# We should all help these poor ladies 🙄



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

https://www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media


----------



## Guyfromthenorth (Jul 2, 2015)

Although this write-up seems clearer than some of the other information they provided (or were mis-quoted) it's lines like this that seem off:

"It was amazing to see people with zero ocean experience talk about whether or not I should have used the EPIRB. Do they know the use of an EPIRB without a sinking boat will most likely get you a fine, jail time and the guaranteed loss of the vessel? People I know have been put in jail, been fined and lost their boat for EPIRB calls that were not deemed true emergencies. Floating boats with food, water and limited navigational capacity are not maritime emergencies."

I understand not sounding an emergency unless it is one. But I would consider a disabled boat (but not sinking) wandering (but "not adrift") for that many miles and weeks\months would count as an emergency. I guess for them it "wasn't" an emergency, but most cruisers this would be. I also realize how important it is to not sound an EPIRB for frivolous reasons like running out of steak, but she seems to make a statement scaring people off from using their emergency equipment.

I see this in my work with new leaders on the ground. They hesitate to call for back up or air support for fear of it "not being bad enough...yet". Many times they should have indeed called for help sooner and now they are in a way worse way because of the delay. Again, I'm not saying sound an alarm willy-nilly, but people need to know reasonable trigger points to do so and not be scared off from using it until waterline is at their eyeballs.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Rather than helping them scam people, we should work toward helping end their 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I'm not a fan of these two. And I fully understand that they are in this "negative fake news" gauntlet they are decrying precisely because they provided so much "fake news" themselves (which is usually how it works). But I also don't like dancing on graves. From an article 10 days ago...



> Their stories of huge storms and giant shark attacks are under question by expert boaters around the world. *And their story has received so much attention that some of Appel's family members in Texas don't want her back home*.


Now, who knows if even that quote is correct or if it was fed to the journalist by those two - but, sadly, I could see this being true. The thing is, it's clear that these two seem caught in a vicious circle of their own making - not "the media's". And that's really sad to me. It's very Crowhurstian.

These ladies just need to stop seeking the attention and go back to a simple, honest life. I hope they do that.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> These ladies just need to stop seeking the attention and go back to a simple, honest life. I hope they do that.


Ms. Appel was accused of being a con artist by those that knew her in Hawaii.

Are you really hoping that she goes back to doing this?









... and excuse me now while I step away to wash my eyes out with bleach.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

eherlihy said:


> Rather than helping them scam people, we should work toward helping end their 15 minutes of fame.


I agree. Title: satire. Fame: more like infamy.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I love the statement about only two wooden or glass sailing vessels transiting the Dragon's Triangle area over the last 20 years. How can she possibly know that? Do yachts sailing from the SoPac islands to Japan specifically avoid this area, because...?
I have personally had sharks, *big* sharks, follow the boat for a day or two several times, but never did I feel threatened, unless I were to do something as stupid as joining them in the water. How would laying flat in the cockpit dissuade creatures w/o the mental faculties of determining that there was food (humans, which are *not* common food for deep sea sharks) aboard the thing (boat) floating in the water. More than likely, if these two women were not throwing garbage in quantity overboard, these creatures, as do many species of pelagic fish deep sea, were only seeking shade below their boat.
These two obviously set out to perpetrate a hoax and got caught. Lacking any class at all they continue to blame anyone they can think of for that failure, instead of admitting their duplicity and fading swiftly into history with others who have survived their own foolish attempts at seeking fame and fortune by fabricating a survival tale at sea.
I'd chip in to a go fund me account that assured the world that these two would never set foot on a boat, ever again!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Ms. Appel was accused of being a con artist by those that knew her in Hawaii...


I was referring to the context of the article I linked. I mean a simple, honest life like they are talking about in that article - away from the life in your pic and the morass into which they've now put themselves. Yes, they screwed it up - but they had it for a while.

I know exactly what they mean when they talk about how it feels out there to be "free". It's a wonderful thing.

I honestly don't think they'll be able to do it - but they should.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

She was also irritated at the bad press. “People think I’m making a movie or a book. I haven’t signed anything yet.”


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Slayer said:


> https://www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media


The President of the United States of America can't even control the media (tongue in cheek) how could they possibly think they could.


----------



## Caribbeachbum (Feb 23, 2014)

smackdaddy said:


> ... It's very Crowhurstian.


Well that's obscure and fantastic, and even a bit brilliant. Pretty sure -- in the rare cases where it's apt -- I will be stealing that from you. Bravo.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

The fundraising is SNOWBALLING!

You *** naysayers haven't even seen the $5 donated in 2 days.
When someone else donates $5 that will be $10. That's DOUBLE!

If it doubles every 2 days that's $20 on Thursday (night). That almost VIRAL!

They have a viral snowballing cash cow from heaven.
Thats big money, big cows, big snowballs, big viruses.


Mark


----------



## CelticSailr (Oct 6, 2017)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The fundraising is SNOWBALLING!
> 
> You *** naysayers haven't even seen the $5 donated in 2 days.
> When someone else donates $5 that will be $10. That's DOUBLE!
> ...


You forgot big sharks!:wink


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

They are obviously just desperate for attention. Seem to be a whole lot of people around like that these days. They don't even mind if the attention is a whole bunch of people saying "What a couple of obnoxious dopes!" They just want the attention.

Ignore them.


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

This is in the comments... LMAO


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Well, now we have a new big word for us to use here on sailnet..Crowhurstian..Brilliant!


----------



## br3nt (Mar 28, 2009)

overbored said:


> She was also irritated at the bad press. "People think I'm making a movie or a book. I haven't signed anything yet."


"yet"


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Sure glad I drink! 

Gary


----------



## oysterman23 (Jul 22, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I'm not a fan of these two. And I fully understand that they are in this "negative fake news" gauntlet they are decrying precisely because they provided so much "fake news" themselves (which is usually how it works). But I also don't like dancing on graves. From an article 10 days ago...
> 
> Now, who knows if even that quote is correct or if it was fed to the journalist by those two - but, sadly, I could see this being true. The thing is, it's clear that these two seem caught in a vicious circle of their own making - not "the media's". And that's really sad to me. It's very Crowhurstian.
> 
> These ladies just need to stop seeking the attention and go back to a simple, honest life. I hope they do that.


"Crowhurstian" was brave!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

A bit unfair to Crowhurst No comparison .He was brilliantly mad but still had the guts to step off the stern.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Capt Len said:


> A bit unfair to Crowhurst No comparison .He was brilliantly mad but still had the guts to step off the stern.


Is that guts or cowardice?


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Cowardice got him into the dilemma. and cowardice prevented him from going home. But i think' it blurs a bit when you make a choice like that..Maybe it's easier to understand when you get there. Spent some time in the Arctic . Was expiained to me 'the arctic dilemma.' Sitting at a table ,you know you have to drink the antifreeze. You know it will kill you. You have to drink it. Facing this may require guts, bravery madness, cowardice. Your call from the distance.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Capt Len said:


> A bit unfair to Crowhurst No comparison .He was brilliantly mad but still had the guts to step off the stern.


Your next step may be easier in a warm place in the land o smiles..might have a few friends to give ya a push..ha ha..some bottles on the way to Ko Pu...


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Capt Len said:


> Facing this may require guts, bravery madness, cowardice. Your call from the distance.


I think killing yourself in order to avoid admitting that you perpetrated a scam involves a lot of cowardice and madness, but not a bit of bravery or guts.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Maybe we should listen to these ladies, they are after all "really out there doing it" and in a "blue water boat" no less.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

eherlihy said:


>


Double bagger for sure.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Maybe we should listen to these ladies, they are after all "really out there doing it" and in a "blue water boat" no less.


Where is the BFS stamp when we need it?


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

ianjoub said:


> Double bagger for sure.


Nope. Looks good to me. I support women in motorcycling! That shows you what a great feminist guy I really am. Maybe a little more mileage than I'm used to but I'd support that fundme over the current one. :|


----------



## ThereYouAre (Sep 21, 2016)

capta said:


> I've always empathized with Crowhurst. Like so many, even today, he went to sea with little idea of the realities and difficulties of such an endeavor, which had a disastrous cost.
> However, the celestial navigation method he perfected became my standard, saving me hours of sight taking and reductions every day, on my circumnavigation. I will forever consider him my hero for that.
> So, from your misfortune I gained a great deal; thank you Donald Crowhurst.


Are you speaking of the Navicator ? Is it still useful today?

thanks,
Hugh


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

ThereYouAre said:


> Are you speaking of the Navicator ? Is it still useful today?
> 
> thanks,
> Hugh


Never heard of the Navicator.
Apparently, because he was faking his positions for his log book, he developed a system for getting longitude *and* latitude at noon. Not at all sure why no one else had ever made this public, if they had developed it earlier, but as almost every ocean going vessel was using celestial navigation back then, it should have been widely known. It was not, so I assume Crowhurst developed the system. Surprisingly it isn't in every book about celestial navigation, but even now almost no one knows of this method. Go figure! 
Too bad he wasn't sailing in 1567, 1598 or 1714. Perhaps he would have won *the prize* and had a different place in history!


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

Capt Len said:


> Spent some time in the Arctic . Was expiained to me 'the arctic dilemma.' Sitting at a table ,you know you have to drink the antifreeze. You know it will kill you. You have to drink it.


Would you explain this? I googled it and didn't find anything about humans drinking antifreeze. Just curious.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Where is the BFS stamp when we need it?


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Slayer said:


> Would you explain this? I googled it and didn't find anything about humans drinking antifreeze. Just curious.


Might the equivalent of being thirsty and drinking seawater.
I've not heard that arctic saying...


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

That dilemma is part of severe alcoholism. Unless you personally can face that dilemma you can't understand it. Northern culture is fraught with those choices ,. When the booze runs out ,face the dilemma again.The kids can't afford alcohol so sniff gasoline from the skidoos. Many of the female sniffers are pregnant and bear brain dead or severely affected babies, They mostly don't 'live to adolescence. (not so bad now that the lead is gone) The government subsidizes transport of whiskey NTCL. but not milk so guess where the welfare check goes. Bonus for Seagrams and Labatts. I think most of our opiod crisis is similar. Anything to numb the pain, consequences be dammed. Pain is subjective .Does it matter if real or just in your head.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

capta said:


> Never heard of the Navicator.
> Apparently, because he was faking his positions for his log book, he developed a system for getting longitude *and* latitude at noon. Not at all sure why no one else had ever made this public, if they had developed it earlier, but as almost every ocean going vessel was using celestial navigation back then, it should have been widely known. It was not, so I assume Crowhurst developed the system. Surprisingly it isn't in every book about celestial navigation, but even now almost no one knows of this method. Go figure!
> Too bad he wasn't sailing in 1567, 1598 or 1714. Perhaps he would have won *the prize* and had a different place in history!


So are you going to share the formula with the rest of the tribe?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

aeventyr60 said:


> So are you going to share the formula with the rest of the tribe?


Who does celestial these days; I didn't think anyone cared.
Anyway, take around 20 shots beginning around 20 minutes before local apparent noon until 20 after lan, then throw out the high and low ones. Average the rest and you have a line for longitude and the time of noon, for latitude, which you then plot on your maneuvering board. Unless one is exactly on the equator, it's actually a lot less mistake prone than advancing/retarding several LOP's to get a fix.
Then go back to bed and catch a few more zzzzz's until either dinner or your watch.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

I sailed across from Gib back in '67...'68 .Used similar method .was good until the longitude of Barbados. No sunsight for days .Taff rail log said it's right here.My hand held radio said either left or right??? Ended up Tobago. Crowhurst was in the area but he wasn't going anywhere and we missed him.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Their Go fund Me is still $5
lolololol


----------



## twoshoes (Aug 19, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Their Go fund Me is still $5
> lolololol


But it has been updated recently:



Butter Face said:


> As promised, I would like to augment the Go Fund Me to ask for money to build a new boat and get back out on the water instead of going after the media for the story.


----------



## SailingStNick (Dec 13, 2006)

Lots of negative statements on the campaign page, but difficult to report it as fraudulent. It will die on its own soon enough.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Maybe BFS in this case stands for Big Fu$king Scam?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

If they want to raise $50,000, I think they have a better chance of getting it by making up claims that Matt Lauer molested them in the green room:






Uh, well, maybe not.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

If Clean ever gets off his butt and does some work - the SA interview will be gold. Stay tuned.

As for BFS - Jer wins the gold. The other #PFFMs - not so much.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

But.... they were "out there doing it"....................

:cut_out_animated_em BFS!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Lazerbrains said:


> ...out there doing it...........


This, Grasshopper, is why you don't understand (or qualify for) BFS. I'll hold the pebbles. You keep trying.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

TakeFive said:


> If they want to raise $50,000, I think they have a better chance of getting it by making up claims that Matt Lauer molested them in the green room:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think its more likely that Matt could sue her for molestation.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Alan from Sailing Anarchy just posted a lengthy interview with both women. It's heavy going, with sailing knowledge, Ms Appel, and "straight answer" not even in the same universe:
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/in...-podcast/&page=4&tab=comments#comment-6015302

It's at page 4, post #331.

I was hoping she would make sense. Hope dashed. I do not get the impression she is playing with a full deck...


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

There are a lot of people that live out there on an outer ring.
They are happy in their world.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

nolatom said:


> Alan from Sailing Anarchy just posted a lengthy interview with both women. It's heavy going, with sailing knowledge, Ms Appel, and "straight answer" not even in the same universe:
> Ask Jennifer Appel and Tasha Fuiava For The SA Podcast - Page 4 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
> 
> It's at page 4, post #331.
> ...


Oh my....

I was only able to listen to the first half hour, and I couldn't listen anymore... Jen is a great argument for keeping cannabis illegal. Is that the sound of a bong? She sounds like she is seriously stoned. She can't stay on topic for more than 15 seconds before she goes off chasing some tangent.

Is there a transcript somewhere?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

My, what public courage on your part eherlihy, the pot smoking crowd will be mighty upset if they can remember why......


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

nolatom said:


> Alan from Sailing Anarchy just posted a lengthy interview with both women. It's heavy going, with sailing knowledge, Ms Appel, and "straight answer" not even in the same universe:
> Ask Jennifer Appel and Tasha Fuiava For The SA Podcast - Page 4 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
> 
> It's at page 4, post #331.
> ...


I don't see where the podcast is. Do you have that link?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

nolatom said:


> Alan from Sailing Anarchy just posted a lengthy interview with both women. It's heavy going, with sailing knowledge, Ms Appel, and "straight answer" not even in the same universe:
> Ask Jennifer Appel and Tasha Fuiava For The SA Podcast - Page 4 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
> 
> It's at page 4, post #331.
> ...


I couldn't do it. After 40 minutes of it, I knew I was wasting part of my life I would never get back. The moderator is a very good interviewer, with some serious patience. However, the intro was very long winded, let alone how ridiculous the dynamic duo were with answering questions and staying on topic. It's grossly evident that they are concealing facts. These two need to be ignored now.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

jongleur said:


> I don't see where the podcast is. Do you have that link?


Look here, on the SA home page: Sailing Anarchy


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> My, what public courage on your part eherlihy, the pot smoking crowd will be mighty upset if they can remember why......[/QUO
> 
> Yep, had to fire up a fatty for that interview, no wait, I remember now, it was trying to read one of smacks threads that drove me to the evil weed..again. ha ha.


----------



## CVAT (Apr 29, 2012)

jongleur said:


> I don't see where the podcast is. Do you have that link?


On* Page 4 *of the post on SA scroll up to *post number 331* it is by *Mr.Clean*.

I missed it the first time too, and it is hard to listen to her drivel and wandering. Kinda like listening to someone who constantly says "Oh look Squirrel". Reminds me of one of my supervisors once his mind would wander his body would follow, usually at the most inopportune times.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

I applaud Mr. Clean for trying. They are just talking nonsense babble. Don't try and listen to it, not with any hope of them making any sense. 

He generally sums it up;They simply did not know how to sail, pilot, fix, or do anything.In fact, they are so wacked out and divorced from reality that this is the only thing that could happen. They are Rimas if he could just talk nonsense all day. So, it is Dunning-Kruger. They did not have the brains to know that they don't know. Even more than that, Appel is so ADD that every answer is an incomprehensible word salad. She thinks she is some type of expert on something, or everything. Thats why they put out a Pan- Pan call every day for 98 days. They were looking for someone to just help them get going, to wherever. I thought it was weird how happy they were when the Navy arrived and they had to know their boat was gone. But they were more like little children excited about the attention from the uniforms and the big ship with numbers and flags and so forth. They were just in awe. 

One thing that really strikes me, based on the current news ( Weinstein et al.) is how quickly and easily she accused the crew of the fishing boat that was towing her. That is scary. Mr. Clean is a brave man.


----------



## OldEagle (Nov 16, 2013)

From the beginning, I've been very dubious that this story represented a scam by its two protagonists. 

After I'd watched the original interviews aboard the Navy vessel and first press interviews, I raised the possibility, on one of the original threads about these two, that particularly in one of these two people, we might be witnessing the display of diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I listened to part of this SA interview. It sounds like she's both stoned and, separately, has a pretty disordered thought process. Looks like a classic example of using weed to self-medicate. 

I'm past the point where I think this either amusing or worthy of debunking. I just think it's sad that an apparently severely troubled woman is unable or unwilling to get help.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

I think she represents about 25% of the current population of the United States. We are transitioning from a country of factual knowledge to a country of the next television program or internet sensation as long as the attention is focused on ME!!!!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> as long as the attention is focused on ME!!!!


You?

Pigs bum.

Me!

:kiss


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Again I have to disagree with Rocky mountain. Where the 'ell does he pull up a figure like 25% . Anybody who's following the news knows it;s at least 45% maybe more. The world used to snicker but now it's beyond funny.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

eherlihy said:


> ...Jen is a great argument for keeping cannabis illegal. Is that the sound of a bong? She sounds like she is seriously stoned. She can't stay on topic for more than 15 seconds before she goes off chasing some tangent...


I couldn't listen for more than 2 minutes, but from what I heard, I'd guess she was more likely on acid than cannabis.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Medical science has discovered more and more connections between irrational behaviour and gut bacteria. Parasitic infections are common in many species and a constant battle for supremacy and control has been a major factor throughout human history as intestinal epidemics wax and wane . The catholic and publican microbiota are two of the dominant infections today but a carefully balanced diet of fruit and live yogurt can go a long ways to prevent these gut flora from adversely affecting social groups . Special care should be taken at sea to maintain the proper gut bug balance .


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Capt Len said:


> Medical science has discovered more and more connections between irrational behaviour and gut bacteria. Parasitic infections are common in many species and a constant battle for supremacy and control has been a major factor throughout human history as intestinal epidemics wax and wane . The catholic and publican microbiota are two of the dominant infections today but a carefully balanced diet of fruit and live yogurt can go a long ways to prevent these gut flora from adversely affecting social groups . Special care should be taken at sea to maintain the proper gut bug balance .


So are you saying there is some truth to the saying "one is full of caca"


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Capt Len said:


> Medical science has discovered more and more connections between irrational behaviour and gut bacteria. Parasitic infections are common in many species and a constant battle for supremacy and control has been a major factor throughout human history as intestinal epidemics wax and wane . The catholic and publican microbiota are two of the dominant infections today but a carefully balanced diet of fruit and live yogurt can go a long ways to prevent these gut flora from adversely affecting social groups . Special care should be taken at sea to maintain the proper gut bug balance .


Or maybe just not indulging in long-term use of illegal mind-altering substances would be a start?

I've overheard partiers arguing very seriously whether cocaine was vegan or not!

Of course mental illness is not a laughing matter, and substance abuse issues are often overlapping.

But their preventable impact on those around them and society at large is important. Taking Darwin completely out of the picture can't be good for the species long-term.


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Probably carb addled.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Many detrimental gut flora produce detria that can cross the brain/blood boundary that normally protects the brain from adverse pollutants.These intestinally absorbed chemicals may be infinitely more prevalent than previously recognized by medical journals. Often the only sign of infection is only observed by others (never the infected)and is known as ' the rubber leg syndrome' .It can be pulled endlessly to no effect. Probably less harmful (unlesss voting) than ADHD and many other childhood mental disorders thought to be the result of imbalanced intestinal flora.


----------



## Caribbeachbum (Feb 23, 2014)

Capt Len said:


> Medical science has discovered more and more connections between irrational behaviour and gut bacteria. Parasitic infections are common in many species and a constant battle for supremacy and control has been a major factor throughout human history as intestinal epidemics wax and wane . The catholic and publican microbiota are two of the dominant infections today but a carefully balanced diet of fruit and live yogurt can go a long ways to prevent these gut flora from adversely affecting social groups . Special care should be taken at sea to maintain the proper gut bug balance .





Capt Len said:


> Many detrimental gut flora produce detria that can cross the brain/blood boundary that normally protects the brain from adverse pollutants.These intestinally absorbed chemicals may be infinitely more prevalent than previously recognized by medical journals. Often the only sign of infection is only observed by others (never the infected)and is known as ' the rubber leg syndrome' .It can be pulled endlessly to no effect. Probably less harmful (unlesss voting) than ADHD and many other childhood mental disorders thought to be the result of imbalanced intestinal flora.


Among the worst is one most commonly carried (harmlessly) by bovine males. Infected humans are often unaware that they are wallowing in the resultant fecal matter. And while the catholic and publican microbiota are often as bad or worse, the latter has a strong tendency to come back over and over again, in which case it's referred to as "re-publican" and typically appears in combination with the bovine flora referenced above.

:grin

--


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Too funny. 

Of interest c.difficile ( commonly due to recurrent use of antibiotics disturbing gut flora) can be effectively treated with a fecal transplant. Unless of course you can’t take the sh-t any more 😊


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm learning a lot here.
Previously, science/biology never interested me unless something bubbled, caught fire, or blew up.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Not that it has much to do with aberrant behaviour, the serious increase in colitis and similar immune response problems in the developed world are being labled as having a direct connection with the use of pre natal and natal antibiotics. The rates of urban to rural numbers shows that country folks just suck it up or eat more dirt or just heal or not, without running to the clinic. As an aside the rising costs of property ownership or rental in the city compared to rural costs is further dividing our society as the trendy winners ubanize the centres and the healthier but disenfranchised take public transport to work at menial tasks until the robots take over or climate refugees totally disrupt the status quo. Maybe the social bubble.burn and blow will be entertaining as the major networks work overtime finding topics that the population can comprehend


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

outbound said:


> Too funny.
> 
> Of interest c.difficile ( commonly due to recurrent use of antibiotics disturbing gut flora) can be effectively treated with a fecal transplant. Unless of course you can't take the sh-t any more ?


Way to funny. Fecal transplants, seems like a big money maker for some donors here.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> Way to funny. Fecal transplants, seems like a big money maker for some donors here.


There are videos of elephants eating the poop of other elephants.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Proper scientific study determined kids growing up with pets in the home had stronger immune systems better health overall. 

Kids where the barnyards were closer to the dwelling better off than those where it was farther way. 

Perfect sense to me, the War on Micro-organisms, anti-bacterial this and that, way too much sterility in modern environments.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Hitler, Germany's democratically elected leader only barely maintained a degree of health by frequent infusions of rectal matter, taken from healthy soldiers. Those Jewish doctors really knew their stuff. But I digress ,eh? Baby beavers would starve if they didn't stock up on parents crap to get what;s needed to digest bark. How's that for digression.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^Len, what ever yer smoking pass it on over..


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

john61ct said:


> Or maybe just not indulging in long-term use of illegal mind-altering substances would be a start?
> 
> I've overheard partiers arguing very seriously whether cocaine was vegan or not!
> 
> ...


I think in this case the mental illness is evident. The pot smoking may be a symptom, or a just associated behavior but it is not the cause. For her to not smoke at this point might be a good idea, or it might make her really unhappy. I don't think we can say from here.

In terms of impact on others and society, again I see a society in which there is a type of mental illness for sure, and that mental illness is likely causing some people to smoke or drink. I am skeptical of the idea that pot impacts others any more than all the other detrimental things we do and accept. To be more blunt ( no pun intended) if 30,000 people are killed by cars.... how many are killed by smoking pot? And if you put a price on those numbers, and you include the environmental costs...which is more detrimental and which should we criticize?

I think we can both agree that she should not be sailing anywhere without a competent skipper. I agree on Darwin, but - for some reason she made it back alive. Maybe she has some type of survival abilities that we don't see. Like Rimas. :grin I also maintain that she looked pretty good on the motorcycle.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I learned many decades ago, "never stick yo d1ck in crazy."

No matter how good looking.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

So says s a wise man. 

I was never wise.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Skipper Jer said:


> There are videos of elephants eating the poop of other elephants.


Actually Elephant Dung is surprisingly not smelly and is mostly grass. Found this out on an African safari a few years ago. Though eating it if you are not an elephant may be an acquired taste.:smile


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> .....To be more blunt ( no pun intended) if 30,000 people are killed by cars.... how many are killed by smoking pot?....


I don't know the answer. It would stand to reason that pot can be metabolized faster, so the user is less likely to be as impaired, when they foolishly get in their car.

While it's inevitable that pot will be legal in many places, it's negative mental health affects are being clearly identified. Long term repetitive usage is being connected to reduced memory and increased neurosis, like paranoia. Not in senile crazy nut case ways, but in measurable deterioration of mental capacity. One study I recall tested memory of users, many days after usage, and memory was still impaired partially.

Alcohol has it's own bad affects, but I think a functional alcoholic is going to out perform a functional pot head, if not drunk/high at the time, all else being equal.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

An alcoholic will be much worse off, in many ways. There really is no such thing as a pot-aholic, it is relatively non addictive and benign. We are seeing mental dysfunction in our country but it has to do with many other things, the internet, media, traffic.

Memory might be reduced from excessive pot smoking, but that does not mean cognitive function is lower in someone who occasionally smokes pot. 

For example just today I was .........dammit I forgot what I was going to say.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Not to worry Sal. You appear to be in a majority. ,,Which should make you feel sooooo comfortable.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Sal Paradise said:


> An alcoholic will be much worse off, in many ways. There really is no such thing as a pot-aholic, it is relatively non addictive and benign. We are seeing mental dysfunction in our country but it has to do with many other things, the internet, media, traffic.
> 
> Memory might be reduced from excessive pot smoking, but that does not mean cognitive function is lower in someone who occasionally smokes pot.


Both have their negative consequences especially when used to excess. I'm currently reading actor/sailor Sterling Hayden's autobiography WANDERER and just last night came across a You Tube interview he did with Tom Synder discussing Pot and alcohol: 





Then there is this article concerning "scromiting" while smoking Pot which we may be hearing about more and more as the U.S. rushes toward making it legal in many states: 
Heavy marijuana users showing up at the ER 'scromiting' | Daily Mail Online


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

What is moderation?

Well...it depends....


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

In my youth, he replied I consumed huge chunks of kife .flowers mixed with honey .I'm pretty sure this was in Morocco . The magical strength it gave to my Id has lasted me all of my life. Had a pretty good crop here last year in BC budd I find in the fading light the effect of vertigo is unpleasant that I could lose my cookies. Just as well, since my imagery production and years of sc fi are still functioning up to snuff and moderation comes more easily.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Another thread a few weeks back drifted into this same topic... my favourite line from that one was:

When a drunk driver sees a stop sign he's likely to blow straight through it, and maybe broadside somebody...
A stoned driver will stop and wait for the stop sign to turn green.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

One evening I was in Burnaby headed down to Gastown. Stopped in Hope to ask directions Yoyzza.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think weed jokes are as funny as anybody, but I think medical marijuana is legal in both Hawaii (where these ladies are from) and New York (where the interview was done), so I don't know about illegal. I think it can be pretty effective for certain conditions; tourrettes, certain cancers, PTSD (veterans, policemen, paramedics etc.).

I'll bet most of us wouldn't even be able to pick out a recreational marijuana user is it your; police officer, mail man, kids grade 3 teacher, your plumber, your sail maker? Statistically it's probably 1 out of 5 of those, and I doubt any profession is much more likely than the next to have a puff at their Saturday night dinner party than the next.

I think these ladies definitely did some stuff wrong, but I don't think it's drinking a beer or smoking a splif during their interview.

I will say, that Scromitting stuff is bizzarre. Never heard of it before. Watched a couple of YouTube vids on it. Weird. I believe it though. I find really chronic users have a few kind of bizzarre side effects.

However, carry on, I have had some great laughs.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

In Thailand the rage is all about pandas. used to be Hello Kitty. Our bungalow on the beach has a big front porch. Sue and her sister et al are known as the veranda pandas ,the local passing by beach salemen are the ganja pandas and the cottage is the panda monium. In BC we will be able to grow 4 plants legally What? paranoid? not any more..


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Slayer.Consumption of anti freeze goes on more than you'd think. A bottle of Austrian wine back mid '80's could have a near fatal dose of sweetener. Some made a lot of money but apparently it was illegal and they had to stop.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Let us know how that plant growing limit works out for you. It has been mostly unenforceable here in Colorado. A lot of rental property has been damaged by the unemployed pot growers flaunting the law. I am the president of a commercial condo complex with 30 units and we have had 4 units rented by growers under false pretenses that were used for grow operations. Once they get the plants established you can smell them for some distance.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> An alcoholic will be much worse off, in many ways. There really is no such thing as a pot-aholic, it is relatively non addictive and benign. We are seeing mental dysfunction in our country but it has to do with many other things, the internet, media, traffic.


General clinical mental health matters are coming out of the closet, which is a good thing. They'll be more likely to be treated like any other illness, not stigmatized. I don't think we have more than before.

However, neither alcohol, nor marijuana, are addictive in the clinical sense. They do not alter brain chemistry to create addiction. Dependency is the proper definition of an alcoholic and it is actually slightly more likely with marijuana. 1 in 12 habitual alcohol drinker become dependent. It's 1 in 10 for pot.

Neither a drink a week, nor a joint a week, will create dependency. However, consume either nearly every day and the odds are very similar to becoming a "xxxx -aholic"



> ...Memory might be reduced from excessive pot smoking, but that does not mean cognitive function is lower in someone who occasionally smokes pot.....


Memory is part of cognitive function. Neurosis is a disease of mental function. I don't follow your point. There are serious medical studies showing a propensity for weed to alter mental function. It's not crazy deep end nuts, but it's measurable, after the user is longer under the influence. And, I didn't say occasional, nor excessive, I said long term repetitive. Maybe you forgot. 

In the end, this is going to be legal in most of our society. I think it's greatly driven by a generation that feels like it will vindicate them, along with heretofore unfair legal treatment of users. Yes, there are few differences between alcohol and pot. Although, I think this is playing with fire and folks hundreds of years from now will laugh at us. Not unlike we laugh at those that used leaches to cure disease.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

This is a legal conundrum... people should have the right to do, ingest etc. whatever they want... The issue is about the impact of those decisions on others. Driving drunk kills innocents... (I am not terribly concerned about a drunk who kills themself). Same applies to any high... do what you want with your body but don't put others in jeopardy. Same stupid for "distracted" ... lack of paying attention.... in public. This is dangerous behavior.... and it's getting out of control... lack of respect and consideration for others. Be more invisible. I don't want to smell your smoke, your BO, listen to your music, or your muffler or be rolled by your wake. Please show consideration. Not gonna happen.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Yes, inconsiderate thoughtlessness is one aspect of greed & selfishness. 

Epidemic proportions now, in fact purposefully cultivated by our current forms of society, "I've got mine Jack, y'all just FO."

Opposite of what I would call true community. 

Widespread "mental illness" and abuse of intoxicants are inevitable effects, coping mechanisms that just exacerbate thoughtlessness, ignoring consequences of our actions on ourselves as well as others.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

This thread seems to be coming around to my point. 

Incidentally, I would not ever smoke pot while sailing. Give me a beer and I am fine, I can sail as good as I ever can. I don't ever need any instruments to sail a good angle on the wind. But a couple of puffs and my ability to steer by the wind is shot. I'm losing speed and guessing the wind angle and sail trim all wrong. For that reason, and others - I never do it. It is pointless. For sailors I think alcohol is far superior. 

In terms of these two women sailors - did it seem they were really mentally deficient, or were they faking it a bit to get more attention while avoiding the truth? How do we judge what they did? I assume they did not have marijuana on board for the 98 days they called a pan pan so abstaining from drugs did not help them.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Each person's metabolism and brain chemistry has different reactions to mind-altering substances.

Just like health and nutrition, statistical analysis can be helpful, but it's impossible for generalities to hold for each individual.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> General clinical mental health matters are coming out of the closet, which is a good thing. They'll be more likely to be treated like any other illness, not stigmatized. I don't think we have more than before.
> 
> Memory is part of cognitive function. Neurosis is a disease of mental function. I don't follow your point. There are serious medical studies showing a propensity for weed to alter mental function. It's not crazy deep end nuts, but it's measurable, after the user is longer under the influence. And, I didn't say occasional, nor excessive, I said long term repetitive. Maybe you forgot.


Ahh,.. I think I meant that some very smart people smoke marijuana, and some very stupid people never do. If we assume for this argument that I am smart , as in I have degrees, and am a licensed design professional apparently moderately successful in my career - etc.... is it not true that I can lose my car keys or forget my cell phone number and remain an otherwise intelligent functional human being relative to someone who is not educated or trained? Even if that other person never drank or smoked?

Everyone is so quick to point to negative impacts on others. It's nearly impossible to quantify with some things such as this.


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

They are snake oil salesman like the unfortunate current president of the USA.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

*Re: We should all help these poor ladies *



Sal Paradise said:


> is it not true that I can lose my car keys or forget my cell phone number and remain an otherwise intelligent functional human being relative to someone who is not educated or trained? Even if that other person never drank or smoked?
> 
> Everyone is so quick to point to negative impacts on others. It's nearly impossible to quantify with some things such as this.


Putting pleasure before performance is a personal choice.

But substance abusers, especially habituated ones, are usually in extreme denial of the degree their usage negatively affects their achieving even their own goals, that they have set as most important to their happiness.

Not least, fulfilling relationships with family and friends.

I have dropped so many my friends over the years, just get sick of seeing them make themselves stupid*. And often don't tell them why, no point, never stand between an addict and their precious.

* habitual use of intoxicants multiplies the Dunning-Kruger effect


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

“According to new research out of the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center, at the University of California, San Francisco, when you drink alcohol, endorphins are released in the brain – happy chemicals. Endorphins are responsible for making you feel pleasure, but it’s actually where they are released that is important – the nucleus accumbens, the part of the brain that has been linked to addictive behavior and decision making. Experience pleasure and reward in relation to a particular decision – like drinking alcohol – then you’re likely to want to repeat the experience. This desire to repeat a behavior can develop into cravings, one of the key components of addiction.

Heavy Drinkers’ Response to Alcohol
The release of endorphins in the brain and the compulsion to drink more to recreate that feeling is even more pronounced in those who drink heavily. The more they drink, the more endorphins are released, the happier they feel and the more likely they are to crave alcohol. When cravings meet physical dependence, binge drinking or alcohol abuse turns into alcohol addiction.”

Alcohol is potentially addictive. End of discussion. Any agent that produces a physiologic withdrawal syndrome is addictive. Rum fits, D.T.s etc. are manifestations of said withdrawal. 
Pot is not addictive. There is no physiologic withdrawal syndrome.
Opiates can be either habituating creating dependency or addicting. Habitation is the absence of psychological cravening but the presence of risk of withdrawal symptoms. Most chronic pain patients are examples as are people with RLS using opiates or opioids to control their symptoms or people on barbiturates or benzodiazepines to control epilepsy.
Addiction is the presence of both. Heroin or fentanyl, benzodiazepine or barbiturate addicts are examples. 
Active ingredients in pot are fat soluble to a major extent. Functional half life is long. Impaired cognition persists for a long interval in frequent chronic users. This creates difficulties for law enforcement as there is no equivalent to a breathalyzer or blood alcohol level.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Pot is definitely **for some* habitual users addictive. 

Maybe you want to say "only" psychologically so, but definitely enough to cause major life problems for those who try to stop without substituting other medications. 

Yes a small % perhaps but real for them


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

No argument that pot, food, sex, gambling or myriad other things can be “only” be psychologically “addictive “ and result in severe difficulties. But that doesn’t change the strict definition of the word addictive. Do not demean the poor souls suffering with psychological issues. Such things can be every bit as destructive to health and life as physiologic ills. “Only” is inappropriate in my view as people die from psychological issues. 
In order to communicate meaningfully about anything concerning health or science one must adhere to the definitions of the words used in that lexicon.
You do not need to supply pharmacy to treat the physiologic withdrawal symptoms of pot users as there aren’t any. They are not addicted. You do for alcohol, opiates, barbiturates, benzodiazepines etc. There is a difference. You don’t run in to withdrawal seizures when people stop smoking pot, gambling, or eat excessively. You do see it with benzodiazepines and alcohol. 
You may need to supply pharmacy to ameliorate symptoms produced by the underlying psychopathology causing self destructive behavior or in incidences where it is a manifestation of other illnesses e.g. bipolar, depression, thought disorder, orbital frontal injury, frontal temple dementia etc.
Mincing words and definitions in a lay discussion seems not to be helpful but blatant miss use of these terms doesn’t further understanding.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Go to a doctor for help with that struggle, and 99.99% will "supply pharmacy"

Usually a more harmful substitute. 

There should be a more stringent definition of the term "science".


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I am a doctor with prior and post doc degrees in science.

Beyond the apparent degeneration of societal norms in a segment of our population others have referred to in this thread the general lack by some of true understanding of the scientific method and acceptance of pseudoscience is unfortunate. 
There are good plumbers and bad plumbers. There are good doctors and bad doctors. Those following the “best practice” rules as laid out by their societies are not prescribing “harmful substitutes”. Any decision be it in medicine or life can be and should be analyzed by assessing risk/benefit. Some times you need help from outside agencies to do so.
Stop trolling. Try to focus on things helpful to those around you.

I do not know these two women. Nor the details of their lives. Nor the motivation of their words or actions. I do know what has been disclosed doesn’t seem internally consistent. Would think if one wishes to understand why these apparent inconsistencies exist you would need more information than is presented here. I do know overuse of marijuana can impede enjoying a productive life. But think this is a separate issue.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> Ahh,.. I think I meant that some very smart people smoke marijuana, and some very stupid people never do. If we assume for this argument that I am smart , as in I have degrees, and am a licensed design professional apparently moderately successful in my career - etc.... is it not true that I can lose my car keys or forget my cell phone number and remain an otherwise intelligent functional human being relative to someone who is not educated or trained? Even if that other person never drank or smoked?
> 
> Everyone is so quick to point to negative impacts on others. It's nearly impossible to quantify with some things such as this.


I didn't realize we were discussing your use of pot, rather were discussing it generically. I agree the diminution of mental capacity is relative to an individuals baseline, I'm sure. Still, it's not going to be confined to losing keys.

Even with alcohol, there are occasional studies that show small usage lowers other disease potentials, such as heart disease. Nevertheless, both pot and alcohol are net negatives for most recreational users that enjoy being inebriated. Personally, I'll take gaining weight and watching my liver function carefully, over any reduction in mental capacity.

Brace for the dinghy light legal activists, unless your NY pot consumption is via a medical prescription. Some get pretty pious about the laws here.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Hey , How about all that Doctor prescribed opioids that seems to be wreaking havoc in the heartland?


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

I was merely writing about a hypothetical situation in which, if I smoked pot, and could not find my car keys....you see.

These are scenarios which I merely came up with to illustrate a point.

Actually I just hide the keys in the console.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a different view of this.
Back in the 80s simple study following brain volume in chronic British hashish users demonstrated progressive loss. Alcohol and it’s consequences still leads as the number one cause of premature death among the various addictive agents.
Chronic morphine use has no health impact. Risk of withdrawal exists but if the agent is supplied and dose not escalated surprisingly no impact.
Over 90% of adults are habituated to caffeine. As little as 1 to 2 cups of coffee suffices to produce risk of withdrawal.
Babies of alcoholic mothers are at risk of fetal alcohol syndrome which has permanent sequela. If successfully withdrawn babies of opiate addicts are unremarkable.
Physicians were scored on their responding to a newly importantly stressed vital sign-pain. A pain scale was to be applied at every patient contact regardless of chief complaint. PCPs were judged if they did not adequately address pain by some abstract measure I never understood. This is a subjective complaint. After a decade of their being castigated for being reluctant to prescribe opiates their world has flipped.
Since starting practice 3+ decades ago I would have patients sign a “contract” before starting any potentially addictive agent. Now that’s required in most settings. 
After failing all other therapies I had a subset of patients with rls on an unchanging dose of opiate. I followed these folks for decades with no escalation in symptoms nor dose. Toward the end of my career due to state requirements I ended up seeing these people much more frequently. A wasteful visit done only because a maintenance ‘script is no longer permitted.
The opiate catastrophe is multifactorial. Bad docs running drug mills. Bad companies selling huge amounts to detributors. Whistle blowers to the fda and dept. of justice being ignored. Opiates supplying the funds for combatants from the Vietnam war to the current Afghan swamp.
Our government, our companies, our society all bear complicity not just physicians and dentists. 
Looking at our world one can only hope the Hegelian dialect still applies and some degree of sanity returns to our culture.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I find the pot vs alcohol discussion fascinating and can't help but think that the pro-alcohol, anti-pot guys really have no experience with either. 

I'm 39 and part of a generation who has widely been using pot since high school. The pot smokers who never did anything with their lives weren't going to do anything anyway -- it wasn't the pot. And honestly most of the bigger stoners I can think of from high school and college have gone on to good careers and families, some are out doing really amazing things.

In stark contrast, the heavy drinkers who haven't been able to kick the habit by now are living $hitty lives as a direct consequence of their drinking. Legal problems, job problems, and now I'm seeing serious health problems. I know 2 people younger than me who drank themselves to death already.

If you think pot should be illegal my bet is that you're giving off a bad vibe and you probably know a ton of casual pot users who you'd never expect, but they're not comfortable bringing it up with you.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

One of the problems with pot is the THC level The budd today is way stronger and since most is street level crime supplied is often doped with nasty chems to give it kick and come back for moreness. I haven't bought or smoked anything for 40 yrs. Was reading today about memory impairment caused by nicotine withdrawal.I'd say more but while looking for the ticket the train of thought left the station.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I don't partake in any but an occasional dose of caffeine. 

I think very few recreational drugs should be illegal. 

Yes there needs to be some H&S regulation of new chemicals, but same way as food additives, OTC stuff, cosmetics. 

Treatment of abuse as a medical / behavioural / mental health issue, generously subsidized shooting / living spaces, rehab if they want it, but no for-profit commercial activity in any of it.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

I'll take a pot head over a boozer any day.
Pot head smells better if nothing else. Nothing turns my stomach like the stank ass sour smell of alcohol on peoples breath or the stench of last nights booze sweating out of you.
The there is the behavior of drunks.....Pot head will just raid your fridge then fall asleep.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> ...The opiate catastrophe is multifactorial. Bad docs running drug mills. Bad companies selling huge amounts to detributors. Whistle blowers to the fda and dept. of justice being ignored. Opiates supplying the funds for combatants from the Vietnam war to the current Afghan swamp.
> Our government, our companies, our society all bear complicity not just physicians and dentists........


You left out one governmental contributor, medicaid. My sister-in-law is a court appointed family court attorney. She's a serious do-good type, who graduated from an ivy league law school, but chose to devote her life to help poor families. All of her clients are on some sort of social welfare, the majority are multi-generational indigent. All three family members get their own court appointed attorney: mommy, daddy and baby.

All of her clients have an opiate prescription for soft tissue pain. The learn they can fake the pain, which can not be medically confirmed and they get the script. They know which docs will be complicit and accept the medicaid rate for the routine visits. The pills are then sold for supplemental cash. One clear indication is their tobacco smoking habits. Welfare programs will not pay for tobacco, but they all have 1-2 pack per day habits ($10-$30 per day!!) and they do not have any income. They sell the opiates to get the money.

The government is actually the dealer here. They even pay for the taxi to the doctors office and the pharmacy.

She had one client who was in court for parental custodial rights issues and had mandated drug testing requirements. She came to her office one day, very proud that her latest drug test showed zero positives and hoped to get her child back. My sister-in-law had to remind her that she had a prescription for daily use of opiates and was supposed to test positive for that. The court will now know she sells them. This is a big problem.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

caberg said:


> I find the pot vs alcohol discussion fascinating and can't help but think that the pro-alcohol, anti-pot guys really have no experience with either. .....


At first I thought I would push back on being pro one or anti the other. However, while I support your right to choose to do what you want, I think I do fall into this description. I think pot is worse than alcohol for those who remain functional with the recreational use of either.

For starters, you are wrong about experience. I was a teenager in the 70s. You kids are clueless. 

Further, I have several friends who smoke pot (one just picked it back up in his mid-50s) and none are shy about letting me know. They are all functional adults, with good careers. Nevertheless, I'm convinced they are less than optimal. I'm also convinced that some are self medicating various degrees of anxiety, which I do not believe will work for the long term.

Socially, one can consumer alcohol in moderate amounts among just about any mix of people. Severe alcoholics sometimes need to stay away. However, my pot smoking friends can not traditionally smoke pot at someone else's house, or even their own, when having mixed company. No one wants to smell pot smoke any more than cigarette smoke in a closed room. Vaping is now become more popular, for this reason. The move to laced food and drink products is also for this mixed social reason.

But here's my personal observation. One can sip a glass of wine, have another, then maybe another over the course of a cocktail party and never even appear intoxicated. Of course, I'm referring to consumption below the frat boy keg stand level. I've been around my friends consuming THC in one form or another and they are immediately stoned. Different strokes.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Prior to NY mayor LaGuadia cola cola had cocaine, snake oil meds had opiates and alcohol and tincture of opium was freely available. The difficulties with these agents was well known. Decades prior DeQuincey wrote “dairy of an English opium eater”. SF opium dens had been in existence since before the golden spike. But a fairly libertarian view was taken.
At some level this makes sense. If you want to kill yourself or live in a fog you have the right to do so. Just don’t harm anyone else. If you harm another you will make restitution and be punished. We know from prohibition decriminalization has major societal benefits. However it’s the don’t harm anyone else part of the equation that’s the connumdrum. Given judgment proof low flyers and bought and paid for justice for the 1%ers our tort system has become a very dull blade for the disappearing middle class.
Personally see nothing wrong with the rare use of intoxicants in the right setting. Operative words are rare and right setting as use of any intoxicant by any individual has potential for life changing events to an uninvolved third party.
Also believe over use of intoxicants is often self medicating other underlying issues. Selection depends on environment and individual’s neurochemistry. Shame is once limbic system dynamics are altered it is a disease and choice has much less to do with it. Tragic.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Capt Len said:


> One of the problems with pot is the THC level The budd today is way stronger and since most is street level crime supplied is often doped with nasty chems to give it kick and come back for moreness. I haven't bought or smoked anything for 40 yrs.


Great example of someone just repeating a bad scary fact about marijuana without any personal experience to back it up. The fact is, marijuana is way safer today when you procure it from legitimate legal sources, and the dosages are way more precise, so you can consume exactly -- down to the mg -- the amount of THC you want for your desired effect.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Socially, one can consumer alcohol in moderate amounts among just about any mix of people. Severe alcoholics sometimes need to stay away. However, my pot smoking friends can not traditionally smoke pot at someone else's house, or even their own, when having mixed company. No one wants to smell pot smoke any more than cigarette smoke in a closed room. Vaping is now become more popular, for this reason. The move to laced food and drink products is also for this mixed social reason.
> 
> But here's my personal observation. One can sip a glass of wine, have another, then maybe another over the course of a cocktail party and never even appear intoxicated. Of course, I'm referring to consumption below the frat boy keg stand level. I've been around my friends consuming THC in one form or another and they are immediately stoned. Different strokes.


Again, lack of experience shows here. Smoking pot is a thing of the past. Precisely measured edibles is where marijuana use is heading. You'd have no idea if a friend at a cocktail party consumed a 5 or 10 mg THC mint beforehand. The effects are akin to a light buzz from a beer or two, there is no "immediately stoned" effect. That's how I see many people using pot these days maybe a couple times a week or month. Many, like me, completely quit drinking, or drink very rarely, because it's really not that enjoyable any more.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Clearly, caberg, you are experienced with THC. However, I think you're also culturally biased. Since you are a consumer, you are as irrationally as far on the pro side as you accuse those opposed. Let's agree to disagree. 

Someone put this prognosis in a time capsule. Society will regret this decision in a hundred years or so. Constantly increasing the opportunity for self indulgence, which is a symptom of wealth, has been the downfall of every successful society in the world's history. Not going to be my problem, but it might for my great, great, great, great grandchildren. Enjoy the buzz.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I used to love reading High Times as a kid, but taking the culture to a high concept fashion level seems to me just a bit twee

https://broccolimag.com


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Clearly, caberg, you are experienced with THC. However, I think you're also culturally biased. Since you are a consumer, you are as irrationally as far on the pro side as you accuse those opposed. Let's agree to disagree.


Sounds good.

But in closing, I'll mention that experience does not make a person's opinion irrational; in most cases experience makes an opinion more educated.

Imagine someone who hadn't drank a beer since the 1970s tried to convince you some 40 years later that drinking a beer from time to time is going to be the downfall of our society? I'm guessing you'd discount that opinion if your own personal opinion based on your own experience of drinking a few beers now and then tells you otherwise.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Some much bigger problem will take us all out before edibles do.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I think they were incompetent sailors.

GoFundMe at $5 and counting...


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

The gofundme includes this -

"It was amazing to see people with zero ocean experience talk about whether or not I should have used the EPIRB. Do they know the use of an EPIRB without a sinking boat will most likely get you a fine, jail time and the guaranteed loss of the vessel? People I know have been put in jail, been fined and lost their boat for EPIRB calls that were not deemed true emergencies. Floating boats with food, water and limited navigational capacity are not maritime emergencies."


Anyone know anyone put in jail. fined and had their boat seized for legit use of an EPIRB?


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

The american numbers for THC are !1978 average 1.37% ... 2008 8.99 % highest measured 2009 33.12% If you need some facts to go with your experience just google it.In BC it's been the number one industry $ wise for years, bigger than fishing or logging. Measuring the size of the doobie just isn't done. Users still get the majority of their weed off the street. That's changing quickly in urbia. Many grow their own and share it. Over 50% of street grass (here) is doctored with crystal meth or worse. Since the '70's nearly all of all our plants have been cloned females. BC Bud is pretty much the top end product % wise and has been for decades. (numbers on a need to know) Sal is sure right about overtaking stuff getting us before the edibles do.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Where its legal you have brand names and reviews. Similar to reviews of beer or wine. In many places, even where it is not yet legal, people are shipping brand names. So the educated consumer knows not only the quality and potency but all types of information about the effects, negative and positive.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Discussions of marijuana don't belong on a sailing forum.... nothing to do with sailing except as relates to impairment of functioning... and that's already been established.


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Maybe the stoners just need to get drunk and the drunks just need to get stoned, that way everybody can just get along.... well almost everybody. There are always going to be those who think that there way is the only way, which brings me to today's quote by Max Born.

*The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil* :smile


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

Sal Paradise said:


> The gofundme includes this -
> 
> "It was amazing to see people with zero ocean experience talk about whether or not I should have used the EPIRB. Do they know the use of an EPIRB without a sinking boat will most likely get you a fine, jail time and the guaranteed loss of the vessel? People I know have been put in jail, been fined and lost their boat for EPIRB calls that were not deemed true emergencies. Floating boats with food, water and limited navigational capacity are not maritime emergencies."
> 
> Anyone know anyone put in jail. fined and had their boat seized for legit use of an EPIRB?


I don't even know of any with illegit use of an EPIRB. Apparently the Oz authorities see way more falses than actual distress.

EPIRBs activated inadvertently in 80pc of callouts last year, maritime authority says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Hopefully some Sailnetters are as knowledgeable about EPIRB regulations, as some are about booze and weed.

It seems to me that it would be reasonable that _some sort_ of fine or penalty be assessed for EPIRB activations wherein the emergency was merely that the icemaker could not keep up with margarita production, and at the same time, if a sailing vessel is dismasted and adrift out on the open ocean, then perhaps an EPIRB activation closer to home port, rather than farther away, might be appropriate.

It does _not_ make sense, however, if it were to be automatic that EPIRB activation somehow immediately forfeits ownership of the vessel.

In the case of these two *cough cough* fine ladies, they were ultimately rescued by the US Navy, and I doubt that the Navy has much use for a recreational sailboat.

In other words, it would be good to know what "rules" around EPIRB management exist, but I don't think we should rely on the word of the two "ladies" who are grubbing on GoFundMe.

Edited to add:

According to this : http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/faq 2.html and other sources, there are penalties for failing to properly _Register_ an EPIRB, but there are no stated penalties for false activation. There are, however, numbers to call -- and an expectation to call -- the authorities to call off a response in the event of an accidental activation.


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

Also, I found this detailed takedown of the "ladies"' story.

https://unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com/2017/10/31/19-reasons-this-survival-story-smells-fishy/

as one of the more complete, if f-bomb-laden, analyses of all their lies.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

So I did a google search for "sailor jailed after distress call" and it failed to show anything relevant, except this exact story. There were no links to stories of anyone jailed for use of an EPIRB. I think this was a pretty reckless comment by Appel. I don't think she will last long at SA either as she seems to be throwing out some whoppers.


----------



## SailingKnottyGurl (Dec 12, 2017)

those two shouldnt be allowed to set foot on a boat of any description


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SailingKnottyGurl said:


> those two shouldnt be allowed to set foot on a boat of any description


Why not? They were out there doing it. They didn't hit their distress beacon the first time the coffee maker didn't work.

Yes, they (or the one at least) sounds very unstable. But, they are free to do what they want with their lives. Let them go!


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> Why not? They were out there doing it. They didn't hit their distress beacon the first time the coffee maker didn't work.
> 
> Yes, they (or the one at least) sounds very unstable. But, they are free to do what they want with their lives. Let them go!


The problem is that they (or at least one of them) is trying to make money off a completely hokey story, which includes potentially lethal advice to other novice sailors ("activating the EPIRB will lead to jail and loss of the vessel") and lies about the vessels that provided rescue.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

WharfRat said:


> The problem is that they (or at least one of them) is trying to make money off a completely hokey story, which includes potentially lethal advice to other novice sailors ("activating the EPIRB will lead to jail and loss of the vessel") and lies about the vessels that provided rescue.


fic·tion
ˈfikSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: fiction

literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.


----------



## SailingKnottyGurl (Dec 12, 2017)

ianjoub said:


> Why not? They were out there doing it. They didn't hit their distress beacon the first time the coffee maker didn't work.
> 
> Yes, they (or the one at least) sounds very unstable. But, they are free to do what they want with their lives. Let them go!


WharfRat summed it up nicely. ianjoub if you want them as crew then you my friend are welcome to enjoy the discussion and antics of a long conjob while your drifting around making coffee for 5 months.
:grinirateraft::cut_out_animated_em


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

Yes, we are all acquainted with the concept of fiction.

But that's different than trying to pass off fiction as "the true story", and canvassing for donations to sue "the media" for whatever.

If they had just disclaimered with some mumble mumble "a dramatic story inspired by true events" that would be one thing. 

If they had just thanked their rescuers and disappeared, then yeah sure, let's leave 'em be. But not when they hang out a GoFundMe.

On another note: wouldn't it be fun to watch smackdaddy engage in an interview with Jennifer Appel ?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

ianjoub said:


> SailingKnottyGurl said:
> 
> 
> > those two shouldnt be allowed to set foot on a boat of any description
> ...


I think the most compelling reason for not allowing them on the water is because THEY HAVE NO BOAT (because she wrecked her last two). What captain would be gullible enough to give permission to board?

joub, if you want to be her sugar daddy go ahead. Their GoFundMe is still at $5, so you don't appear to have put your money where your mouth is.

Here's an update, for those of you who didn't click on the correct tab:



> Thank you Mr. Clean for the interview. Longest one we have done and absolute best for teaching me new things that I will use going forward!!!
> As promised, I would like to augment the Go Fund Me to ask for money to build a new boat and get back out on the water instead of going after the media for the story. If you are curious about the highlights of our excursion - go listen to the podcast from Sailing Anarchy. You can only get the real deal from them.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SailingKnottyGurl said:


> WharfRat summed it up nicely. ianjoub if you want them as crew then you my friend are welcome to enjoy the discussion and antics of a long conjob while your drifting around making coffee for 5 months.
> :grinirateraft::cut_out_animated_em


lol heeeeelllllllllllll no!


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

WharfRat said:


> Yes, we are all acquainted with the concept of fiction.
> 
> But that's different than trying to pass off fiction as "the true story", and canvassing for donations to sue "the media" for whatever.
> 
> ...


I still think the free entertainment was worth every penny.


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

TakeFive said:


> What captain would be gullible enough to give permission to board?


I was just thinking earlier ... there's a certain "designer" based in British Columbia that would get along with Jennifer Appel just fine. He may even be on his way to Hawaii right now, in a Swain 36, the _S/V Alternate Reality_, and he could pick up Jennifer and they could go aground on an atoll for 5 to 15 months.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SailingKnottyGurl said:


> those two shouldnt be allowed to set foot on a boat of any description





ianjoub said:


> Why not? They were out there doing it. They didn't hit their distress beacon the first time the coffee maker didn't work.
> 
> Yes, they (or the one at least) sounds very unstable. But, they are free to do what they want with their lives. Let them go!





TakeFive said:


> I think the most compelling reason for not allowing them on the water is because THEY HAVE NO BOAT (because she wrecked her last two). What captain would be gullible enough to give permission to board?
> 
> joub, if you want to be her sugar daddy go ahead. Their GoFundMe is still at $5, so you don't appear to have put your money where your mouth is.


What about them not having a boat makes you think you or anyone else should dictate whether they 'are allowed' to go back out on they water. What happened to the concept of mind your own f$^#n business?

I didn't contribute to their gofundme, so obviously I have no interest in being their sugar daddy. Where was my mouth that my wallet wasn't? Or are you just talking crap again?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

ianjoub said:


> What about them not having a boat makes you think you or anyone else should dictate whether they 'are allowed' to go back out on they water. What happened to the concept of mind your own f$^#n business?...


What about this is too difficult for you to understand?

She wrecked two boats in a row, and has raised $5 for her replacement. The only way she can get back on the water is on someone else's boat. I don't see a groundswell of people offering "permission to board," so under the current circumstances, she will not be "allowed" to go back out on the water ... unless she buys a ferry ticket or something.

If you want to allow her to pursue her fantasy, go ahead. But it seems like you're just the same as the rest of us in saying, "no way, not on my boat!"


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

TakeFive said:


> If you want to allow her to pursue her fantasy, go ahead. But it seems like you're just the same as the rest of us in saying, "no way, not on my boat!"


Yes, not on my boat!


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

The only argument that I can see for leaving them alone, is that one of the best ways to defeat an attention hog, is to starve them of attention. In that sense, the best thing we could possibly do is never speak of either of them or their boat ever again.

But I for one come down on the side of a con artist ought to be called out as being one, before they make off with good people's money.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I'd be all for someone like Peter Thiel sponsoring them into a new shiny boat for a RTW journey. 

As long as they signed off on a global DNR - DO NOT RESCUE so Darwin can take its natural course. 

Maybe add that other death-wish drifter if he's still in transit somewhere in Asia.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Like the DNR concept except seems a bit harsh. I always think of the expense ( which we eventually pay) and risk to first responders both government and civilian when I hear these stories. I’m reminded of the father and son team who repetitively went to sea on unsafe boats. Finally weren’t allowed to leave. 
Think international law of sea should have some mechanism to charge for services/ impound/arrest individuals who place the SAR folks at risk for grossly unseamanlike behavior. I don’t mean just poor judgment or results from inadequate maintenance or prep but only truly blatant foolishness. I guess the issue would be where to draw the line.
In this case one could wonder if their gofundme represents fraud and is actionable legally. Wonder who gave them the five bucks and if they are willing to be the plaintiff?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

While only occasional, I would favor a program that had consequences for the owner, if they required excessive rescues. Your first is always on us. Maybe your second, but I start to think how long it's been since the first. There have been egregious examples of some requiring these free services a half dozen times or more. The stories always seem to have a suspected issue of mental health.

How to do it, I'm not exactly sure. After your Xth rescue over some period of time, you somehow pay up. Full reimbursement for the next rescue is probably impractical. Maybe you are banned from being on the water at that point, until you successfully pass a difficult course (ie one that someone suffering from mental health issues probably wouldn't pass). Maybe you pay a large, but standard fine, or require a special permit to be on water for some number of coming years. 

I think the USCG does have the authority to impound your boat, if they think either the vessel or the skipper is incapable seaworthiness. I think they very rarely get in the grey area of trying to prove that's the right call. Not paying the fine or passing the test or complying in some form, would be definitive. They can just send someone to chain you to the dock.

I admit I don't have the details for these consequences figured out exactly, but I favor something other than just sending the USCG out time and time again. For pilots, if you goof up, the FAA can require that you return to a flight instructor with whom you must demonstrate your knowledge and flight skills and be signed off again to return to the cockpit. Until you pass whats referred to as this "709 ride", named for the section of regs that call for it, you are grounded. This section also applies to aircraft, engines, propellers, etc, as well. They can ground you or the plane, until they re-evaluated safety. Since recreational boaters require no licensing at all, that isn't done. But maybe it becomes mandatory, after your Xth rescue.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Unfortunately, this is one example where the "slippery slope" argument surely applies. Criminalization of rescue is a bad idea. I think we lose more freedom and endanger more people than we realize with that one. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 


I don't exactly know where the line is between calling b.s. on a story and condemning the people who are rescued but I don't want to cross it.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

*Re: We should all help these poor ladies *

I think our species needs "harsh" regular herd thinning, should allow predators above us in the food chain to roam population centers. Yes we'd lose some babies, but of less fit parents.

Trying to think what film(s) expounded on that idea, Brad Pitt comes to mind. 12 Monkeys or Fight Club most likely.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Please close this thread.... what a waste of time and total nonsense.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Not sure I see why the thread needs to close. No bad behavior or rampant personal attacks (at least beyond some members who seems to have an inherent probelem with each other). If one doesn’t like the content, then skip it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> Unfortunately, this is one example where the "slippery slope" argument surely applies. Criminalization of rescue is a bad idea. I think we lose more freedom and endanger more people than we realize with that one. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> I don't exactly know where the line is between calling b.s. on a story and condemning the people who are rescued but I don't want to cross it.


To be clearer than I may have been, I was not suggesting criminalization of a rescue. I'm suggesting we have a system that forbids you from leaving the dock, on your next passage, if you require excessive rescues and don't comply. The idea of a big fine may be what you dislike and I can understand the point that someone may not request a rescue, if they think they can't afford it. But I will modify the various suggestions to say that none are due and payable for any rescue in itself. However, cross the line and you are simply not legally allowed to be on the water again, until you do comply. That logic currently applies to our roads and airways, so why not on the water? Too many incidents/accidents in either space, that are determined to be your fault, and you lose the privilege. Maybe you lose the privilege for a period of time, maybe until you comply with remedial training, maybe until you pay a fine. I'm open.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I think forbidding launching is a lot harsher from a freedom / civil liberties POV than my idea of a global DNR document.

Everyone should have the right to kill themselves however they like, long as they're not endangering others.

Obviously all aboard must be informed and agree to the DNR.

And please don't object on Green grounds, just too hypocritical as high-footprint first-worlders, we're rapidly hurtling toward our own extinction anyway no turning back now.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> To be clearer than I may have been, I was not suggesting criminalization of a rescue. I'm suggesting we have a system that forbids you from leaving the dock, on your next passage, if you require excessive rescues and don't comply. The idea of a big fine may be what you dislike and I can understand the point that someone may not request a rescue, if they think they can't afford it. But I will modify the various suggestions to say that none are due and payable for any rescue in itself. However, cross the line and you are simply not legally allowed to be on the water again, until you do comply. That logic currently applies to our roads and airways, so why not on the water? Too many incidents/accidents in either space, that are determined to be your fault, and you lose the privilege. Maybe you lose the privilege for a period of time, maybe until you comply with remedial training, maybe until you pay a fine. I'm open.


Boat operators should be licensed and it should be a serious standard to get the license. BUT now anyone can operate any private yacht for pleasure... That's scary.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> Boat operators should be licensed and it should be a serious standard to get the license. BUT now anyone can operate any private yacht for pleasure... That's scary.


What is scary to me is people who have the need to be enslaved. Thus, they feel the need to enslave everyone to make themselves feel better/safer. Apparently, to them, freedom is a vague concept which should be crushed at every opportunity.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> What is scary to me is people who have the need to be enslaved. Thus, they feel the need to enslave everyone to make themselves feel better/safer. Apparently, to them, freedom is a vague concept which should be crushed at every opportunity.


This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.

I don't want anyone any age without any training or qualifications operating a car or a boat which could endanger the lives of innocents people.

And that would include YOU and me.

You are now in my book a persona non grata...


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

SanderO said:


> This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.
> 
> I don't want anyone any age without any training or qualifications operating a car or a boat which could endanger the lives of innocents people.
> 
> ...


What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Be glad you don't live in Canada - We do have a ladder course! Don't have it you can't use a ladder at work! Never know, might set the ladder up upside down and end up climbing down instead of up.....
We also have a joke of a required boater course(money grab) that a kid can pass, we do have a decent VHF course that is required.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.





Skipper Jer said:


> What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?


Thanks Jer, you saved me from a diatribe I doubt anyone wanted to see 

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you are not personally responsible and think any government can make up for that, you are soon to lose your freedom.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Skipper Jer said:


> What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?


cars, trains, boats, cranes, planes, buses, are a good start


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> cars, trains, boats, cranes, planes, buses, are a good start


Maybe we should only prohibit breeding without training, testing, and licensing. I think if that was implemented properly, we wouldn't need the rest.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Parenting should definitely be a very stringently certified and regulated profession. 

The key distinction is **causing harm to others**

It is not possible to protect against all risks, always a balance between security and liberty. 

My clarification for DNR, is accepting responsibility for harming or killing **yourself**, which every capable adult should be allowed to do.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

She will continue providing unusual entertainment for the rest of her life.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.
I checked the World's Big List of things to concern yourself with.
It's a really long list - now over 14.7 kajillion, and growing. 

What she does isn't on the list.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Just been reading about Sam & John Adams, GW, Jefferson, Dickerson, Wm. & Ben Franklin. Fascinating but the coherent thread among the sons of liberty (not Dickerson or Wm. Franklin) was a basically libertarian point of view in their back stories. However, linked to an obligation to personal responsibility not commonly seen today.
American sailing is distinct from the entire rest of the world. Yes you can do no training and sail when and where you damn please. You are FREE to do what you want. No course, yacht master, certificate of com pendency, captaincy (US license below 200t meaningless any way). Nothing. 
I strongly disagree we should allow loss of this last thread of freedom. I do agree some measure of responsibility for one’s actions should exist.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I won't go so far as to say one should be licensed right out of the gate, at least not for small recreational vessels. I do think our safety courses are a joke and should be improved. Way too many folks on the water are clueless. As for a Master 25, 50 or 100, that's what every delivery skipper I know has achieved. Not really useless. In fact, the study materials are very broad and would do any sailor some good to know they could pass. It certainly does nothing to insure a competent sailor, which is odd.

My suggestion is one gets to retain their freedom, until they demonstrate they aren't responsible. Once you've proved the negative, you lose your freedom and need to earn it back.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

*Re: We should all help these poor ladies *



john61ct said:


> I think our species needs "harsh" regular herd thinning, should allow predators above us in the food chain to roam population centers. Yes we'd lose some babies, but of less fit parents.
> 
> Trying to think what film(s) expounded on that idea, Brad Pitt comes to mind. 12 Monkeys or Fight Club most likely.


Comedian Bill Burr has an idea involving Cruise Ships.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> My suggestion is one gets to retain their freedom, until they demonstrate they aren't responsible. Once you've proved the negative, you lose your freedom and need to earn it back.


No... "machines and vehicles and vessels" with motors which can kill need to have licenses to operate. Kyacks and Rowboats and sunfishes type things you don't need a license.

Your system has to catch offenders after the damage is done. NO

Licensing and training is an issue... We got to the moon.... we can figure that one out.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> Your system has to catch offenders after the damage is done. NO


Your system punishes everyone as an offender before there is any wrong doing. NO


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> No... "machines and vehicles and vessels" with motors which can kill need to have licenses to operate. Kyacks and Rowboats and sunfishes type things you don't need a license.
> 
> Your system has to catch offenders after the damage is done. NO
> 
> Licensing and training is an issue... We got to the moon.... we can figure that one out.


I get your point, but I'm not fully there. I advocate the right to remove freedom on the ocean, after you've proven to be a hazard, but moving at a few knots on the water is just not as dangerous as 70mph on the road or 300mph in the air.

Would you require a license for a bicycle? It's a relative thing and I don't think a motor is the tipping point. My 20 ton vessel is typically operating without a motor.

My beef is to remove those that prove to be morons and the rest of us will be just fine. There is also something to be said to avoid creating too large a barrier to entry. It could crush what is already a failing industry. You would hold off many people who are perfectly responsible and capable, but don't want to make the effort to prove it.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> Your system punishes everyone as an offender before there is any wrong doing. NO


It is not a punishment to have training and qualifications. I had to do it to practice architecture... yet there are "designers" who can't be bothered and think it's not necessary.

That is simply a stupid remark... Please stay off the water.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I get your point, but I'm not fully there. I advocate the right to remove freedom on the ocean, after you've proven to be a hazard, but moving at a few knots on the water is just not as dangerous as 70mph on the road or 300mph in the air.
> 
> Would you require a license for a bicycle? It's a relative thing and I don't think a motor is the tipping point. My 20 ton vessel is typically operating without a motor.
> 
> My beef is to remove those that prove to be morons and the rest of us will be just fine. There is also something to be said to avoid creating too large a barrier to entry. It could crush what is already a failing industry. You would hold off many people who are perfectly responsible and capable, but don't want to make the effort to prove it.


This is idiotic.... you're too smart to not get it. Sure people who commit dangerous acts should lose their privilege to operate the "thing" which they did when they committed the offence.

A bicycle should not be regulated. But it is sensible for there to be laws about bicycle use on public streets... such as not going the wrong way down one way streets for example. Fine the offenders.

3 knots of a 16,000# boat can kill... depending on what it crashes into... like a rowboat.

Those who resist licensing and qualifications are not rational and fear the nanny state. I have practiced architecture for almost 40 years with no interference from the nanny state except for the requirement for continuing education.

I am afraid of people like the unmentioned poster above who has questionable competence and complete disregard for other people. Another libertarian jerk.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> It is not a punishment to have training and qualifications. I had to do it to practice architecture... yet there are "designers" who can't be bothered and think it's not necessary.
> 
> That is simply a stupid remark... Please stay off the water.


It is not punishment to have training and qualifications. It IS punishment to prevent people from doing things they want to do. Requiring 'training and qualifications' is punishment. It is simply one group of people using the government to punish another group. It is wrong. It is evil. It is just another way to enslave people.

I'll say it again. Some people need to be enslaved to be happy. Unfortunately, these same people won't be happy until everyone is enslaved.

How would you feel if I suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to type on a forum or openly discuss ideas until they are trained and qualified (licensed)? By doing so, they have the potential to give bad advice. That advice may get someone else hurt.

We are so far down this slippery slope, there is no hope except total collapse or violent revolution. Maybe agenda 21 isn't such a bad idea.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> It is not punishment to have training and qualifications. It IS punishment to prevent people from doing things they want to do. Requiring 'training and qualifications' is punishment. It is simply one group of people using the government to punish another group. It is wrong. It is evil. It is just another way to enslave people.
> 
> I'll say it again. Some people need to be enslaved to be happy. Unfortunately, these same people won't be happy until everyone is enslaved.
> 
> ...


You are an idiot... One of the stupidest people who post to this forum if not the stupidest. If there were a block feature I would use it for you.

It's a waste of time responding to you. In society you cannot and should not be ale to do whatever you want. That is selfish and inconsiderate. You don't belong in society...

Go live in the wilderness and see how long you survive.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

SanderO there is an ignore feature. I believe that guy is the only one on my ignore list.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SanderO said:


> You are an idiot... One of the stupidest people who post to this forum if not the stupidest. If there were a block feature I would use it for you.
> 
> It's a waste of time responding to you. In society you cannot and should not be ale to do whatever you want. That is selfish and inconsiderate. You don't belong in society...
> 
> Go live in the wilderness and see how long you survive.


We should be able to do whatever we want to do, until it infringes on someone else's rights. That is what liberty and freedom is!

You obviously don't believe in freedom.

Your personal attacks are symptoms of your lack of a cogent argument.

There is an ignore feature.

Let me guess, you invented safe spaces on college campuses.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Tanski said:


> SanderO there is an ignore feature. I believe that guy is the only one on my ignore list.


where is it... I need to FREE myself from this person.

So many idiots and so little time....

found it... done... thank you!


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

10.5/10 for entertainment value.

I am sure the type of post incident enforcement options Minn is discussing exist. I don't know the CFRs well enough to put my finger on them, but if you think of the Chiki Rafiki guy, his conviction was unsafe operation of a yacht. I know up here we. Have operation of an unseaworthy vessel endangering others- maximum 5 years in prison and failing to have competent crew on board, 18 months in prison or $1000000 fine. USCG I am sure has a tool in their toolbox too.

If they didn't use their legislation in this incident, it probably means one of two things. They didn't think there was a reasonable chance of convicting these ladies for anything, or they didn't think charging them served the public interests.

I would be very surprised if a lack of available laws is what the problem is. 

The countries that do have licensing programs for pleasure craft don't really focus on transpac voyages, so I dunno how much of a difference a licensing program would have made.

I am absolutely against pay per use SAR, the same way I don't think you should have to pay the police before they respond to a burglary. It's part of the package when you pay taxes and live in a Western democracy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> This is idiotic.... you're too smart to not get it.......


What a sweetheart. You having a bad day? I didn't call your point of view idiotic, even though I disagree with it. However, your approach to insist upon your point, with name calling, certainly is witless. You've completely indicted yourself as being irrational, thereby devaluing your substantive position.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> What a sweetheart. You having a bad day? I didn't call your point of view idiotic, even though I disagree with it. However, your approach to insist upon your point, with name calling, certainly is witless. You've completely indicted yourself as being irrational, thereby devaluing your substantive position.


Thank you...


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Peoples. Sheesh. What happened to 'tis the season and making merry and all that jazz? I don't remember anything about ripping throats out and feeding entrails to the jackals.

Quit the personal attacks please so I can return to my spiked eggnog by the crackling fire in peace.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Donna_F said:


> Peoples. Sheesh. What happened to 'tis the season and making merry and all that jazz? I don't remember anything about ripping throats out and feeding entrails to the jackals.
> 
> Quit the personal attacks please so I can return to my spiked eggnog by the crackling fire in peace.


You guys are lucky she didn't use the red pencil.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Someone please quote me so SanderO can see this.

This must be his way of thinking, and I mean that as a compliment


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

*PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
**DON'T*break out the red pencil.
This thread is the epitome of Hegel's Dialectics
Stoners, Drunks and morons on the water and perhaps all three combined.
I can't wait to see where it goes from here:gunner


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

I don't believe Ian is being the jerk here. Instead, I believe we have a textbook example of the thought processes of the tolerance and diversity brigade. Either you agree with me or shut the heck up.....


----------



## Lockjaw (Sep 21, 2016)

Guyfromthenorth said:


> Although this write-up seems clearer than some of the other information they provided (or were mis-quoted) it's lines like this that seem off:
> 
> "*It was amazing to see people with zero ocean experience talk about whether or not I should have used the EPIRB. Do they know the use of an EPIRB without a sinking boat will most likely get you a fine, jail time and the guaranteed loss of the vessel? People I know have been put in jail, been fined and lost their boat for EPIRB calls that were not deemed true emergencies*. Floating boats with food, water and limited navigational capacity are not maritime emergencies."
> 
> ...


Yes, that is nonsense.

I'm no Super Sailor, but do have significant ocean sailing experience ... and I know of not one single person who has been jailed, or fined, or had their vessel confiscated, for improper use of an EPIRB. Perhaps I just hang out with a different crowd than she does!

I don't say that it could never happen: but only in the clearest cases of deliberate, intentional misuse. Any panicky mariner who triggers a rescue in arguably unnecessary circumstances will not face prosecution, provided only that they acted in good faith. Being arguably stupid or cowardly is not a criminal offence.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Lockjaw said:


> Yand I know of not one single person who has been jailed, or fined, or had their vessel confiscated, for improper use of an EPIRB.
> 
> I don't say that it could never happen: but only in the clearest cases of deliberate, intentional misuse.


Yes, clear deliberate and intentional misuse will result in legal penalties.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ......I am sure the type of post incident enforcement options Minn is discussing exist.......


I think they do too, but I can't put my finger on the code. However, I don't think there are clear standards. Therefore, any attempt to do so could create blowback in the courts. I would think this would create an environment where the CG would prefer you left their sector than retained you in it. If we had some bright lines here, there would be no exposure.

Some more thoughts come to mind. If you suffer a failure, perhaps your next vessel must pass a USCG Aux inspection, with all deficiencies corrected before being allowed off the dock.

Ironically, not unlike aircraft, it's the insurance companies that do a better job of policing risk than the feds. You may have the legal right to captain a plane or boat, but the insurance companies are good at statistically figuring out the exposures and denying coverage until you fix up yourself or the boat. The idea of requiring coverage is pretty controversial too. I think there is an argument that if one does not have the personal resources to make good on self insuring liability (most don't), they should be required to buy insurance. Otherwise, everyone around them is forced to accept their risk.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

WharfRat said:


> On another note: wouldn't it be fun to watch smackdaddy engage in an interview with Jennifer Appel ?


As if. I'd never waste my time on that.

Pot, booze, criminalized SAR, EPIRBS, training, licensing, rights - all fresh new topics and perfectly civil discourse. At least this isn't a tired old thread about sailboats.

Heh.

Good to see the kinder, gentler SN is shining without my presence. Later.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Sharing risk via an insurance model is a good approach. It's far from perfect. Perhaps all boats with motors be required to carry liability insurance... but this would involve. In this approach the operator regardless of a "license" is covered for damages he or she may cause and are the unwitting victims of the incident.

My experience is that insurance companies are not very into inspecting the vessels they insure... that is I never received an inspection from the insurance company. I have, I believe, filled out forms of equipment on board and I did have a voluntary Coast Guard safety inspection. Cars and trucks in NYS, at least must pass annual inspections to renew their registration. Would the same be a good idea for recreational boats? Probably so considering some of the neglected boats on the water.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Skipper Jer said:


> You guys are lucky she didn't use the red pencil.


Not even a yellow card issued..


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Society does limit one's freedom... but it also provides one many benefits, opportunities, challenges, comforts and so on. Society is more developed today than it was say a few thousand years ago... certainly technically... we have roads, and planes the internet and so on... And one cannot divorce these developments we all enjoy and use (if you consider them developments) from the imposed "rules", regulations... etc. that society imposes on people. We live and thrive in the web of society.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Don't think too much of the idea of putting the fate of sailing in the hands of insurance companies, I would rather take my chances with the government, at least we can vote them out once in a while.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> ....My experience is that insurance companies are not very into inspecting the vessels they insure...


That's curious. I've had to provide an independent insurance survey for every vessel I've ever insured. They haven't required it again, until the vessels ages. The are completely driven by statistics, not the individual hull. They know from experience, how long it will take for it to potentially degrade to a risk, on average.



> Cars and trucks in NYS, at least must pass annual inspections to renew their registration. Would the same be a good idea for recreational boats? Probably so considering some of the neglected boats on the water.


I see this a few different ways. For starters, the inspection systems in our state are ridiculous. I've seem some dangerous crap on the road, but I get hassled over my 12 month old car, if the onboard computer didn't record a sufficient amount of emissions info. It would be good to require an inspection every so often, maybe 5 or 10 years. I lean toward the latter. However, once again, if we make this too difficult, we'll just cull out a lot of responsible boaters who are not the problem, but don't have the time for a bureaucracy. Few boaters, fewer marinas, fewer maintenance folks, etc.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> Society does limit one's freedom... but it also provides one many benefits, opportunities, challenges, comforts and so on. Society is more developed today than it was say a few thousand years ago... certainly technically... we have roads, and planes the internet and so on... And one cannot divorce these developments we all enjoy and use (if you consider them developments) from the imposed "rules", regulations... etc. that society imposes on people. We live and thrive in the web of society.


Agreed. The unresolved conflict is among very large societies. Smaller societies create and maintain reasonable balance among opinions. Once they get huge, wealthy and powerful, small segments try to take control of the whole and force their will on the rest. Sociologists claims that follow an armageddon, survivors would collect in groups of around 200-300, which would support and protect each other willingly. It gets progressively corrupt as it grows from there.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Shiva was built in Feb 1985. I purchased her new in August 85. I had her surveyed with the intention of going offshore at some time in the future. I purchased and maintained continuous coverage since purchase with several companies all of which asked for a survey... not necessarily a recent one. No hull claims but one for a stolen dink and OB. Rates just keep going up and insured hull value down. hahaha. My premium is generated by a computer algorithm.


----------



## Cigarmann (Sep 26, 2017)

I'm glad I wasn't one of the "any sailor(s)"


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

SanderO said:


> Shiva was built in Feb 1985. I purchased her new in August 85. I had her surveyed with the intention of going offshore at some time in the future. I purchased and maintained continuous coverage since purchase with several companies all of which asked for a survey... not necessarily a recent one. No hull claims but one for a stolen dink and OB. Rates just keep going up and insured hull value down. hahaha. My premium is generated by a computer algorithm.


First off; I can't believe that this thread is still going. I keep hoping that Ms. Appel will quietly disappear over the horizon. She's made a whopping $5 toward her $50K goal, so I suspect that she may still do so.

However, because the thread seems to have drifted to a discussion of insurance and surveys, I'll chime in.

I have had my 35-foot boat since 2010. When I bought the boat I spent $770 to have a survey done, that IMHO wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Every year I have been able to renew my insurance with an agreed upon hull value of what I paid for the boat through Boat/US. I have not had to have another survey done since buying the boat.

This year, because Boat US changed their insurance carrier and because I wanted to bring the boat to Florida, I took out a policy with Geico. The hull value remains the same, the annual policy cost is about the same, and I have not had a survey done since the original survey. When I contacted the broker I was told that they could save about $150 from the premium with another insurer if I had a survey done. I told him that I can't see doing that as the payback would be over 5 years, and as a matter of principle - when I tell my auto insurer that I have a car on the road, they insure that car. I don't have to pay to have a survey done on my car. If the insurance company would like to pay to have a survey of my boat (or car) they are welcome to do so but on their dime, not mine.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Whenever I buy a used car, I’m required to have an authorized agent take picture of it, within X days. Similar in concept to a survey, they want to know the baseline. They know the condition of a new car. All cars are annual inspected by the states too. 

When I hear Geico, I’m always suspicious. I’ve heard stories of them changing some very technical language to reduce their coverage responsibilities. Most look at and understand the big stuff, like hull value and liability and deductibles. The contracts contain 10x more obscure detail.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Minnewaska said:


> All cars are annual inspected by the states too.


Only in some states.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Whenever I buy a used car, I'm required to have an authorized agent take picture of it, within X days. Similar in concept to a survey, they want to know the baseline. They know the condition of a new car. All cars are annual inspected by the states too.


I did have to send my insurer pictures of the vessel. Some pictures, however, is not a survey.

Regarding the analogy to a car, and I'm not trying to be argumentative but, nope. I have a 2001 Avalon I bought off eBay in 2011 that I keep in Florida. I have not sent any pictures of the car to my insurer (Liberty Mutual, now Progressive), and Florida does not require annual inspections. If you feel confident enough to drive it, you're good to go.

I had to send them pictures of my 2005 motorcycle (also bought through eBay in 2013) to document aftermarket equipment (crash bars, saddlebags, and windshield), but that is it. No annual inspections for the bike either.









My insurer stated that as long as I can provide receipts, the installed equipment (VHF, AIS, chart plotter, etc) is covered too.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

When I first bought coverage for my Oday 23, I used Progressive insurance. I had an agreed-to value for the boat on the policy ($5800, I think). Although the premiums went up marginally, the agreed-to value never changed. A few years later, I switched all of my insurance (home, autos, umbrella and boat) to AMICA. The value of the boat is now reduced every year at the policy renewal. Every year, I ask why the value of the boat is lower, and every year, they tell me "depreciation". When I remind them that the boat is close to forty years old and that it is really already fully depreciated by any conventional accounting rules, they will sometimes add back some value to the policy. But not always. Makes me a little crazy. If it weren't for the fact that the important part of the insurance for me is the liability section (which is unaffected by the hull value), I'd switch carriers again.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Fair enough. Not all States require inspections. However, if I were you, I would be pretty suspicious of an insurance company that does little to determine what they are insuring, at least the first time. Why would they not care? Perhaps they are among the carriers that make their bottom line by aggressively disputing claims. Perhaps the language in the contract has strict clauses the lay person doesn't notice or understand that severely limit their need to pay out. Perhaps the policy lists a hull value you think is fair, but the details say it's only in effect on Tuesdays, when there is a full moon (sarcasm). More realistically, they have cleverly written exclusions that void all coverage for loss due to incomplete maintenance or non-ABYC installations. These exclusions themselves are rarely explicit, but allow the carrier room to interpret for themselves. My hurricane haulout coverage says 50% on the declaration page. If you read the paragraph in the document, it's ridiculously vague. Many years ago, my carrier wanted me to sign a release, acknowledging they were not required to pay for a haulout, per the policy language, but would anyway, if I signed. I told them to pound salt and they ultimately paid out anyway. Be careful. 

A good agent, that offers coverage through many different carriers, will review claims experience along side premiums. The best policy is almost never the cheapest. Another hundred bucks may buy fewer technical exclusions and a company that isn't known to hassle their claims. A lousy agent, will only sell the lowest premium amount or the carrier that pays them the most commission.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

capta said:


> I've always empathized with Crowhurst. Like so many, even today, he went to sea with little idea of the realities and difficulties of such an endeavor, which had a disastrous cost.
> However, the celestial navigation method he perfected became my standard, saving me hours of sight taking and reductions every day, on my circumnavigation. I will forever consider him my hero for that.
> So, from your misfortune I gained a great deal; thank you Donald Crowhurst.


So you are a Practitioner of the Crowhurstian School of Navigation? Let's turn Crowhurstian into a positive phrase.


----------

