allege recklessness. 51 Cal.App.4th at 1371-73.

 

The important thing about Allan for the purposes of this discussion is the court's statement that "there should be no liability imposed which would chill normal participation or fundamentally alter the nature of the sport, but liability may be appropriate where the risk is not "inherent" in the sport." 51 Cal.App.4th at 1367. Under this reasoning, California courts refused to impose liability for a routine collision in flag football (Knight); refused to impose liability when a cheerleader's tumble resulted in injury (Aaris); and refused to hold baseball players liable for injury resulting from an accidentally thrown bat (Ratcliff). It's also obvious they weren't about to impose liability for skiiers falling down in icy conditions, either. (Allan; Kane.)

 

In the situation we're talking about, holding a responsible party liable for motoring headlong into a charted island would have no "chilling effect" whatsoever on the sport of sailboat racing. Why not? Because driving a boat into a cliff is already a violation of the fundamental duty of good seamanship and collision avoidance. We're not talking about a race car spinning into the wall on a race track here.

 

So don't kid yourself. It doesn't matter if you're racing or just showboating off the coast of Giglio in your employer's cruise ship -- when you're at the wheel, you have very real duties and responsibilities to everyone on board, and others besides. 'nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Last point first, because it's the heart of the matter. All four were amateurs engaged in a voluntary contest with which they have previous experience. All four can easily be presumed to have understood that a navigational error could cause the loss of the vessel and injury and/or death.

 

Funny that you cited Allan v. Snow Summit, quoting Kinight. You do realize that this argument did not work, right? In Allan, a paid professional ski instructor made a big mistake, a human error, in taking a beginner up to the top of the mountain, where the beginner fell and was seriously injured. The Appellate court issued a summary judgment in the instructor's favor. Certainly an argument can (and was) made that the instructor increased the risk for the beginner above that which is inherent for someone at that level, and yet under the no-duty and primary assumption of risk found in Knight, the issue of the instructor's negligence never went before a jury.

 

Another, more recent case similar to Allan is Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc.. This one expaned the scope of Knight even further.

 

 

 

Is it just me or is does this guy sound like the Sunderlands' PR hack?

Shows up after the fact and every post is a desperate flailing attempt to deflect blame from NOSA and to try to intimidate any widows or family members of the victims who might stumble on here from even thinking about any legal action.

 

 

Who hired you and what are you getting paid to spend 15 hours a day to reply instantly to every post (and only those posts) that implies any whiff of liability by NOSA?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are good to sue someone for calling someone else a Grifter on SA any lawyer should be on steady ground when someone loads his boat up with friends and runs squarely into a large elevated land mass clearly marked on the chart. Resulting in the violent death of everyone on board. What do the race instructions and NOR say about these clearly dangerous obstructions laying right in the middle of the race course. All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day. No chance you would ever want this to see the inside of a court room. Pay the lady!

 

Here is what NOSA has to say on the subject;

 

Aegean-wide.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.

 

At the risk of beating a dead parrot, I think your application of the case law is mistaken. ""Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even a coparticipant—not just instructors or coaches—will be liable for, e.g., intentional assault or other "reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport." (Id. at pp. 318, 320.) Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368 (1996), quoting Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 315-16.

 

Here, as numerous posts have noted, there is a strong likelihood that reckless conduct is at the root of this tragedy. And if through action (e.g., setting an autopilot course through a charted island) or inaction (e.g., failing to maintain a proper watch) a sailor increases the risks to other participants beyond the level of risk considered inherent in the sport, and that conduct is found to be reckless, then liability may follow.

 

I also disagree that motoring headlong into a charted island is an inherent risk of sailboat racing. I'm pretty sure doing so violates both the RRS and the COLREGS. The rules establish the duty of care, and once you break them, you're potentially liable. That's why money changes hands when two boats collide at the start and one of them is found to have violated a rule.

 

Last point first, because it's the heart of the matter. All four were amateurs engaged in a voluntary contest with which they have previous experience. All four can easily be presumed to have understood that a navigational error could cause the loss of the vessel and injury and/or death.

 

Funny that you cited Allan v. Snow Summit, quoting Kinight. You do realize that this argument did not work, right? In Allan, a paid professional ski instructor made a big mistake, a human error, in taking a beginner up to the top of the mountain, where the beginner fell and was seriously injured. The Appellate court issued a summary judgment in the instructor's favor. Certainly an argument can (and was) made that the instructor increased the risk for the beginner above that which is inherent for someone at that level, and yet under the no-duty and primary assumption of risk found in Knight, the issue of the instructor's negligence never went before a jury.

 

Another, more recent case similar to Allan is Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc.. This one expaned the scope of Knight even further.

 

Is the notion that the ski instructor made an error the court's findings or your conjecture?

 

First of all, that ski instructor was a professional, highly qualified, "experienced" and passed a very rigid and demanding exam in order to become certified by the PSIA - the national governing body for ski instructors.

 

Next, be advised that virtually all of the Snow Summit ski area is deemed to be "easy or easier." The "top of the mountain" assertion implies that it would be more difficult. It ain't. They were on an "easier" run, perfectly suitable for a second day on instruction.

 

As for the case in question, it was found that the instructor did not increase the inherent risks in the sport.

 

And, yeah, I know, I am replying to the duty idiot, the NOSA shill. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So answer me this, Somebody Else, do you think it's ok to make fun of mentally retarded people?

Get off your politically correct high horse!

 

I think it's OK to make fun of anybody and everybody: the president of the United States, strippers and the men who love them, ugly people, fat people, skinny people, power-boaters, sailors, smart people, dumb people, inbred hill-billies, every guest ever on the Jerry Springer Show and so on.

 

If you would take your head out of your ass long enough to really think about the picture I had up there, it's not making fun of -- your words -- "retarded people"; it's an indictment of the nanny society rearing a generation of pussies where "everyone is a winner."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

 

Not really, at least in this specific case. The Aegean skipper had a 100 ton license, no? Were they encouraging "Illegal Boaters to participate (I don't know)

 

But if it was a 17 year old kid that was inexperienced and just got his Drivers license I still dont see a judgment against the groups organizers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

 

You left out the complete failure of the organizers to point out that dangerous unmarked obstructions lay in the middle of road or course in this case. A good plaintiff lawyer will place clear blame on the organizers and operators for running the race course directly through the "klller" islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

 

You left out the complete failure of the organizers to point out that dangerous unmarked obstructions lay in the middle of road or course in this case. A good plaintiff lawyer will place clear blame on the organizers and operators for running the race course directly through the "klller" islands.

 

Yes -- They should be held responsible for removal of all Islands and hazzards in their path.... LOL:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

 

Not really, at least in this specific case. The Aegean skipper had a 100 ton license, no? Were they encouraging "Illegal Boaters to participate (I don't know)

 

But if it was a 17 year old kid that was inexperienced and just got his Drivers license I still dont see a judgment against the groups organizers

 

We don't know if the skippers was CG 100T licensed.

 

And my point was that in driving, there is a well established set of qualifications that you must have before being "qualified" to drive a car. These do not exist in sailing. they do exist in other areas of "boating," as in the qualifications before you can be an OOD for a Navy vessel or captain a commercial vessel. None for the NASBOAT class. Knowing taht, and encouraging the wingnuts to enter seems to imply that there must be some duty of care by NOSA. Maybe not. We will certainly see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Sr. Troll -- You seem to be suggesting that the crewmembers' understanding of the risks of a navigational error would result in an implied assumption of risk that would bar a negligence claim. Nonsense. All of the adult passengers in your automobile understand they may die if you drive across the median and cause a head-on. Would this prevent their family from suing your estate for wrongful death? Of course not.

 

 

 

Are people arguing that ? Of course they can sue the driver, he's the one that crossed the road & caused the accident ..... Just like they could sue the navigator or driver of this boat (IF they could determine who/what caused it, but no one will truly know)

 

I think the argument is whether the families would win a case against NOSA. Thats like going after a group that set up a road trip to see a football game across state, and going after the organizer, when it was the car and the driver that caused the accident.

 

Like Canal Bottom said "All the insurance companies should pay out their limits and call it a day."

 

Actually it would be like setting up the trip and encouraging unlicensed drivers to participate....no?

 

Not really, at least in this specific case. The Aegean skipper had a 100 ton license, no? Were they encouraging "Illegal Boaters to participate (I don't know)

 

But if it was a 17 year old kid that was inexperienced and just got his Drivers license I still dont see a judgment against the groups organizers

 

The guy with the 100 ton license is completely responsible for whatever happened even if he was not in command and was down below sleeping. What training and testing did the rest of the crew have. Case closed the crew was unqualified for the trip and the organizers did not bother to check in any way. judgement for the defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So answer me this, Somebody Else, do you think it's ok to make fun of mentally retarded people?

Get off your politically correct high horse!

 

I think it's OK to make fun of anybody and everybody: the president of the United States, strippers and the men who love them, ugly people, fat people, skinny people, power-boaters, sailors, smart people, dumb people, inbred hill-billies, every guest ever on the Jerry Springer Show and so on.

 

If you would take your head out of your ass long enough to really think about the picture I had up there, it's not making fun of -- your words -- "retarded people"; it's an indictment of the nanny society rearing a generation of pussies where "everyone is a winner."

 

sAXR2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a couple of mad days during the race here is where the Fastnet organizers have move to:

 

 

"all crew must have completed a minimum of 300nm in RORC Offshore Racing as a crew, and must have completed the ISAF Offshore and RYA Sea Survival Courses."

 

This is only a fraction of what is required. e.g. 30% of the crew must have dive training for underwater reapir and assistance in MOB recovery.

 

When the USCG, US Sailing, the insurance companies and the sponsors we are now addicted to are finished you will not recognize the West Cost races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was firmly in the "What the hell does the yacht club have to do with this?" camp until I heard about the Lexus being offered as first prize and the event being promoted to anybody because they needed to have more entries.

You have to have more than 200 entries? Really, why?

Set the entry deadline early enough to tell the crew in Ensedena what size tent to rent and call it a race.

 

How many skippers (qualified or otherwise) just grabbed anybody with a pulse to crew on this because they really needed a Lexus?

How many of those crewmembers were OOD at 3AM that night?

 

Even if a famous race devolves to being a good way to get to the party, that is different than what appears to have happened here.

There is a line somewhere, not sure where, but there is one.

 

I am NOT advocating suing this club back to the stone age but as I learned quite a bit about what not to do in this thread I hope NOSA has also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am NOT advocating suing this club back to the stone age but as I learned quite a bit about what not to do in this thread I hope NOSA has also.

The words "NOSA" and "learn" do not belong in the same sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is the correct thread to post this

 

BUT at every N2E Pre Race Seminar (and there are many)

 

The Strategy of Inside or Outside the Coronados is brought up and discussed

 

What more need NOSA do ?????????? = NOTHING

 

this thread has turned into a Coronado Reach Around w/o the fucker needing to show (or witch puppet is it ??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE

 

Anyone Reading / Posting to this Thread is (likely) NOT Out on the Water on a Bitchin DAY

 

I'll leave the door open but I'm GONE Fur DA-DAY

 

PIX to Follow

 

 

Went to Jr's last stand at the Q last night PIX from dat 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So answer me this, Somebody Else, do you think it's ok to make fun of mentally retarded people?

Get off your politically correct high horse!

 

I think it's OK to make fun of anybody and everybody: the president of the United States, strippers and the men who love them, ugly people, fat people, skinny people, power-boaters, sailors, smart people, dumb people, inbred hill-billies, every guest ever on the Jerry Springer Show and so on.

 

If you would take your head out of your ass long enough to really think about the picture I had up there, it's not making fun of -- your words -- "retarded people"; it's an indictment of the nanny society rearing a generation of pussies where "everyone is a winner."

 

Well, I guess you subscribe to a different world view than most if you think that my calling you out falls under the scope of political correctness. In order to make your point re: a "generation of pussies" I guess you think it's ok to diminish the victory of say a Special Olympian? That's rich, and I reckon most would say it's not very cool. Spirited competition is a good thing at any level, and that notion is either lost on you, or you truly do get it and you're simply unwilling to admit you were wrong. Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, do you think the point was to "diminish the victory of say a Special Olympian" ?

 

I have little to no reason to think that any competing in the Special Olympics, if reading this thread which is possible, was or would be oh so offended.

 

Instead, you're being offended, and letting us know it, on their behalf. (Supposedly for their sake, anyway, or is it for the sake of smugness, self-righteousness, PC, having a stick up the ass, having no sense of humor whatsoever, liking to instruct others what not to do, liking to express being offended, or some other such thing? It has to be for some sake, doesn't it? If so, what?) There's no indication at all that any person competing was offended or any accomplishment was in fact denigrated.

 

The only persons in fact being ridiculed are those, like you and me, who are arguing on the Internet.

 

Are you "simply unwilling to admit" that?

 

I'm pretty sure the "generation of pussies" did not refer to the Special Olympians, but you'd have to ask the previous poster to be sure.

 

This joke has become a standard, despite objectors like you, for one reason. Not because of being cruel to anyone... it is not. It's because it's funny. But then again there are humorless people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to prolong this, but, yes, those folks with disabilities would, in fact be offended at some of these comments. I say this after working many hours with folks that have disabilities - from children with autism, to blind folks, to special olympians (snow sports) on up to para-Olympians (US Nordic team).

 

Their disabilities are not their fault, they didn't ask for it, they would rather not deal with it. To keep everything in perspective, many of these folks achieve something far more most of us, on a relative basis.

 

As a final note, best not ridicule in that fashion around a group of wounded Vets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question:

 

You do think that for example many wounded veterans are actually offended -- not on attempted behalf of others, but out of feeling personally denigrated -- by the "Arguing on the Internet / Special Olympics / still retarded" joke or way of making a point?

 

Does it in fact denigrate anyone's achievement? (Other than the "achievement" of the Internet arguers.)

 

I don't use the line myself, but it seems unlikely to me that those that do are doing so in a mean-spirited way at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question:

 

You do think that for example many wounded veterans are actually offended -- not on attempted behalf of others, but out of feeling personally denigrated -- by the "Arguing on the Internet / Special Olympics / still retarded" joke or way of making a point?

 

Does it in fact denigrate anyone's achievement? (Other than the "achievement" of the Internet arguers.)

 

I don't use the line myself, but it seems unlikely to me that those that do are doing so in a mean-spirited way at all.

 

None of those folks like their disability pointed point or commented upon. That means sympathy, as well as insults. Either end of the spectrum.

 

And yes, these Vets are very senstive to that. The groups that we host in our organization are not yet released by the VA. They are in the process of transistioning back to life outside the military. In the therapy sessions that accompany the skills activity part of the program, it has always been brought up, by the Vets, in learning how to cope with a new life burdened with a disability. All resent it, some vehemently - consider the source of their disability - serving their country.

 

That is the challenge for these folks as they leave the very comfortable surroundings of teh VA and the mutual support of their military buddies. That ain't the real world. They readily accept and respect one another as a man. The outside world can be a very different experience. Hence the very high suicide rate among Vets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Where personally I would have a different opinion is that I don't see that pic being posted on the Internet as being any of these folks' disability being pointed out or commented on.

 

I would agree, definitely, that such personal comment (when that occurs) is abominable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to get bored here 'bout ten pages back, but since half of you now seem to have been bitten by the litigation bug (as fuking ridiculous that is to me), has anyone thought of taking Mexico to court, for their unlit island?

 

 

(oh yeah, I know, the legal mind just f'ng boggles at that idea)...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone thought of taking Mexico to court, for their unlit island?

 

 

(oh yeah, I know, the legal mind just f'ng boggles at that idea)...... :lol:

 

LOL.... I know was thinking about that too -- as all of this happened outside of US, no?...... LOL, how screwed up would any suit be in another countries courts ?

 

Beautiful Saturday and all these people on SA - and they are not sailing !?! LOL.....

 

It was beautiful here -- Finally Boat Splashed - engines off, Sunny & blue skies, almost hull speed :D

 

You guys need to get out and ~sail~ more -

post-29668-094163200 1336872556_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question:

 

You do think that for example many wounded veterans are actually offended -- not on attempted behalf of others, but out of feeling personally denigrated -- by the "Arguing on the Internet / Special Olympics / still retarded" joke or way of making a point?

 

Does it in fact denigrate anyone's achievement? (Other than the "achievement" of the Internet arguers.)

 

I don't use the line myself, but it seems unlikely to me that those that do are doing so in a mean-spirited way at all.

 

None of those folks like their disability pointed point or commented upon. That means sympathy, as well as insults. Either end of the spectrum.

 

And yes, these Vets are very senstive to that. The groups that we host in our organization are not yet released by the VA. They are in the process of transistioning back to life outside the military. In the therapy sessions that accompany the skills activity part of the program, it has always been brought up, by the Vets, in learning how to cope with a new life burdened with a disability. All resent it, some vehemently - consider the source of their disability - serving their country.

 

That is the challenge for these folks as they leave the very comfortable surroundings of teh VA and the mutual support of their military buddies. That ain't the real world. They readily accept and respect one another as a man. The outside world can be a very different experience. Hence the very high suicide rate among Vets.

Very well stated and I have first-hand experience. Why are you such a dick 99% of the time when you can share these passions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question:

 

You do think that for example many wounded veterans are actually offended -- not on attempted behalf of others, but out of feeling personally denigrated -- by the "Arguing on the Internet / Special Olympics / still retarded" joke or way of making a point?

 

Does it in fact denigrate anyone's achievement? (Other than the "achievement" of the Internet arguers.)

 

I don't use the line myself, but it seems unlikely to me that those that do are doing so in a mean-spirited way at all.

 

None of those folks like their disability pointed point or commented upon. That means sympathy, as well as insults. Either end of the spectrum.

 

And yes, these Vets are very senstive to that. The groups that we host in our organization are not yet released by the VA. They are in the process of transistioning back to life outside the military. In the therapy sessions that accompany the skills activity part of the program, it has always been brought up, by the Vets, in learning how to cope with a new life burdened with a disability. All resent it, some vehemently - consider the source of their disability - serving their country.

 

That is the challenge for these folks as they leave the very comfortable surroundings of teh VA and the mutual support of their military buddies. That ain't the real world. They readily accept and respect one another as a man. The outside world can be a very different experience. Hence the very high suicide rate among Vets.

Very well stated and I have first-hand experience. Why are you such a dick 99% of the time when you can share these passions?

 

I think anyone who makes a joke about a handicapped person is a hubris filled, egocentric idiot who fornicates with barnyard animals.

After many active years on the foredeck and thousands of miles of mountain biking I had an artificial hip installed. Huge mistake. It was botched and I have been on walkers and in a wheelchair for several years. I am seeing the world from a new perspective. I still race. When I am having a bad day, my crew hoists me aboard like a sack of grain with the bosun's chair and I crawl to my helmman's cockpit. But we go out and we race. We are not racing wet wednesdays this year because of the behavior of a club officer during a prior year. After the race I always bought "dinner" (hamburgers and junk) for the crew. We had an anchor pool among the crew as to how many minutes it would take for this club officer to walk to where-ever we had hid to kick my walker and pretend to fall over it. It happened every week. He was sending the message that handicapped folks were not welcome. I got the message - I have not spent a dime in the club in a year and I now belong to another social (not yacht) club with better food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for this club officer to walk to where-ever we had hid to kick my walker and pretend to fall over it. It happened every week.

 

Are you f'ing kidding me !?!:o -- and many people wonder why they think racing sailors are a-holes.

 

Usually people that do things like that are insecure d*ckwads.... In their heart they know they could never deal one tenth as well you do with some sort of disability-- they know if it happened to them they'd be curled up in the corner sucking their thumb and cursing the world-- what you are doing is showing that you are way more than they could ever be and the reason they don't like it is because you are showing them up - you reduce their manhood because theirs is so fragile.

 

If I saw that happen after like the second or third time I'm sure I'd stand up and show my "Jersey" --( just imagine Joe Pesci on Steroids )-- -- I would call him out directly (and my voice ~carries~) I'm sure I'd be on his shit list for life and never be invited to the club, but I am SURE I'd never want to be part of it anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, do you think the point was to "diminish the victory of say a Special Olympian" ?

 

I have little to no reason to think that any competing in the Special Olympics, if reading this thread which is possible, was or would be oh so offended.

 

Instead, you're being offended, and letting us know it, on their behalf. (Supposedly for their sake, anyway, or is it for the sake of smugness, self-righteousness, PC, having a stick up the ass, having no sense of humor whatsoever, liking to instruct others what not to do, liking to express being offended, or some other such thing? It has to be for some sake, doesn't it? If so, what?) There's no indication at all that any person competing was offended or any accomplishment was in fact denigrated.

 

The only persons in fact being ridiculed are those, like you and me, who are arguing on the Internet.

 

Are you "simply unwilling to admit" that?

 

I'm pretty sure the "generation of pussies" did not refer to the Special Olympians, but you'd have to ask the previous poster to be sure.

 

This joke has become a standard, despite objectors like you, for one reason. Not because of being cruel to anyone... it is not. It's because it's funny. But then again there are humorless people.

 

Of course the point around a "generation of pussies" wasn't aimed at Special Olympians.....but the use of a poster of one with a caption reading "congrats - you just beat two trees" is just plain wrong, regardless of whatever point Somebody Else was trying to make. And I'll call anyone out on BS like that. I can't even be bothered to address the rest of your drivel.....I sadly suspect that it would be a waste of my time......but feel free to keep digging yourself deeper into the hole as you struggle in vain to defend the indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, from my post, I was referring to the "arguing on the Internet" jpeg, which some types get into tizzies about whenever posted. I don't post it, but I see the righteous "I'm offended" responses to that pic as being bs, as described above.

 

As for the rest of your drivel (to use your word), I won't bother to reply as most obviously you are not worth it.

 

If you can't stop arguing it, that's your prerogative, but you'll be doing it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question:

 

You do think that for example many wounded veterans are actually offended -- not on attempted behalf of others, but out of feeling personally denigrated -- by the "Arguing on the Internet / Special Olympics / still retarded" joke or way of making a point?

 

Does it in fact denigrate anyone's achievement? (Other than the "achievement" of the Internet arguers.)

 

I don't use the line myself, but it seems unlikely to me that those that do are doing so in a mean-spirited way at all.

 

None of those folks like their disability pointed point or commented upon. That means sympathy, as well as insults. Either end of the spectrum.

 

And yes, these Vets are very senstive to that. The groups that we host in our organization are not yet released by the VA. They are in the process of transistioning back to life outside the military. In the therapy sessions that accompany the skills activity part of the program, it has always been brought up, by the Vets, in learning how to cope with a new life burdened with a disability. All resent it, some vehemently - consider the source of their disability - serving their country.

 

That is the challenge for these folks as they leave the very comfortable surroundings of teh VA and the mutual support of their military buddies. That ain