But again, it was when he started talking of potential legal action, that the tide changed for me... And, when he reaffirms his belief that a lawsuit in the case of the RULE 62 is not justified, and might make it more difficult for him to find crewing positions, but that in this event, he might feel entitled to compensation for his "mistreatment", well... the depth of such hypocrisy is stunning...
I generally think your post above was really unnecessary at this point Jon. I don't know if its just Monday morning or maybe your dog bit you or something. The need to restate the negative tone in response to Poopdeck's post is so depressingly normal around here. I find it weird that you begin by saying (repeating really because you've said the same thing already in this thread) that you don't accept the OP's story -- but yet you seem to have conjured up enough "facts" to replace it. I just don't get it. Personally, I am happier with a whole lot less judgement and certainly less fire and brimstone. If you have an opinion about what a would be crew member should do prior to agreeing to sign-on with a skipper maybe you could say so. It is really easy to simply criticize and often it is also inaccurate. RD made one really big mistake in deciding to board the boat. However, absent the owner's alleged misconduct -- that same "can do / I'm here to sail" quality that got RD on the boat -- would have been an asset in almost every situation.
What I really wanted to comment on, however, was the quote above because *your opinion* of a legal distinction is not in dispute. You think that the allegedly negligent decision
by the skipper of RULE 62 and the alleged intentional conduct
by the owner of the RD's Transpac boat are the same and that it is "the height of hypocrisy" to distinguish between them (which BTW is what RD did -- you inaccurately accuse him of raising the prospect of legal action -- someone else brought that up RD responded). Jon - you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And, you have some fine things to say about boats now and again here on SN. But your opinion about the law -- and more importantly about the facts underlying the legal distinction between intentional conduct and mistakes -- is ignorant. You would do well to think about the distinction between the conduct at issue; the actor's choices; their abilities to do differently or correct their conduct; as well as the impact which holding them responsible for their conduct might have on others. If you still don't get it, maybe it would help you to inform your self about the legal distinctions since courts have spent hundred if not thousands of years expounding on these questions. As Poop said . . . they might even school you.